[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                        MARKUP VARIOUS MEASURES

=======================================================================

                                 MARKUP

                               BEFORE THE

                      COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________


                            FEBRUARY 6, 2024

                               __________


                           Serial No. 118-81

                               __________


        Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs







                 [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]









Available:  http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/, http://docs.house.gov, 
                       or http://www.govinfo.gov






                               ______
                                 

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

54-878PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2024
















                      COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                   MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas, Chairman

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey     GREGORY MEEKS, New York, Ranking 
JOE WILSON, South Carolina               Member
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania	     BRAD SHERMAN, California
DARRELL ISSA, California	     GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
ANN WAGNER, Missouri		     WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
BRIAN MAST, Florida		     GABE AMO, Rhode Island
KEN BUCK, Colorado		     AMI BERA, California
TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee		     JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
MARK E. GREEN, Tennessee	     DINA TITUS, Nevada
ANDY BARR, Kentucky		     TED LIEU, California
RONNY JACKSON, Texas		     SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
YOUNG KIM, California		     DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota
MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR, Florida	     COLIN ALLRED, Texas
BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan		     ANDY KIM, New Jersey
AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN, 	     SARA JACOBS, California
    American Samoa		     KATHY MANNING, North Carolina
FRENCH HILL, Arkansas		     SHEILA CHERFILUS-MCCORMICK, 
WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio		         Florida
JIM BAIRD, Indiana		     GREG STANTON, Arizona
MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida		     MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
THOMAS KEAN, JR., New Jersey	     JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
MICHAEL LAWLER, New York	     JONATHAN JACKSON, Illinois
CORY MILLS, Florida		     SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
RICH McCORMICK, Georgia		     JIM COSTA, California
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas		     JASON CROW, Colorado
JOHN JAMES, Michigan		     BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois
KEITH SELF, Texas		     GABE AMO, Rhode Island

                                     

                    Brendan Shields, Staff Director

                    Sophia Lafargue, Staff Director










                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

                              BILL EN BLOC

H.R. 6609, the Foreign Military Sales Technical, Industrial, and 
  Governmental Engagement for Readiness Act, or TIGER Act........     3
Amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 
  6609 offered by Mr. Waltz......................................    11
Information submitted for the record from Representative Waltz...    14
Information submitted for the record from Representative Waltz...    17
Amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 
  6609 offered by Mr. Davidson...................................    25
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 6609 offered by 
  Mr. Waltz......................................................    31
H.R. 7089, the Global Anti-Human Trafficking Enhancement Act.....    40
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 7089 offered by 
  Mr. James......................................................    42
H.Con.Res. 27, Condemning Russia's unjust and arbitrary detention 
  of Russian opposition leader Vladimir Kara-Murza, who has stood 
  up in defense of democracy, the rule of law, and free and fair 
  elections in Russia............................................    47
Amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to 
  H.Con.Res. 27 offered by Mr. Keating...........................    52
H.R. 6603, the No Technology for Terror Act......................    61
Amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 
  6603 offered by Mr. Moran......................................    68
H.Res. 82, Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the need to 
  designate Nigeria a Country of Particular Concern for engaging 
  in and tolerating systematic, ongoing, and egregious violations 
  of religious freedom, the need to appoint a Special Envoy for 
  Nigeria and the Lake Chad region, and for other purposes.......    76
Amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to 
  H.Res. 82 offered by Mr. Smith.................................    84
Information submitted for the record from Representative Waltz...    93
Amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to 
  H.Res. 82 offered by Mr. Self..................................    98
The Pacific Partnership Act, which is H.R. 7159..................   107
H.Res. 965, Calling for the immediate release of Ryan Corbett, a 
  United States citizen, who was wrongfully detained by the 
  Taliban on August 10th, 2022, and condemning the wrongful 
  detention of Americans by the Taliban..........................   120
H.R. 6046, the Standing Against Houthi Aggression Act............   126
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 6046 offered by 
  MR. McCaul.....................................................   130
Amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 
  6046 offered by Ms. Dean.......................................   145
H.R. 7122, H.R. 7122, the Stop Support for UNRWA Act of 2024.....   152
Amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 
  7122 offered by Mr. Smith......................................   155
Substitute for the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to 
  H.R. 7122 offered by Mr. Schneider.............................   166
Amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 
  7122 offered by Mr. Smith......................................   178
Amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 
  7122 offered by Mr. Meeks......................................   182
Amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 
  7122 offered by Ms. Manning....................................   192
H.R. 7152, the Divided Families National Registry Act............   197
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 7152 offered by 
  Mr. Meeks......................................................   202

                                APPENDIX

Hearing Notice...................................................   210
Hearing Minutes..................................................   212
Hearing Attendance...............................................   213

                                 VOTES

Votes submitted for the record...................................   214

     MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD FROM REPRESENTATIVE MCCAUL

Materials submitted for the record from Representative McCaul....   226

    MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD FROM REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS

Materials submitted for the record from representative Phillips..   257

                             MARKUP SUMMARY

Markup summary...................................................   260











 
                       MARKUP OF VARIOUS MEASURES

                       Tuesday, February 6, 2024

                          House of Representatives,
                      Committee on Foreign Affairs,
                                                    Washington, DC.

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:31 a.m., in 
room 210, House Visitor Center, Hon. Michael McCaul (chairman 
of the committee) presiding.
    Chairman McCaul. A quorum being present, the Committee on 
Foreign Affairs will come to order.
    Mr. Meeks, his flight has been delayed. So, we will begin 
and have Ms. Manning sit in the ranking member position. So, 
it's her special day.
    The committee is meeting today for consideration of H.R. 
6609, the Foreign Military Sales Technical, Industrial, and 
Governmental Engagement for Readiness Act, or TIGER Act; H.R. 
7089, the Global Anti-Human Trafficking Enhancement Act; 
H.Con.Res. 27, Condemning Russia's unjust and arbitrary 
detention of Russian opposition leader Vladimir Kara-Murza, who 
has stood up in defense of democracy, the rule of law, and free 
and fair elections in Russia; H.R. 6603, the No Technology for 
Terror Act; H.Res. 82, Expressing the sense of Congress 
regarding the need to designate Nigeria a Country of Particular 
Concern for engaging in and tolerating systematic, ongoing, and 
egregious violations of religious freedom, the need to appoint 
a Special Envoy for Nigeria and the Lake Chad region, and for 
other purposes; the Pacific Partnership Act, which is H.R. 
7159; H.Res. 965, Calling for the immediate release of Ryan 
Corbett, a United States citizen, who was wrongfully detained 
by the Taliban on August 10th, 2022, and condemning the 
wrongful detention of Americans by the Taliban; H.R. 6046, the 
Standing Against Houthi Aggression Act; H.R. 7122, H.R. 7122, 
the Stop Support for UNRWA Act of 2024, and H.R. 7152, the 
Divided Families National Registry Act.
    The chair announces that any requests for recorded votes 
may be rolled and he may recess the committee at any point. 
Without objection, so ordered.
    Pursuant to House rules, I request that members have the 
opportunity to submit views for any committee report that may 
be produced on any of today's measures. And without objection, 
so ordered.
    Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R. 6609, the Foreign 
Military Sales Technical, Industrial, and Governmental 
Engagement for Readiness Act, or TIGER Act.
    The bill was circulated in advance, and the clerk shall 
designate the bill.
    The Clerk. ``H.R. 6609, To amend the Arms Export Control 
Act to increase the dollar amount threshold under sections 3 
and 36 of that Act relating to proposed transfers or sales of 
defense articles or services under that Act, and for other 
purpose.''
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection, the first reading is 
dispensed with. The bill is considered read and open to 
amendment at any point.
    [The bill H.R. 6609 follows:]

                               H.R. 6609

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Chairman McCaul. Without objection, the Waltz amendment in 
the nature of a substitute, circulated to members in advance, 
shall be considered as read and will be treated as original 
text for purposes of amendment.
    [The amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
Waltz follows:]

 AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE TO H.R. 6609 
                          OFFERED BY MR. WALTZ

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chairman McCaul. Is there any discussion on the bill?
    Mr. Waltz is recognized.
    Mr. Waltz. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I am pleased to introduce with Representative Seth Moulton, 
as the lead co-sponsor, the first piece of our bipartisan 
legislative recommendations from the TIGER Task Force on 
Foreign Military Sales.
    If it's OK with the chairman, I'd like to read a short 
statement from Mr. Moulton.
    ``This TIGER Task Force has taken a close look at our FMS 
process, and the bill before you today represents the first 
step toward legislative improvements in the process. I have co-
sponsored the underlying bill as a sign of my support for the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute, which includes my 
inputs and is a product of good-faith negotiation over the past 
several months.
    Our FMS sales are a critical tool of foreign policy. The 
legislation supports greater senior-level policy input into the 
process, and it will enhance our ability to stockpile high-
demand defense items to accelerate how quickly we can get these 
capabilities to our allies and partners. I support adjusting 
the congressional notifications for inflation, but also 
increasing congressional oversight by instituting cumulative 
thresholds.''
    Mr. Chairman, I'd like to enter that into the record.
    I also want to thank Mr. Hill, Mr. Crow, Mr. Garcia, Mr. 
Self, Mr. McCormick, and Mr. James for their participation from 
the committee, as well as Chairwoman Kim, especially on the 
Taiwan piece of this.
    Chairman McCaul. And without objection, so ordered.
    [The information referred to follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    We've received support from outside groups, like the 
Aerospace International Association, the National Defense 
Industrial Association, which I enter in the record now.
    Chairman McCaul. And without objection, so ordered.
    [The information referred to follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Waltz. The issues revealed in our 6-month process of 
reviewing FMS data fell into three buckets:
    First are the thresholds themselves. For the first time 
since Korea, the world is witness to a prolonged, conventional, 
high-intensity modern war being fought in Ukraine. This bill 
requires our arms sales process to grow. Along with that, the 
thresholds we are raising in this bill simply reflect the 20-
year gap--two decades--since congressional notification 
thresholds were adjusted, and it's indexed to DOD total 
inflation of nearly 70 percent. I say again, these threshold 
levels have not been adjusted in two decades, and we all know 
how bad inflation has been.
    I am also grateful to my colleague Mr. Moulton for further 
expanding congressional oversight in this bill and helping to 
design a cumulative threshold limit. Countries should not be 
able to game the system and structure their purchases to avoid 
congressional oversight. I am pleased that Mr. Moulton's 
suggested language does this at a level of a billion over--or 
excuse me--$5 billion over 3 years for NATO-Plus countries and 
$1 billion for non-NATO Plus countries. And I'll State again, 
this cumulative threshold structure does not currently exist at 
all. So, this is additional congressional oversight.
    There are also the issues regarding policy input into the 
acquisitions community. One of the key takeaways from our Task 
Force was that the acquisitions community is a highly 
specialized, highly technical group of experts whose work is 
not easily accessible to others in the departments. Holding 
senior officials accountable for acquisitions decisions will 
force greater involvement, their involvement, and act as a 
forcing function to ensure the process reflects the policy.
    We all know, and we've discussed on this committee many 
times, nowhere is there more needed--is this more needed than 
Taiwan foreign military sales. Chairman Xi said he intends to 
be prepared for an invasion by 2027, or sooner than the $22 
billion in backlogged sales will be ready. There are many 
pressing priorities for the United States in the world, we 
recognize. However, there should be a forcing function to 
ensure the priority of Taiwan's defense is not lost, especially 
for certain long-running, high-end demands.
    And last, Mr. Chairman, it became very clear during our 
Task Force meetings that the extended, and often opaque, 
contracting phase of the foreign military sales process greatly 
harms our planning and anticipation, lowering our overall 
readiness. State has a tool to ensure that certain high-demand, 
high-use items are available ahead of time, both for our own 
use and our partners. Instituting a funding swap for the 
Special Defense Acquisition Fund exactly similar to the funding 
swap instituted for other centers in 2017 would allow State to 
better resource this critical fund.
    And finally, Mr. Chairman, there are our allies out there. 
We should learn from Ukraine. We should arm our allies and 
simplify this bureaucracy, so that they can do the fighting for 
their interests and less involve the United States. And right 
now, because this is such a bureaucratic process, we literally 
have allies buying from other people in other countries, rather 
than us. This is about jobs. This is about empowering our 
allies to fight for themselves. And I encourage support for 
this bill.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman McCaul. Yes, and I thank the gentleman and Mr. 
Moulton for your dedication and hard work on this Task Force 
that I announced in June to help fix a broken system, not only 
for the United States, but our allies around the world. And 
I've said many times that, especially with respect to Taiwan, 
I've approved over 20 weapons systems that have yet to go into 
Taiwan, and that does not provide deterrence against a very 
aggressive China.
    So again, I want to thank Mr. Waltz for his hard work and 
all the other members who participated on this Task Force.
    Is there any further discussion on the bill?
    Ms. Jacobs is recognized.
    Ms. Jacobs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I rise in opposition to H.R. 6609, the TIGER Act, which 
would decrease congressional oversight and transparency of arms 
transfers to foreign governments.
    Congress plays a key role in ensuring the weapons we send 
to foreign militaries are in line with U.S. law, policy, and 
values, and we have a responsibility to be thoughtful and 
deliberate when we're using taxpayer dollars to arm foreign 
governments. And this notification process gives us the 
necessary time to do our due diligence, raise concerns, ask 
questions, get answers, provide input.
    Increasing the dollar threshold would, essentially, 
eliminate congressional review for billions of dollars' worth 
of arms transfers. This is exactly the wrong direction we 
should be taking. We need to do more to increase congressional 
oversight, to prioritize human rights in arms sales, and to 
require unused monitoring mechanisms to track violations of 
human rights--all reforms I've been proud to partner with 
Ranking Member Meeks on in the SAFEGUARD Act.
    And to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who say 
this bill is aimed at decreasing processing time, the State 
Department is already approving 95 percent of foreign military 
sales cases within 48 hours. As Chairman McCaul said, he has 
approved of these sales that haven't gone through. 
Congressional notification is not the holdup. This isn't an 
unnecessary burden; it's a necessary check on arms sales to 
ensure they are advancing our foreign policy goals and our 
values.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields.
    Any further discussion?
    Mr. Mills is recognized.
    Mr. Mills. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I'd like to address what my colleague has talked about 
because this does not lessen the actual DSP-5, DSP-83, and the 
necessary process which has to go forward to the Directorate of 
Defense Trade Controls--something I'm very knowledgeable on.
    And so, I would ask if--and I'm happy to yield my time--can 
you tell me how this bill would decrease DSP-5/DSP-83 approval 
times?
    Ms. Jacobs. My understanding is that this bill would not 
give Congress adequate time to do the review, and also, would 
increase the threshold of what we get to review, which I think 
is really problematic.
    Mr. Mills. Again, the reason that we have the United 
States, the U.S. Department of State is so that they have the 
availability and opportunity to review all exportation 
approvals, to include, also, your ability to go forward, even 
if you're brokering in an activity. That's why you have 
brokering activity things, like DSP-83s; that's why you have 
DSP-5s for exportation transportation--all signed off, however, 
by the Department of State and by the Pentagon, and also, 
reviewed and checked by Congress.
    This does not lower the threshold; it only helps to 
expedite, in fact, the $19-plus billion that Taiwan has been 
waiting for the things that they have already paid, which would 
also help with our Military Industrial Base, but it does not 
dilute the actual authority, oversight, and provisions that the 
U.S. Department of State, the Secretary of State, and Director 
of the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls would, in fact, 
have.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Jacobs. But, sorry, would the gentleman yield?
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman said he has yielded back his 
time.
    Ms. Jacobs. Oh, OK.
    Chairman McCaul. Ms. Manning is recognized.
    Ms. Manning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    It is extremely rare to see legislative efforts that seek 
to reduce the oversight power of our chamber and our committee 
over matters of national security, but this, unfortunately, is 
one of those efforts.
    This bill is based on the work of a Republican-led Task 
Force which aimed to reform the U.S. arms transfers process. My 
colleague Mr. Crow was one of two Democrats on the Task Force 
and offered dissenting views for the final report, and I concur 
with those views.
    While the Task Force and billet produced consulted with 
many defense industrial firms and military officials, it did 
not take into account the views of civil society, human rights 
groups, legal scholars, government transparency groups, or 
others, nor was it inclusive of a broader set of Democratic 
members from this very committee, which is charged with 
debating and voting on its conclusions after just a few days of 
review.
    At its core, this bill mandates a number of significant 
changes to the very congressional notification process that is 
critical for effective oversight of arms transfers. More 
specifically, this bill raises the congressional notification 
thresholds for major arms sales to foreign countries by, 
roughly, 66 percent. Any arms sales that fall below these 
increased threshold levels, Congress will have zero visibility, 
zero transparency, zero oversight.
    We have seen examples of Administrations providing below-
threshold sales to avoid congressional scrutiny, even at the 
current notification levels. Without this bill's increases, in 
2020, the State Department Inspector General found that over a 
4-year period the Trump Administration's State Department 
provided more than $11 billion in below-threshold sales to 
Saudi Arabia and the UAE, including weapons subject to 
congressional holds due to concerns over egregious human rights 
violations. I do not want to further enable that kind of 
action.
    And while I'm aware of the point related to inflation my 
majority colleagues are making, the simple fact is the real 
impact of the bill is to diminish our constitutional oversight 
duty and our responsibility as legislators with the prospect of 
less oversight. This is not simply an inflation fix. I'm of the 
mind that the more transparency, the more information we have, 
the better.
    Finally, Mr. Waltz's ANS includes a provision which 
provides a complicated and unnecessarily convoluted mechanism 
via which certain countries--NATO members and certain other 
significant purchasers--would not be covered under the raised 
threshold levels, but, instead, would be subject to the 
existing notification thresholds. While I recognize and 
understand the intent, this does not address my more 
fundamental concerns.
    By raising the threshold amounts, as the bill proposes, 
Congress will have even less knowledge of what arms are being 
transferred to what countries and less ability to ensure that 
transfers are consistent with U.S. law, policy, and interests.
    Furthermore, any such approach must be holistic in nature 
and include inputs from all relevant stakeholders, as well as 
provisions that concurrently strengthen Congress' oversight of 
violations, misuse, and harm resulting from U.S. arms 
transfers. This bill does none of those things.
    In sum, I object to the core of this bill and its 
objectives, especially as they relate to the very oversight 
functions of our committee and Congress. If we want to improve 
the arms transfer process for U.S. allies and partners, many of 
the most significant hurdles lie within the defense industry's 
production constraints and inefficiencies and with the 
executive branch. The congressional review process is not the 
problem.
    So, I must oppose this bill and encourage my colleagues to 
do the same.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields back.
    Any further discussion on the bill?
    Mr. Castro is recognized.
    Mr. Castro. Thank you, Chairman.
    I speak in opposition to H.R. 6609, the TIGER Act, which 
would undermine transparency on arms sales and congressional 
oversight.
    Whether it is to allies like Australia; countries facing an 
ongoing invasion, like Ukraine, or countries with serious human 
rights concerns, like Saudi Arabia, the Congress, and this 
committee, has an important role to play in conducting 
oversight over the export of arms.
    This bill would raise the thresholds for when arms sales 
would need to be notified to Congress, denying this committee 
crucial information. It's an unnecessary attempt to undermine 
the power of this committee and the U.S. Congress.
    We know that delays in arms sales are not the fault of the 
notification process. The vast majority of sales are approved 
quickly, and those that take some time are usually due to 
serious concerns, like human rights or end use.
    This bill would also normalize the use of emergency and 
drawdown authorities, which would be another attempt to 
undermine congressional authority. We should not unilaterally 
cede these powers to the executive branch.
    I support a revision of the Arms Export Control Act to add 
provisions supporting human rights, like the SAFEGUARD Act, 
introduced by Ranking Member Meeks, of which I'm a co-sponsor.
    I also believe that any revision of the Arms Export Control 
Act should include provisions that prevent the executive branch 
from going around Congress by splitting up arms sales into 
smaller packages that fall under the threshold requiring 
reporting to Congress. This loophole can easily be abused.
    For example, a 2020 report by the State Department's 
Inspector General showed how, between January 2017 and late 
2019, the previous Administration made $11.2 billion in arms 
sales to Saudi Arabia and the UAE without reporting it to 
Congress by splitting them up into 4,221 separate arms sales. A 
revision of the reporting thresholds of the Arms Export Control 
Act must address this loophole.
    With that, Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
    Mr. James is recognized.
    Mr. James. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield my time to the 
gentleman from Florida, Mr. Waltz.
    Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Mr. James.
    Just a few additional points for clarity, for the record, 
and for my colleagues.
    And absolutely, adjusting the threshold issue which has not 
been adjusted in 20 years is by no means a silver bullet for 
the entire backlog and often bureaucratic FMS process. This is 
a first step in the bipartisan Task Force to do that.
    But I do want to address a few points that have been made.
    No. 1, given these current threshold levels, which, again, 
really is no change--it's an adjustment for inflation--in terms 
of where Congress, the executive branch, and the legislative 
branch have decided to draw the line for notification, the vast 
majority are for parts. The vast majority are for sustainment 
items of major weapons systems that have gone through an 
extensive oversight process, No. 1.
    No. 2, the vast majority of the recipients are our NATO 
allies, and to the extent it's not NATO, which we have 
discussed extensively in this committee, we want NATO 
contributing to its own defense; we want NATO interoperable 
with the United States; we want NATO to step up to fight 
authoritarian States like the Russian aggression that we're 
seeing through Putin, but we cannot make it so sclerotic and 
bureaucratic that they cannot get the parts they need for the 
systems they've already bought.
    And further, just on a broader issue, we are not selling 
U.S. arms in a vacuum. If we care about human rights, as Ms. 
Jacobs and myself, and so many others, absolutely do, we want 
them buying from the United States. We do not want countries 
buying from China. We do not want countries buying from Russia. 
We do not want even countries buying from--well, we'll just 
leave it at that.
    We want them buying from the United States, where we do 
have appropriate oversight, but we cannot make it so 
bureaucratic, so slow, so difficult, to even get a part, that 
eventually they buy--and we see this on the international 
market, where countries say, ``You know what? I'm going to buy 
a lesser system, and the Chinese, the Russians, they're not 
going to bother me about it at all.''
    So, I would appreciate if any of my colleagues want to make 
adjustments. We are working with the other side of the aisle on 
this cumulative threshold and where that is, so that 
countries--I do not think the executive branch is necessarily 
gaming the system per se--but that cannot happen.
    This is a new introduction of a new system into our FMS 
process. And if we need to adjust that over time, then I'm 
absolutely happy to work with my colleagues on that.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
    Ms. Titus is recognized.
    Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    At a time when U.S. weapons sales are reaching record 
levels, for some reason, the Republicans on this committee have 
decided that, instead of needing more oversight of arms sales, 
Congress should surrender its already emaciated role and 
conduct even less oversight.
    We in Congress, and particularly on this committee, have a 
critical role to play in matters of war and peace. And yet, 
this bill is another example of the steady erosion of 
legislative oversight. And this time, however, it's self-
inflicted.
    The genesis of this misguided policy is rooted in a Task 
Force that the bill's sponsor led that produced a report with 
recommendations parroting the criticism of the defense industry 
that U.S. sales processes take too long; they're too slow. 
Well, in reality, 95 percent of FMS cases are approved within 
48 hours--48 hours, that's not very slow.
    This Task Force, furthermore, did not meet with any civil 
society groups; did not solicit views from arms control 
experts, and did not take into account the concerns of human 
rights organizations, which has been mentioned. Instead, it 
just focused its efforts on undermining the congressional 
oversight mechanism--simply for the sake of expediency.
    Since the Task Force work neglected to lay out the concerns 
of experts on this issue, allow me to do that here.
    First, congressional notification is critical for effective 
oversight of arms sales. Without it, Congress would have almost 
no knowledge of what weapons are being transferred to which 
countries and would have even less ability to ensure that those 
transfers are consistent with U.S. law, policy, and interests.
    The executive branch routinely tries to erode our oversight 
of security matters. You can go back to Nixon and the War 
Powers Act. Similarly, the executive tries to circumvent 
congressional review of security assistance, as you have heard, 
by authorizing sub-threshold sales to move major military 
transfers in a piecemeal fashion, as it did with Saudi Arabia 
and the United Arab Emirates.
    Second, notifications facilitate both public engagement and 
interbranch negotiation on weighty security assistance 
decisions that can hold tremendous consequences for human 
rights. In the past, these reviews have sometimes resulted in 
canceling sales to some entities over concerns that U.S. 
weapons could be used to keep repressive governments in power. 
Additionally, these reviews ensure that sales do not exacerbate 
or perpetuate gross human rights abuses. By limiting Congress' 
visibility when it comes to oversight of sales, it's nearly 
impossible for us to know how they're being used.
    Finally, the bill would limit U.S. interagency anti-
corruption checks on prospective buyers of U.S. weapons. The 
State Department and Defense Department regularly engage in 
greater vetting of proposed arms sales that require a 
congressional check compared to the sales that do not. In cases 
where congressional approval is required, the relevant regional 
bureau at State would consult with its colleagues in the 
International Narcotics and the Law Enforcement Bureau; the 
Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Bureau, et cetera. So, you 
would have a more complete, unique insight into the status of 
the country purchasing the arms. When we do not have to make 
that, have that oversight or give that approval, those kinds of 
sources of information aren't cited.
    In the limited time I have left, I cannot delve into how 
this bill would also prevent congressional scrutiny on defense 
side deals that may be used to evade anti-bribery laws or how 
this would complicate reviews of the U.S. defense companies' 
political contributions to foreign policies, but I can conclude 
this: for the Republicans on this committee to hold a hearing 
this past September entitled, ``Reclaiming Congress' Article I 
Powers,'' to now surrender those powers in this markup seems to 
me totally contradictory and hypocritical and a bit on the 
nose.
    I thank you and yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields back.
    Is there any further discussion on the bill?
    There being no further discussion of the bill, the 
committee will move to consideration of amendments.
    Does any member wish to offer an amendment?
    Mr. Davidson is recognized.
    Mr. Davidson. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
    Chairman McCaul. The clerk shall report--distribute the 
amendment.
    OK, the clerk shall report the amendment.
    The Clerk. ``Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to H.R. 6609 offered by Mr. Davidson of Ohio.
    Page 3, strike line 20 and all that follows through line 9 
on page 5, and insert the following:
    ENHANCED CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION.----
    IN GENERAL.--On an ongoing basis in each fiscal year, the 
Secretary of State shall identify those countries that have 
purchased major defense equipment as described in sections 
36(b) and 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act''----
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection, further reading of the 
amendment is dispensed with.
    [The amendment offered by Mr. Davidson follows:]

 AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE TO H.R. 6609 
                        OFFERED BY MR. DAVIDSON

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 
5 minutes on his amendment.
    Mr. Davidson. I thank the chairman. This amendment works to 
improve H.R. 6609 by requiring the President to notify Congress 
if cumulative arms sales to a single country in a given Fiscal 
Year surpass the thresholds set in the Arms Export Control Act 
as increased by the TIGER Act which particularly, I like the 
logic of it and raising the thresholds makes sense to me, but 
as we started looking into the policy, we found that what is 
illegal in the private sector is somehow standard practice in 
the Government. Structuring is illegal in the banking world. An 
individual cannot intentionally split large transactions into 
smaller transactions and avoid scrutiny from law enforcement or 
compliance with reporting obligations. It is a basic concept, 
yet when it comes to arms sales or transfers, Congress is 
apparently allowing and now facilitating the President doing 
just that. They can avoid transparency and accountability by 
structuring their arms sales and transfers so that they do not 
go over the thresholds in the Arms Export Control Act.
    So while I applaud raising the standard for the reporting, 
I think that makes sense. If you raise it from $14 million to 
$23 million, and let's say every month you decide to sell $20 
million, have you not violated the intent? And frankly, the 
negotiation with Mr. Moulton and apparently some Democrats, 
resulted in recognizing the problem was structuring, but they 
set a $1 billion threshold for non-NATO countries over a period 
of 3 years and the report on it isn't even due until the end of 
the third year, so 4 years with no scrutiny from Congress. It 
is, frankly, a complete abdication of our responsibility. And 
it could be raised. The process is also very bureaucratic. In 
fact, we have whole agencies devoted to scrutinizing this 
process. In that sense, why not just repeal the Arms Export 
Control Act and get Congress out of the business altogether. 
And frankly, since all we seem to do is cut the checks and 
provide no check on executive authority, particularly when it 
comes to war making or spying on our citizens, why not just go 
ahead and dissolve Article 1. We can amend the Constitution and 
simply have a chief executive who could be very efficient.
    CATO wrote a piece about this topic in 2022 stating many 
sales--``many sales with small arms and light weapons are less 
than $1 million skirting congressional oversight.'' The 
executive branch and weapons manufacturers can put together 
packages of sales for $9,999,999 and avoid notifying Congress. 
As a result, many lethal weapons are sold in small packages 
valued just below $1 million. Congress often does not know 
about such sales, let alone have mechanisms to address it. So 
this amendment aims to end that practice and require the 
Administration to notify Congress once the cumulative sales in 
a single country surpass the thresholds set by the underlying 
bill.
    Last, in 2020, the State Department's Office of Inspector 
General reported, documented a serious case of this happening. 
Over a 4-year period, the Department provided more than $11 
billion in below-threshold sales to Saudi Arabia and the United 
Arab Emirates. Congress had zero visibility into those sales at 
the time. congressional notification is a critical tool. It is 
necessary for this committee to fulfill its oversight 
responsibilities effectively. That is why we have the Arms 
Export Control Act and we have Congress scrutinizing it. We 
should just perfect that oversight instead of effectively 
eliminate it.
    The TIGER Act raises the thresholds in the Arms Export 
Control Act, so I think this amendment is more than fair, 
giving these increases, and I would support a good dialog over 
what those increases should be, but the idea that you can 
violate the spirit of them just by doing one transaction a 
month seems at odds with the Stated objective and I urge 
support by all of our colleagues for this common-sense 
amendment and I yield.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. Any other member 
seek recognition?
    Ms. Manning.
    Ms. Manning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment from 
Mr. Davidson strikes all of the additional modifications to the 
notification criteria in the Waltz ANS and creates a global, 
congressional notification requirement for cumulative transfers 
of major defense equipment, MDE sales to recipients if the 
value of those multiple MDE below threshold sales in a year 
totals more than the single case notification threshold that 
all the MDE becomes notifiable within the next year, yes, 
within the next year.
    While I appreciate the intent of the amendment which, in 
fact, increases oversight in terms of certain cumulative MDE 
which would not ordinarily trigger notification, the amendment 
does not strike the numerous raised threshold levels I have 
just detailed in my previous concerns within the rest of the 
underlying bill.
    Therefore, while I will vote in support of Mr. Davidson's 
amendment, out of recognition for his laudable interests in 
increasing oversight and the passion with which he Stated his 
argument, I cannot support the underlying bill it may be 
attached to. Thank you and I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields. Any other member 
seek recognition?
    Mr. Mills is recognized.
    Mr. Mills. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. While I find myself in 
most cases always siding and agreeing with my good friend and 
colleague from Ohio, this yet again is one more example of 
where Congress talks about wanting less government regulation, 
less scrutiny against the private sector, and creating other 
departments that already exist like the Department of Defense 
Trade Controls, allowing the U.S. Department of State, which we 
fund through State and foreign ops which is done right here in 
this body to be able to provide the necessary oversight. If we 
want to talk about abdications for God's sake, let's start 
talking about how we can repeal the AUMF which is an abdication 
of Article 1 Section 8 Clause 11 or even the 1973 War Powers 
Act that gives executive credence to Republican and Democrat 
Presidents alike to do carte blanche warfare.
    The reality is is that we have mechanisms in place already 
and I think that continuing to try and over regulate which we 
say that we want limited government, we want fewer taxes as the 
Republican Party, perhaps we should start acting that way. With 
that, I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. Any other members 
seek recognition?
    Mr. Castro is recognized.
    Mr. Castro. Thank you, Chairman. I want to speak in strong 
support of Mr. Davidson amendment. The way the Export Control 
Act's reporting thresholds are set up lays out a significant 
loophole that previous Administrations have exploited and 
future Administrations will be able to exploit. By only 
requiring congressional notifications of sales over a certain 
dollar amount, a President can break up larger sales into 
smaller ones and go around Congress. I do not see this 
amendment as trying--as over regulating. The amendment is 
simply trying to make sure that we get the information and the 
notifications that we are supposed to get and that Presidents 
do not evade Congress. Without it, there is no way for us to 
know and the law that is on the books itself is just going to 
be ineffective.
    In fact, we know that this has been abused. A 2020 State 
Department Inspector General report showed how a few years ago 
the previous Administration made $11.2 billion in sales to 
Saudi Arabia without reporting them to Congress by splitting up 
those sales into 4,221 smaller sales, each below the threshold 
that requires a report. That kind of conduct really makes a 
mockery of the law. At that point, you really do not have any 
law at all. So any member of this committee, whether Democrat 
or Republican, should be concerned about any President, 
Republican or Democrat's ability to do the same thing.
    I support this amendment by Mr. Davidson which would 
require the Administration to not notify all armed sales to 
Congress if the total amount of sales in any Fiscal Year 
exceeds the reporting thresholds. With that, I yield back, 
Chairman.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. Any other members 
seek recognition? Mr. Waltz is recognized.
    Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have to say I find it 
incredibly rich to hear the Democrats on the other side of the 
aisle continually raising selling American arms to the UAE and 
the Saudis that they were using to fight the terrorist group, 
the Houthis, but now instead the Biden Administration is using 
American equipment to bomb the Houthis.
    But here nor there, Mr. Chairman, I also in support of my 
colleague, Mr. Mills, on our side of the aisle, we hate 
government over regulation in the private sector until it is a 
regulation that some of my colleagues seem to like. Here nor 
there, the point of the FMS Task Force and I hope that in a 
bipartisan way we could agree that we want our allies, the 
South Koreans, the Japanese, the Taiwans, we could go down the 
list, our NATO allies, we want them buying American goods with 
appropriate oversight. What this is seeking to do is the vast 
majority of these lower threshold notifications are for the 
sustainment of those systems, for the parts, for the ammunition 
for them, what have you.
    No one is suggesting that we remove Congress' role from the 
oversight of those main weapon systems, but I will State again 
and I must speak against my good friend Mr. Davidson's 
amendment, this will make the bureaucratic process far worse. 
This will go from bad to worse. This will drive our allies into 
the arms of the Chinese arms market which continues to grow and 
into the Russian arms market, even though their equipment is 
horrible, they can get it far more easily and without any 
oversight.
    So we are trying to strike an appropriate balance. 
Unfortunately, this amendment does not. We have worked with the 
other side of the aisle on this cumulative issue which I agree 
we should address, but unfortunately, I must speak in 
opposition to this amendment.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. Any further 
discussion? There being no further discussion, the question now 
occurs on the amendment offered by Representative Davidson, No. 
104.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the 
amendment is not agreed to.
    A roll call vote has been requested. Pursuant to the 
chair's previous announcement, this vote will be postponed. Are 
there any further amendments?
    Mr. Waltz is recognized.
    Mr. Waltz. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    [The Amendment offered by Mr. Waltz follows:]

  AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE TO H.R. 6609 OFFERED BY MR. 
                                 WALTZ

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Chairman McCaul. The Clerk shall distribute the amendment.
    The Clerk shall report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to H.R. 6609 offered by Mr. Waltz of Florida. Page 
1, line 16, strike $500000000 and insert 50 million dollars. 
Page----
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection, further reading of the 
amendment is dispensed with. The gentleman from Florida is 
recognized for 5 minutes on his amendment.
    Mr. Waltz. Very quickly, Mr. Chairman, this is a technical 
amendment. Unfortunately, we had a clerical error as the bill 
was being drafted and this strikes importantly, but it strikes 
the zero and clarifies the amount. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. Any further 
discussion on the amendment? There being no further discussion, 
the question now occurs on the amendment offered by 
Representative Waltz, No. 127.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the 
amendment is agreed to.
    Are there any further amendments? There being no further 
amendments, further proceedings on this bill are postponed.
    Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R. 7089, the Global 
Anti-Human Trafficking Enhancement Act.
    [The Bill H.R. 7089 follows:]

                               H.R. 7089

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


  AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE TO H.R. 7089 OFFERED BY MR. 
                                 JAMES

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Chairman McCaul. The bill was circulated in advance and the 
Clerk shall designate the bill.
    The Clerk. H.R. 7089, to authorize the Diplomatic Security 
Services of the Department of State to investigate allegations 
of violations of conduct constituting offenses under Chapter 77 
of Title 18, United States Code and for other purposes.
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection, the first reading is 
dispensed with. The bill is considered read and open to 
amendment at any point. Without objection, the James Amendment 
in the nature of a substitute, circulated to members in 
advance, shall be considered as read and will be treated as 
text--in original text for purposes of amendment.
    Is there any discussion on the bill? Mr. James is 
recognized.
    Mr. James. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have been talking a 
lot about export and sales and I am a businessman. I am a 
capitalist, but there are certain things that are not for sale. 
To quote the Sound of Freedom, ``God's children are not for 
sale.''
    I want to speak in support of my bill H.R. 7089, the Global 
Anti-Human Trafficking Enhancement Act. Mr. Chairman, first I 
want to say thank you for your staff helped me out, put this 
bill together, and getting it to markup is of critical 
importance to not only our duty as Americans, but our duty as 
humans and children of God.
    My bill is simple. It allows the Diplomatic Security 
Service under the State Department to investigate instances of 
transnational human trafficking directly. Currently, diplomatic 
security must account for document fraud to be the reason, the 
proximate cause it can initiate any investigation.
    Now I am sure we can agree human trafficking must be 
eradicated everywhere, everywhere. Modern day slavery is a 
major stain on humanity and decency. It is a sin.
    Just recently, in my district, I was pleased to hear the 
Macomb County sheriffs and prosecutors were successful in 
stopping a trafficking ring happening right in Macomb County. I 
often hear people ask why is America involved everywhere and in 
these different parts of the world? When it comes to the safety 
of children and young adults, the most vulnerable on our 
planet, I know that American leadership can do more to help 
bring justice for these victims.
    According to the State Department, ``there are about 27.6 
million victims worldwide at any given time. This evil and 
depraved industry preys on people of all ages, backgrounds, and 
nationalities for their own profit.'' God's rule is clear, Luke 
4:18 and 19 reads, ``The spirit of the Lord is upon because he 
has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent 
me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight 
to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed to 
proclaim the year of the Lord's favor.'' We have a duty to all, 
particularly those who are being trafficked into slavery.
    My bill empowers our law enforcement to liberate the 
oppressed and the captive and I beseech my colleagues to 
support my bill, H.R. 7089, and I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. I appreciate the spirit of his 
presentation. It was very moving and I support this bill very 
strongly.
    Any further discussion? Ms. Manning is recognized.
    Ms. Manning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support this 
measure and appreciate Chairman McCaul and Representative James 
for working with Ranking Member Meeks on this bill. Diplomatic 
security officers are uniquely placed to investigate human 
trafficking crimes around the world due to their global 
posture, their understanding of local governments, and threat 
environments and experience in investigating these horrific 
crimes. By broadening their authority to investigate these 
crimes in more situations, while also requiring reporting to 
ensure that the authority is as effective as it can be, this 
legislation advances U.S. efforts to combat and eliminate the 
scourge of human trafficking around the world. I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields. Is there any 
further discussion? There being no further discussion, does 
anybody have an amendment?
    There being no amendments, I move the committee report H.R. 
7089, as amended to the House with a favorable recommendation.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the 
motion is agreed to.
    Mr. James. Mr. Chairman, I would like to call for the yeas 
and nays.
    Chairman McCaul. The roll call vote has been requested. 
Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote will 
be postponed.
    Pursuant to notice, I now call up, H.Con.Res. 27, 
Condemning Russia's Unjust and Arbitrary Detention of Russian 
Opposition Leader, Vladimir Kara-Murza, who has stood up in 
defense of democracy, rule of law, and free and fair elections 
in Russia.
    [The Bill H.Con.Res. 27 follows:]

                             H.CON.RES. 27

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


 AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE TO H. CON. RES. 27 OFFERED BY 
                              MR. KEATING

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Chairman McCaul. The resolution was circulated in advance. 
The Clerk shall designate the resolution.
    The Clerk. H.Con.Res. 27, Condemning Russia's Unjust and 
Arbitrary Detention of Russian Opposition Leader, Vladimir----
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection, the first reading is 
dispensed with. The resolution is considered read and open to 
amendment at any point.
    Without objection, the Keating Amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, circulated to members in advance, shall be 
considered as read and will be treated as original text for 
purposes of amendment. Is there any discussion on the 
resolution?
    Mr. Keating is recognized.
    Mr. Keating. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And as we bid 
adieu to this temporary committee chamber, I look forward to 
going back to our old committee chamber, renovated----
    Chairman McCaul. Will the gentleman yield? I have been told 
it is going to be on Valentine's Day actually, February 14th.
    Mr. Keating. My God, what a surprise. How delightful. But 
thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, and I want to thank 
Ranking Member Meeks for holding the markup today and taking up 
and taking care of House congressional Resolution 27.
    This resolution condemns Russia's unjust and arbitrary 
detention of Russian opposition leader Vladimir Kara-Murza who 
stood up in defense of democracy and the rule of law in Russia. 
Vladimir has been a friend of my office and a friend to many in 
this institution for years as he stood up in the face of 
authoritarian repression from Putin's regime. When I served as 
chairman of the European Committee in the 116th Congress, 
Vladimir testified before this committee to expose the crimes 
of Putin's regime and unmask the methods used by the Kremlin to 
mask their malign influence. His numerous testimoneys before 
Congress are just one example of his work to advocate for his 
belief in Russian democracy which he says must be undertaken 
``by Russians and for Russians.''
    As he continued his fight against the Putin regime, 
Vladimir made a landmark speech before the Arizona House of 
Representatives in March 2022 where he unequivocally condemned 
Vladimir Putin's illegal war of aggression against Ukraine, as 
well as Putin's corrupt leadership and malign intentions. 
Understanding the threats he faced inside Russia, Mr. Kara-
Murza then made the brave and defiant decision to return to 
Russia to continue to advocate for democratic representation. 
Upon his return to Russia in April 2022, Vladimir was promptly 
arrested by the Kremlin on charges related to his March 2022 
speech in front of the Arizona House of Representatives.
    Unfortunately, he is no stranger to being targeted by the 
Kremlin for his work. Before this most recent arrest, Vladimir 
was twice poisoned by Russian authorities in 2015 and again in 
2017. But his defiance continued. Even as the Kremlin brought 
more unjust charges in August and October 2022 and a 25-year 
prison sentence in April 2023, he continued to advocate from 
inside his cell for the democratic Russia he dreamed of.
    Vladimir's story is not only one of courageous defiance, 
but one of Kremlin weakness. His story, his words, and his 
vision scare and threaten the Putin regime and they undermine 
the fictitious Kremlin narrative regarding Putin's invasion of 
Ukraine. That fact shows the true strength of Mr. Kara-Murza's 
conviction.
    As we consider this resolution, we also must redouble our 
efforts to ensure the release of all wrongly held individuals 
in Russia, Belarus, and around the world who suffer at the 
hands of repression. This includes wrongfully detained 
Americans such as the journalist, Evan Gershkovich; and former 
U.S. Marine, Paul Whelan, whose sister I know well and has 
advocated along with the rest of the family tirelessly for his 
freedom. At the same time, American citizen in Radio Free 
Europe, Radio Free Liberty journalist, Elsu Kurmasheva remains 
in Russian cell and I firmly believe she should receive 
wrongfully detained status as well.
    Last, this committee is also considering a measure to 
release the wrongfully detained American Ryan Corbett, who has 
been held by the Taliban for over a year and a half. I thank my 
colleagues for introducing that measure and I hope for Ryan's 
expeditious return.
    While Russia plays politics with the lives of Americans, 
there are also thousands of Russians and Belarusian citizens 
who are held being bars simply for their beliefs that we hold 
dear to us. We acknowledge their suffering as well as demand 
their immediate and unconditional release.
    I again want to thank the committee for taking this 
important legislation up and I urge my colleagues to vote in 
favor of the resolution and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. Is there any further 
discussion on the resolution?
    Ms. Manning is recognized.
    Ms. Manning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am proud to support 
this measure offered by my colleague, Representative Keating, 
the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Europe. This 
resolution highlights the plight of Vladimir Kara-Murza, a 
brave Russian civil society leader who is now in a Russian 
prison serving a 25-year sentence. Vladimir was a frequent 
guest here in Congress and in this committee, having 
consistently warned us of the brutal domestic repression and 
external aggression woven into Putin's regime. Vladimir was 
always against Russia's war in Ukraine, thereby making him an 
enemy of the Kremlin. If Vladimir were sitting here today and 
not in a Russian prison, I imagine he would remind us that this 
resolution should not be about his story, but rather about the 
story of a free Russia of fellow activists, journalists, and 
freedom fighters like Boris Nemtsov, Sergei Magnitsky and Anna 
Politkovskaya.
    Today, Russia's future is being shaped on the battlefields 
of Ukraine. Russia's war machine is spinning up and much of its 
society and economy is geared toward its brutal war of 
aggression. Once again, Russian repression at home is linked 
directly to aggression abroad.
    My colleague, Ranking Member Meeks, and I support this 
resolution whole heartedly, but let me close with some broader 
remarks on behalf of Mr. Meeks. Mr. Meeks has legislation that 
would sanction any person or company that builds a tunnel from 
Crimea to the Russian mainland. We have clear public reporting 
the Chinese are considering helping on this project. We must 
deter any construction with the threat of sanctions. So Ranking 
Member Meeks looks forward to moving a bipartisan bill through 
our committee on the next markup.
    Finally, Mr. Meeks, and I must join him in this, must 
implore that we find a way to support Ukraine and their 
existential fight for freedom in their hour of need. Failing to 
support Ukraine, failing to act now serves the Kremlin, serve 
Beijing and hurts our standing in the world, our national 
security, and our collective prosperous and peaceful future. I 
urge my colleagues to vote yes on this bill and I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields. Any further 
discussion on the resolution? There being no further discussion 
on the resolution, the committee will move to consideration of 
amendments. Does any--Mr. Wilson is recognized.
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Chairman Mike McCaul and Ranking 
Member Gregory Meeks for bringing these important measures 
critical to national security to the committee today. I 
appreciate, in particular, House congressional Concurrent 
Resolution 27 condemning Russia's unjust and arbitrary 
detention of Russian opposition leader Vladimir Kara-Murza. And 
I am very grateful this is a bipartisan legislation with my 
good friend, Congressman Bill Keating. We together have a bill 
that recognizes--it has been nearly 2 years since war criminal 
Putin thugs arrested pro-democracy activists and journalist 
Vladimir Kara-Murza hours after he correctly referred to the 
Kremlin as ``the regime of murderers.''
    I was grateful to be an original cosponsor of H.Con.Res. 27 
to condemn war criminal Putin's unjust and pathetic detention 
of anyone who dares to call him what he is, a mass murderer, 
victimizing the people of Russia. On my visits to Russia, I was 
so impressed with the dynamic leaders that I met from 
Chelyabinsk to St. Petersburg to Novosibirsk to Moscow. War 
criminal Putin is oppressing to people of Russia and conducting 
mass murder in Ukraine and illegally occupying additionally 
parts of Moldova and Georgia.
    Furthermore, I was grateful to cosponsor a bipartisan bill 
to require a report on why Vladimir Putin has yet to be 
designated--or Kara-Murza has been not recognized as a 
wrongfully detained individual under the Levinson Act. The 
patriot Vladimir Kara-Murza has made such a difference. The 
world is fortunate to have Evgenia Kara-Murza, the courageous 
wife of Vladimir Kara-Murza, to tirelessly work with her 
incredible children to call attention to war criminal Putin 
oppressing the people of Russia.
    Additionally, author Bill Browder has been so clear for 
freedom with his book, the Freezing Order, which provides 
that--it exposes the corruption and money laundering by war 
criminal Putin. I urge support for this resolution and I yield 
back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back. Any further 
discussion on the resolution? There being no further discussion 
of the resolution, the committee will move to consideration of 
amendments. Does any member wish to offer an amendment?
    There being no amendments, I move that the committee report 
H.Con.Res. 27 as amended to the House with a favorable 
recommendation.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye?
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the 
motion is agreed to.
    Mr. Keating. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman McCaul. Mr. Keating. A roll call vote has been 
requested. Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this 
vote will be postponed.
    Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R. 6603, the No 
Technology for Terror Act.
    [The Bill H.R. 6603 follows:]

                               H.R. 6003

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Chairman McCaul. The bill was circulated in advance. The 
Clerk shall designate the bill.
    The Clerk. H.R. 6603, to apply foreign direct product rules 
to Iran. Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of 
Representatives of the United States of America and Congress 
assembled. Section 1, short title. This act may be cited as 
the----
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection, the first reading is 
dispensed with. The bill is considered read and open to 
amendment at any point. I recognize myself for a statement.
    There is no question that Iran is at the center of 
instability in the Middle East. From the brutal and horrific 
attack on Israel on October 7 by Hamas to the ongoing attacks 
on international shipping and U.S. service members Iran has 
been the State funding and supported terrorist proxy group to 
attack America personnel. There are interests and allies in the 
region.
    As you all know, just the other week Iranian-backed proxies 
killed three U.S. service members and injured 40 more. This 
brazen attack requires a firm and decisive response against 
Iran's interests. The fact that our forces are still coming 
under fire even as recently as yesterday shows the 
Administration's response has not been sufficient to restore 
deterrence. We just project strength on the world stage and 
embrace the Reagan doctrine of peace through strength.
    Iran's longstanding financial and military support to its 
proxies must not be tolerated. And that starts with supplying 
robust export controls to limit the transfer of U.S. goods and 
technologies to Iran including providing it to proxies.
    This bill would codify recently expanded export control 
sanctions on Iran restricting their ability to manufacture 
missiles and drones using U.S. material and technology. These 
Iranian weapons are the same missiles and drones being used by 
Russia to target civilians and civilian infrastructure in 
Ukraine. In fact, one assessment carried out by Ukraine 
indicated that as many as 77 Iranian UAVs they analyzed were 
made with U.S. component parts. We also note these weapons are 
being used by Iran proxies to target U.S. Forces and interests 
across the Middle East.
    So I urge all my colleagues to support this bill as it 
extends the foreign direct product rule to Iran. It restricts 
the re-export or transfer of U.S.-originated items from one 
foreign country to Iran. Iran and its terror proxies continue 
to sow instability on the global stage and it is critical we 
take urgent action to restrict Iran's access to technology it 
needs to manufacture these lethal missiles and drones, 
especially coming from the United States of America.
    Is there any further discussion on the bill?
    Ms. Manning is recognized?
    Ms. Manning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    As this committee is keenly aware, Iran is the world's top 
State sponsor of terrorism and their proxy activity in the 
region recently resulted in the death of three American service 
members, the disruption of shipping in the Red Sea and much, 
much more. Not a day goes by when the United States or our 
allies are free of Iran's malign behavior.
    This is why the Biden Administration has prioritized 
preventing Iran from developing drones and missiles. The 
Administration has implemented numerous sanctions to this end 
and the Bureau of Industry and Security, BIS, has even taken 
the extraordinary step to impose a foreign direct product rule 
to prevent the production and proliferation of Iranian drones 
and missiles.
    The foreign direct product rule is the most powerful tool 
in BIS' arsenal. It allows the agency to regulate and prohibit 
the export, re-export, or transfer of any item around the world 
if that item relies upon or was manufactured using American 
equipment or software. It is a powerful tool but if used too 
often, it can become a double-edged sword.
    Our allies and partners have some concerns about the 
foreign direct product rule as it is a strict legal prohibition 
on products that could have primarily foreign-designated--that 
could have been primarily foreign-designated and manufactured. 
It is important therefore to use the rule sparingly and only in 
the most extreme cases, otherwise it gives foreign companies an 
incentive to design out American components altogether so they 
aren't vulnerable to the United States applying the rule in 
other cases in the future.
    This legislation would be a first-time codification of the 
foreign direct product rule and an expansion of the Biden 
Administration's current rule for Iran. The initial rule--
version of this legislation gave me some concern because it 
would have narrowed the agency's flexibility and it would have 
created complications in our ability to get our partners and 
our allies to work with us.
    For instance, it serves no one's interest to unilaterally 
prohibit the life--the sale of life-saving European medical 
equipment to Iran. There are innocent Iranian civilians who 
have protested the brutality of the Iranian regime and we do 
not want to deny them the humanitarian aid or medical equipment 
they might need. That is why this ANS expands the exceptions in 
the underlying bill to ensure that the sale of food, medicine, 
and medical devices continues on humanitarian grounds.
    The ANS also adds a national interest waiver so the 
Administration has the flexibility to ensure that the rule is 
being applied so as to minimize humanitarian impact and 
maximize our leverage and coalition against Iran.
    I thank the chairman and Representative Moran for working 
in good faith with Chairman Meeks to reach this compromise so 
that we could take the strong and historic steps laid out in 
this bill while preserving American leadership and diplomacy. I 
support the ANS and urge my colleagues to do the same, and I 
yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields back.
    Any further discussion?
    There being no further discussion of the bill, the 
committee will move to consideration of amendments. Does any 
member wish to offer an amendment?
    Mr. Moran is recognized.
    Mr. Moran. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment in the nature 
of a substitute at the desk and I ask for its consideration at 
this time.
    [The Amendment of Mr. Moran follows:]

  AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE TO H.R. 6603 OFFERED BY MR. 
                                 MORAN

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Chairman McCaul. The clerk shall distribute the Moran 
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute No. 40.
    The clerk shall report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 
6603 offered by Mr. Moran of Texas. Strike all after the 
enacting clause and insert the following: Section 1, short 
title. This act may be cited as the No Technology for Terror 
Act.
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection, further reading of the 
amendment is dispensed with.
    The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes on his 
amendment.
    Mr. Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I encourage all members of this committee to support my 
legislation and this amendment in the nature of a substitute, 
the No Technology for Terror Act, H.R. 6603 that extends the 
foreign direct product rule to Iran, and I thank the chairman 
and the ranking member for working in a bipartisan fashion to 
carve a piece of legislation that is acceptable to both 
Republicans and Democrats and achieves the goal that is very 
important to our national security.
    My bill would codify existing limitations on the export of 
certain U.S.-origin goods or technology to Iran. Under this 
legislation anyone seeking to transfer U.S.-origin items to 
Iran would be required to first obtain a license from the 
Commerce Department before doing so.
    Iranian aggression is not new and in fact is amplifying. In 
recent years we have seen a dramatic expansion in the Iranian 
regime's support from malign proxy groups and are adversaries 
like Russia. From multiple reports including the Defense 
Intelligence Agency there are clear ties of Iran transferring 
its unmanned aerial vehicles to Russia since the invasion of 
Ukraine. Iran has transferred this same UAV model, the Shaded 
136, to the Houthis as well as its other proxies across--as 
well as its other proxies across the Middle East.
    Reports have found that components recovered from Iranian-
made drones used against the people of Ukraine have been found 
to include more than 50 American-made components. Other reports 
have found that out of roughly 500 components identified in a 
recovered Iranian-made UAV 82 percent were manufactured by U.S. 
companies. That is 82 percent.
    These reports are backed by a July 2023 report released by 
the State Department where they acknowledged that Iran relies 
on foreign procurement and even prefers American-made sourcing 
to manufacture its lethal weapons.
    Iran is evolving and using more advanced technologies to 
manufacture their lethal fleet and circumvent current sanctions 
and laws. This poses a direct threat to our service members in 
the region and bold action is needed now.
    The current Administration's foreign policy on Iran is not 
producing effective deterrence. These three brave U.S. service 
members lost their lives and dozens injured by a drone launched 
by Iran proxies in Jordan. Meanwhile, the U.S. took 6 days to 
respond and this retaliatory response is simply unacceptable. 
Two Navy SEALs lost their lives attempting to seize Iranian 
weapons on their way to their proxies.
    We can and we must get ahead of the weapons and equipment 
trade to Iran and we can use our export controls to ensure U.S. 
goods are not being used by Iran to make lethal missiles and 
drones. The No Technology for Terror Act will do just that. The 
limitations set forth in my bill would make it harder for Iran 
to produce missiles and drones that are used against American 
troops and our allies and make it more difficult to transfer 
these drones and missiles to proxies and Russia. American 
equipment, technology, and other know-how under no 
circumstances should be transferred to Iran.
    The Iranian regime is relentlessly evil and seeks to become 
the superpower in the Middle East, which means that they intend 
to eliminate America and its allies at all costs. This bill 
would inherently pressure other countries to enact their own 
export controls against Iran and this time America must lead 
and must make clear that we will not hesitate to use all means 
necessary to defeat our adversaries.
    In closing I want to thank again Chairman McCaul and 
Congressman Moskowitz who are co-leading this important 
legislation with me.
    And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back. Do any other 
members seek recognition?
    Mr. Mills is recognized.
    Mr. Mills. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to speak up in 
support of my colleague from Texas, Representative Moran's H.R. 
6603, No Technology for Terror Act.
    For far too long we have monitored the continual transfer 
of kinetics which is utilized in many ways for munitions and 
explosives and have ignored the simple facts that technology 
and other types of key parts that are resulting in terrorist 
attacks on bases like Outpost 22, Tower 22 in Jordan, as well 
as for others by Iranian proxies are something that we need to 
have better oversight of.
    Stronger sanctions has proven to not only cripple the 
ayatollah and his regime, but has also proven to reduce the 
number of attacks that are being led by proxy militias, that by 
the Houthis, that by Hezbollah, that by Hamas, and that by 
Kata'ib Hezbolah and those in Iraq.
    The simple fact is is that Representative Moran's H.R. 6603 
will help us to limit the access and abilities of U.S. goods 
and technologies to manufacture the very missiles and long-
range drones that are responsible for the death of service 
members.
    I stand in strong support of this bill and I hope that my 
colleagues will join us in that. With that I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. Any other members 
seek recognition?
    Ms. Manning is recognized.
    Ms. Manning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Let me just say again I appreciate Mr. Moran's work with 
Mr. Meeks on the ANS and I urge my colleagues to support the 
ANS. I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields.
    Any other members seek recognition?
    There being no further discussion, do any members wish to 
offer an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute?
    There being no further amendments, the question now occurs 
on the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by 
Representative Moran, No. 40.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the 
amendment is agreed to.
    Mr. Moran. Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a recorded vote.
    Chairman McCaul. There being no further amendments I move 
the committee report H.R. 6603 as amended to the House with a 
favorable recommendation.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the 
motion is agreed to.
    Mr. Moran is recognized.
    Mr. Moran. On this vote, Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a 
recorded vote.
    Chairman McCaul. Roll call vote has been requested. 
Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote will 
be postponed.
    Pursuant to notice I now call up H.Res. 82, Expressing the 
sense of Congress regarding the need to designate Nigeria a 
Country of Particular Concern for engaging in and tolerating 
systematic, ongoing, and egregious violations of religious 
freedom, the need to appoint a Special Envoy for Nigeria and 
the Lake Chad region.
    [The Bill H.R. 82 follows:]

                               H. RES. 82

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


 AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE TO H. RES. 82 OFFERED BY MR. 
                                 SMITH

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Chairman McCaul. I also would like to recognize the 
Nigerian religious leaders who are in the audience today at 
this markup. They serve populations that have been devaStated 
by these attacks. Bishop Wilfred Anagbe in the Diocese of 
Makurdi and Pastor Akila Yusuf represent a network of 200 
pastors and leaders.
    I know I have met with you in my office personally and I 
want to thank all of you for being here today and encourage you 
to stay strong as Congress will stay strong with you.
    The resolution was circulated in advance and the clerk 
shall designate the resolution.
    The Clerk. H.Res. 82, Expressing the sense of Congress 
regarding the need to designate Nigeria a Country of Particular 
Concern for engaging in and tolerating----
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection, the first reading is 
dispensed with. The resolution is considered read and open to 
amendment at any point.
    Is there any discussion on the resolution?
    Mr. Smith is recognized.
    Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I do have an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, and I'll speak to it then.
    Chairman McCaul. OK.
    Do any members seek recognition?
    Mr. Self is recognized.
    Mr. Self. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman McCaul. We are not at amendments right now. We are 
just on discussion on the resolution.
    There being no further discussion on the resolution, are 
there any amendments to the resolution.
    Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment in the nature 
of a substitute at the desk and I ask for its consideration.
    Chairman McCaul. The clerk shall circulate the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you.
    Chairman McCaul. The clerk shall report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to 
H.Res. 82 offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Strike the 
preamble and insert the following: Whereas in 2020 the 
Department of State designated Nigeria----
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection, further reading of the 
amendment is dispensed with.
    The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes 
on his amendment.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, on Christmas Eve approximately 300 Christians 
died in targeted attacks and none of the perpetrators of this 
set of coordinated attacks in Nigeria's Plateau State have been 
held to account.
    It is unconscionable that President Tinubu sworn in May 
2023 has not acknowledged the religious motivations for these 
attacks and for attacks that have been ongoing and escalating. 
Secretary of State Blinken has not either, even in his joint 
press conference remarks; and I watched it, with the Nigerian 
foreign minister. He did express our condolences; we are 
grateful for that, but that is it. More needs to be done and we 
need to do far more than we have done to date.
    Earlier this year the secretary once again refused to 
redesignate Nigeria as a Country of Particular Concern, or CPC, 
prompting the chair--the vice chair of the U.S. Commission on 
International Religious Freedom to say, quote, ``There is no 
justification as to why the State Department did not designate 
Nigeria as a Country of Particular Concern despite its own 
reporting and statements.''
    Mr. Chairman, Genocide Watch has called Nigeria, quote, ``a 
killing field of defenseless Christians.'' Open Doors reported 
that there were 5,014 Christians murdered in 2022, nearly 90 
percent of the total number of Christians killed worldwide. And 
Vatican News reported that over 52,250 Christians were 
slaughtered in Nigeria since 2009.
    I am convinced there is more the U.S. can do to protect 
these believers, and that goes for Muslims as well, and promote 
freedom of religion. That is why I authored the Frank Wolf 
International Religious Freedom Act, which was enacted in 2016 
and strengthened our government's hand against authorities and 
non-State actors who violate religious freedom.
    That is why I strongly supported and chaired all the 
hearings backing Congressman Frank Wolf's heroic efforts to 
enact the International Religious Freedom Act back in 1998. 
Unfortunately the U.S. Department of State is not using all the 
tools provided to hold guilty parties accountable and that is 
why I have introduced this resolution.
    On July 18, 2023, I did chair a hearing on the State 
Department's failure to designate Countries of Particular 
Concern including Nigeria in the International Religious 
Freedom Report. At that hearing Abraham Cooper, Chairman of the 
U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, testified, 
quote, ``In Nigeria religious freedom continues--conditions 
have been remained abysmal with State and non-State actors 
committing particularly severe violations against both 
Christians and Muslims.'' It clearly meets the CPC standard 
under IRFA as evidenced by the State Department's own report 
released on May 5.
    It also is why USCRF, U.S. Commission on Religious Freedom, 
recommended the appointment of a special envoy for Nigeria in 
the Lake Chad Basin to maximize U.S. diplomatic efforts to 
address the atrocities that are occurring.
    We have here today in our audience; you have already 
introduced them, Mr. Chairman, men who have witnessed 
unspeakable acts of harm. Bishop Wilfred Anagbe of the Diocese 
of Makurdi. His people have been targeted for killings and 
displaced with impunity. He has said when you go where they are 
in the camps, ``You do not know what to preach. It's difficult 
to console them, to support them, to share with them the fear 
with them.'' And it is every day other people coming in, coming 
into those camps. He said, ``The poor conditions make the 
children especially vulnerable to human trafficking, child 
labor, and organ harvesting.''
    We also have Pastor Akila Yusuf who is with us today. He 
represents a network of 200 pastors and he has talked about how 
in the Middle Belt region of Nigeria they face violence and are 
being ``slaughtered''--this is his words--``because of our 
religion.'' ``This bill is very important,`` he goes on, ``It 
will serve as legislation to hold our government,'' that's the 
Nigerian government, of course, ``accountable for the millions 
of lives facing existential threat from the extremists.''
    Bishop Matthew Kukka has also said, ``traumatized persons 
are tortured by the bandits. The nation has become a massive 
killing field.'' And he goes on. And without objection, his 
full statement will be put in the record, Mr. Chairman, I ask.
    [The information referred to follows:]

                               WALTZ AIA

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                               WALTZ NDIA

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chairman McCaul. So ordered.
    Mr. Smith. So let me just conclude--and there are other 
statements made by so many people. It could not be more clear 
that this is a CPC country. I would point out to my colleagues 
that we also call for pushing back against Nigeria's blasphemy 
laws. They are one of the seven--only seven countries in the 
world with criminal blasphemy laws that carry the death 
penalty. So we name some of those who have been so incited, or 
put into jail I should say, and ask for their release and ask 
that we double down on just trying to stand with the oppressed 
and not with the oppressor. Yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
    Any other members seek recognition?
    Mr. Meeks is recognized.
    Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Nigerians continue to suffer under the threat of violence 
for how they practice their faith. Religious and intercommunal 
violence remains a true impediment to peace and prosperity for 
the people of Nigeria.
    While I thank Representative Smith for his years of work on 
advancing religious freedom, unfortunately I must oppose the 
amendment and resolution before us today.
    The International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 lays out a 
clear process for making Countries of Particular Concern, or 
CPC, designations. Congress authorizes the President to make 
CPC designated, and the President delegates that authority to 
the Secretary of State.
    The statute makes clear that it is the Administration's 
responsibility through the use of evidence gathering and on-
the-ground reporting to determine which countries should be 
included on the CPC list.
    In the case of Nigeria the Secretary of State followed that 
process: examined the evidence and determined that Nigeria does 
not meet that criteria to be designated as a CPC.
    Now this does not mean that the State Department is not 
concerned by the State of religious freedom in Nigeria. Just 
this past December the secretary redesignated two non-State 
armed groups: Boko Haram and ISIS-WA, as entities of particular 
concern for their severe violations of religious freedom. And 
we know that during the Administration's successive high-level 
visits to the country American officials make a point to 
regularly raise issues of human rights and religious freedom 
with their government interlocutors.
    The State Department has also made it clear it continues to 
work with Nigeria's security services, civil society, and 
religious leaders to address the drivers of communal violence, 
drivers that are complex in nature and include competition for 
resources and land use in addition to religious strife. And I 
urge the State Department to continue to do that work.
    It is important to note that violence against communities 
based on religious belief unfortunately affects people of many 
faiths in Nigeria. This resolution calls attention mainly to 
the attacks on Christians who have suffered heinous attacks 
including this past Christmas. Muslim communities have also 
been subjected to terrible violence, and we must acknowledge 
that suffering as well.
    I call on the government of Nigeria to prioritize efforts 
to prevent conflict before it starts and address it when it 
arises including by ensuring that freedom of religion is both 
recognized and respected. I know the State Department shares 
this goal and is using its authority as Congress authorized to 
advance religious freedom globally.
    With that, Mr. Chairman----
    Mr. Connolly. Mr. Meeks, would you yield?
    Mr. Meeks. I yield.
    Mr. Connolly. Thank you. I want to associate myself with 
your remarks. I appreciate Mr. Smith's efforts, but look, 
Congress cannot simple--simply say we are only concerned about 
Christian persecution. We are concerned about anyone's human 
rights being violated. And by the way, that includes the gay 
and lesbian community which has suffered in Nigeria, among 
other African countries, even at the hands of religious leaders 
who have called for the death penalty for--because of 
somebody's sexual orientation.
    So if we are going to express ourselves with respect to 
human rights abuses, as we should, it ought to be a 
comprehensive statement, not a particular group we single out 
and basically say that is the one we are concerned about. I do 
not think that is a message Congress wants to send.
    I thank my friend for yielding.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
    Any other members seek recognition?
    Ms. Jacobs?
    Ms. Jacobs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I oppose this resolution. While I am concerned about the 
State of religious freedom in Nigeria and the horrific violence 
we have seen in the country, we also need to recognize that the 
role of religion in conflict in Nigeria is complex and it 
affects both Christians and Muslims. Yet this resolution 
suggests that Muslims do not also share a significant burden of 
the violence. And while religion is a factor in various 
conflict dynamics, there are other dynamics at play like 
climate change, population pressures, and governance challenges 
that lead to violence and conflict.
    I would also point out that the department already followed 
the process to consider Nigeria as a possible Country of 
Particular Concern based on an assessment of the actions of the 
Nigerian government and they determined that they did not meet 
the criteria because much of the violence referenced in this 
resolution was perpetrated by non-State actors like Boko Haram 
and ISIS-West Africa, not the Nigerian government.
    So I disagree with directing the department to designate 
Nigeria as a Country of Particular Concern and I oppose this 
resolution. I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. Any other members seek recognition?
    There being no further discussion, does any member wish to 
offer an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute?
    Mr. Self is recognized.
    Mr. Self. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at 
the desk.
    [The information referred to follows:]

AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE TO H. RES. 82 
                          OFFERED BY MR. SELF

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chairman McCaul. The clerk shall distribute the amendment.
    The clerk shall report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to H.Res. 82 offered by Mr. Self of Texas. Page 6, 
line 6----
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection, further reading of the 
amendment is dispensed with.
    The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes on his 
amendment.
    Mr. Self. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Let me be clear, I support my colleague Mr. Smith in House 
Res. 82. My amendment simply strikes the second paragraph of 
the resolved text. I do not believe that the Department of 
State needs another special envoy with the rank of Ambassador. 
I will note that there is an ambassador pending in the Senate, 
and frankly that would be sufficient in this case. It also 
indicates that the Administration is not that interested in 
Nigeria, unlike my colleagues across the aisle, suggesting or 
he would push for that Ambassador to be confirmed.
    As of May the State Department maintained 23 special 
envoys, 13 special representatives, 11 coordinators, 8 
advisors, 8 Ambassadors-at-large, and 7 similar officials with 
like titles. That is 70 with the rank of Ambassador, similar 
rank of Ambassador including a confirmed Ambassador-at-large 
for international religious freedom.
    Our Federal Government needs to shrink, not expand. I am 
not interested in giving the State Department another 
Ambassadorial position. It needs to become more efficient, not 
more unwieldy. I am concerned that this proliferation of 
special envoys leads to more bureaucracy, more duplication, and 
less efficient government.
    I fully agree with the substance of this resolution. As I 
say, more Christians are killed, abducted, or attacked in their 
home or business than any other country in Nigeria. I signed 
the Huizenga letter on this issue, oh, a month or so ago, but I 
agree that the Administration has turned a blind eye to the 
crisis. The State Department inexplicably removed Nigeria from 
its special watch list as a Country of Particular Concern in 
2021. Specifically removed.
    Nigeria receives over $1 billion in U.S. aid and the State 
Department needs to reverse their course and begin pressuring 
the government of Nigeria to end the persecution of Christians 
regardless of who is doing the persecution. But this does not 
require a special envoy. It requires a confirmed Ambassador in 
Nigeria and a change of focus and priority in Washington.
    I ask that my amendment be adopted. With that I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back. Do any other 
members seek recognition? Mr. Meeks is recognized.
    Mr. Meeks. I want to thank Representative Self for offering 
this amendment, which I support, to strike the special envoy 
position. The call for a special envoy for Nigeria and the Lake 
Chad region is premature at this time especially as the 
gentleman indicated we do not currently have a U.S. Ambassador 
confirmed to Nigeria. We should first ensure we have full 
diplomatic representation in Nigeria and empower our Ambassador 
to address these issues with the government of Nigeria and 
other stakeholders. So I support the gentleman's amendment.
    But it does not address my underlying concern with the 
resolution, which I will oppose in a final vote, and I yield 
back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. Any other members 
seek recognition?
    Mr. Smith?
    Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    First of all, I want to thank Mr. Self for his support for 
the CPC designation. And I would remind my colleagues that when 
we--and it was Frank Wolf's law but I worked very hard on it--
we created two--a couple of important points: The CPC is the 
first part based on the evidence designating a country every 
year whether or not it is--violates international religious 
freedom and the standards that are imbedded in the bill, or the 
law.
    The second is the sanctioning. And that is the exclusive 
domain of the Administration. Once they put a country on it, 
they now have 037 about 18 or so different action items that 
they could implement starting with a simple demarche, but also 
some very significant penalties. And that does get the 
attention of a country and helps them to prioritize. Are they 
going to do something or not?
    The idea, and I--with all due respect to my good friend 
from New York, that we have no Ambassador, and I--that is 
unfortunate, but all the more reason why we need a special 
envoy. We have a DCM, we got a No. 2, but we do not have a 
person walking point in Abuja on this or any other issue 
because there is no Ambassador. Whatever the fault is that is 
not what we are talking about. We need a special envoy to 
really take this issue and focus on it, bring all the disparate 
elements together.
    I have worked with special envoys over the years in many 
places around the world. In Sudan, in South Sudan we worked 
with Princeton Lyman, who did an outstanding job in bringing 
all those warring efforts and personages together. Booth, 
Donald Booth also did an amazing job as well. And that becomes 
someone who--that is all they do.
    One of the problems with our State Department, and you 
could understand why, is that they have all--a huge portfolio 
that they have to deal with. Huge. Religious freedom, maybe on 
page 2 or 3 or 4. We saw that with trafficking. I wrote the 
trafficking laws of the United States of America, Trafficking 
Victims Protection Act, because we were not--I say again not 
focusing on that in our embassies and as a government.
    And now similar to the Religious Freedom Act we have 
actionable items. We have put people on Tier 1, 2, or 3, 3 
being the worst, and boy, does that sharpen the mind when a 
country is put on Tier 3. And to get off it, yes, they got to 
make changes. They have to do reforms, initiate prosecutions, 
do protection and prevention efforts.
    Same here. CPC is very similar. And again, when we created 
the U.S. Commission on Religious Freedom, it was precisely 
because other issues might interfere with the U.S. Department 
of State calling balls and strikes correctly. And that is what 
we have seen here. Other things take advantage of it.
    The U.S. Commission on Religious Freedom is an independent 
bipartisan watchdog that does an amazing job in pointing out 
what is going on with the State of religious freedom in country 
X, Y, and Z, including Nigeria, and then making 
recommendations. We should hear their recommendations and 
listen to them.
    In terms of telling the Administration, we are admonishing 
the Administration to do this. We have every right, I would say 
every duty, knowing that Christians and Muslims are being 
slaughtered to--and put into prison for blasphemy, to do just 
that.
    I visited churches that were fire bombed in Jos, Nigeria 
along with Archbishop Kaigama some years ago. I met with the 
Islamic leaders. They were amazing people. They get along. They 
are friends, like so many other moderate Muslims in Nigeria 
with the bishops and the clergy that are here today and others. 
It is this radicalized group, whether it be ISIS-West Africa, 
whether it be Boko Haram, or the Fulani. The Fulani have now 
become a major--in the Middle Belt area a major, major killer 
of Christians.
    Two to three hundred--three hundred is probably the best 
estimate murdered on Christmas Eve and then who died 
thereafter. And we are not outraged? I am. And I am tired of us 
saying oh, let's just allow normal diplomacy to take its 
course. The president of Nigeria will not do--if he is told no 
CPC--and I would say to the Secretary of State, when he went to 
Abuja--because they had CPC designation, they being Nigeria--
when he went there he shocked everyone when he just 
unilaterally said you do not have it anymore.
    The church leaders issued strong statements of protest, as 
did I, as did you, sir, and so many others. So we need to be 
very clear. We really want to make a difference here. Special 
envoys I do believe--you do not want 1,000 of them. YOU want 
ones that are really, really focused. This could help bring 
religious freedom to a better place and to stop the killing 
fields as Genocide Watch has talked about in Nigeria. I yield 
back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
    Any other members seek recognition?
    Mr. Connolly?
    Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I have a question for my friend from New Jersey. I 
certainly have always admired his passion and I hear his 
outrage. So does that outrage extend to the rights of gay and 
lesbian individuals in the country we are talking about?
    Mr. Smith. In Nigeria, we are talking about people being 
slaughtered by at least three or more radical Islamist 
organizations. We are talking about Muslims being put into 
prison.
    We are dealing with those issues here right now. I do not 
believe in violence against anyone, but this resolution is 
about the violence that is being visited upon innocent people 
in Nigeria.
    Mr. Connolly. Well, if I could further ask. There have been 
statements made by religious leaders, including in the 
Christian community, who have called for the death penalty for 
people----
    Mr. Smith. I am not for it.
    Mr. Connolly. What is that?
    Mr. Smith. I am not for it, the death penalty. I am not for 
the death penalty in this country.
    Mr. Connolly. Right, you are a consistent Catholic.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you.
    Mr. Connolly. However, I just want to make the point that 
if we are--we have to be consistent. If we are concerned about 
the violation of the human rights and the right of human 
autonomy and freedom, and we should be, that has to be 
consistent. It cannot simply be one group but not another.
    And I thank my friend, and I hope his outrage will extend 
to other groups that need our consideration and protection.
    I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. Gentleman yields. Any other members seek 
recognition? Mr. Perry is recognized.
    Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I am considering the Self Amendment, because I do not 
think--look, I think it is the State Department's job to do 
this work.
    And while I applaud my friend from New Jersey on his 
efforts here to draw attention to what is happening in Nigeria, 
rightly so, the fact of the matter is is what has been unsaid 
around here is, what is being unsaid in this markup, is the 
fact that my friends on the other side of the aisle aren't 
acknowledging the Christian slaughter that is happening in 
Nigeria.
    And trying to water it down and elevate other things that 
have nothing to do with religious freedom. And trying to bring 
them into this conversation. This is about religious freedom. 
That is what the markup, that is what the bill is about.
    Now, we might disagree. I might disagree on whether we need 
a special envoy, because I do not want to pay for one because 
the State Department should be doing this job.
    But the fact remains that the conversation is being had 
because this Administration is turning its back on Christians 
all around the globe, particularly in Nigeria. And quite 
honestly, in this country as well, in this country as well.
    But that is not the conversation we are having today. The 
State Department omitted Nigeria from the CPC list in 2021 and 
2022. And then the U.S. Commission on International Religious 
Freedom, as the gentleman from New Jersey pointed out, 
recommended the State Department to redesignate Nigeria as a 
CPC, finding the delist decision to be inexplicable. It could 
not explain it.
    Well, let me explain it to you, ladies and gentlemen. My 
friends on the other side of the aisle are at war with 
Christianity. They are at war with it, whether it happens in 
this country or Nigeria. But they just do not want to say it.
    And so they are going to be opposed to the bill for 
numerous different reasons because it does not support this 
group's right or that group's right that have absolutely 
nothing to do with religious freedom. And they are going to try 
to muddy the water and make you believe that they actually care 
about this issue when they absolutely do not.
    So I am going to ruminate on my decision about Mr. Self's 
amendment because I do not think that we need a special envoy. 
What we need, what this country should have, what Nigeria 
should have, what the world should have is a United States of 
America and an Administration that stands up for religious 
freedom around the globe, including Christianity. That is what 
is needed.
    Now, this is a band-aid, this is a--this is the attempt 
that we can make because none of us here are president. But 
this does draw attention, rightly so, to the issue at hand, 
which I have enumerated for you uncomfortably here today. But 
it has to be said, somebody has to say it. And that is what is 
really happening here.
    And so you must also know that Christians in Nigeria are 
7.6 times more likely to be targeted and killed.
    Mr. Connolly. Would my friend yield?
    Mr. Perry. Negative, Mr. Connolly, my good friend from 
Virginia. I think I have heard enough from you on this issue.
    Six times more likely to----
    Mr. Connolly. How dare you.
    Mr. Perry. Be abducted than Muslims.
    Mr. Connolly. You just smeared people on this side of the 
aisle, and I at least----
    Mr. Perry. Mr. Connolly, I have the microphone.
    Mr. Connolly. Yes, and you are smearing, you are smearing 
with it.
    Mr. Perry. Thank you, sir, thank you, sir. Thank you.
    Chairman McCaul. Yes, the time is----
    Mr. Perry. Well, if the time is expired.
    Chairman McCaul. It is with you.
    Mr. Perry. So I just want to continue the point here, that 
this bill, that this legislation seeks to highlight the problem 
that exists about religious freedom, and Christianity in 
particular.
    Don't allow yourselves to be swayed and to be duped by the 
muddying of the waters and by the obfuscation of some, maybe 
not in the room, maybe in the room. Maybe that will help. Who 
seek to dupe everybody here about what is really, what is 
truly, what is absolutely happening.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance.
    Chairman McCaul. Gentleman yields. Do any other members 
seek recognition? Ms. Wild is recognized.
    Ms. Wild. Thank you. I yield my time to Mr. Connolly.
    Mr. Connolly. I thank my friend. And I am sorry my other 
friend from Pennsylvania would not yield time.
    When you make a charge that a group of colleagues do not 
care about atrocities against Christians, I think you should 
take great care. And I consider that a smear.
    My colleague may not know. This Democrat studied for the 
Roman Catholic priesthood. I was in the seminary for 6 years. 
My wife was a former Roman Catholic nun. We grew up in the 
social justice doctrine of the Catholic Church. We were imbued 
with concern for Christian values that could have universality.
    All of my life has been imbued and infused by those values 
when I was a young man, and my wife the same. And I take great 
exception to anybody who would actually question the motivation 
and in fact judge it.
    And I would have made this point had my friend yielded, but 
I thank Ms. Wild for allowing me to make that point.
    And I hope as we proceed we will take more care about 
personally impugning the motives of colleagues on this 
committee. We can disagree without having our motivation 
questioned.
    And that is a pretty profound and powerful dynamic with 
this Member of Congress, given my background and my history and 
my commitment, and I am not alone.
    I thank Susan, Ms. Wild, for yielding, and yield back to 
her.
    Chairman McCaul. Gentleman yields. Any member seek 
recognition?
    Mrs. Radewagen. Mr. Chairman, I seek recognition. I would 
like to yield my time----
    Chairman McCaul. Mrs. Radewagen is recognized.
    Mrs. Radewagen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to 
yield my time to Mr. Smith.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you. I will take the full time, and I 
thank my good friend for yielding.
    I just want to remind my colleagues that special envoys and 
special representatives have made a huge difference all over 
the globe. I am not for, you know, just saying, oh, do it for 
this, do it for that. There is a compelling need for such a 
special envoy.
    We would not have had an agreement on Northern Ireland, and 
I worked very hard on that, chaired 16 hearings, I went there 
many times to Belfast, had it not been for the special envoy. 
And that was during the Clinton Administration. That cobbled 
together, got the very, very warring factions together in 
Northern Ireland to--that ended up with the peace agreement.
    And so special envoys can play a serious and I think an 
outsized, positive role, especially in this case when they are 
focused on religious freedom.
    We have an ambassador-at-large for religious freedom. He is 
a very good man, Hussain, I meet with him all the time. He is 
very--he was at our hearing too, along with the U.S. Commission 
on Religious Freedom. And he is very sympathetic to everything 
we are saying about Nigeria.
    He did not say put CPC on. If he did, he would be fired. 
But the independent commission, though, the Religious Freedom 
Commission, has no such concerns about that.
    They are independent, they are bipartisan, picked by the 
House and Senate leadership as to who serves on that. And they 
are unequivocal in their support for CPC for Nigeria. 
Unequivocal that there needs to be a special envoy to really 
work this issue.
    And again to my good friend Mr. Meeks, not having an 
ambassador in Abuja, a U.S. Ambassador, really makes it so that 
we need it more than ever, you know, to really get that focus 
24/7, 7 days a week working with all these factions.
    You know, I am the one who wrote the law in 2016 that 
finally put entities of particular concern, like Boko Haram, on 
that list. But the government is responsible. The buck stops 
there, and they are not doing what they could be doing, and 
their indifference is numbing.
    And so I do hope, I do hope that this amendment would be 
rejected. I do think we need a special envoy. Again, look at 
Northern Ireland, look at all these other issues. Look at South 
Sudan and Sudan.
    Yes, it is acting up again. There are problems there once 
again. But the only reason we get peace agreements or cessation 
of hostilities and murder and terrorism to some degree, they 
are a major reason why that does happen.
    So I thank my good friend for yielding and yield.
    Chairman McCaul. Gentleman yields. Any other members seek 
recognition? Mr. Moran is recognized.
    Mr. Moran. Mr. Chairman, I seek recognition and yield my 
time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Perry.
    Mr. Perry. I thank the gentleman for yielding the time. And 
I want to address my good friend from Virginia.
    My intent is not to, and was not to, impugn your character. 
But I would say this: the Secretary of State, the current 
Secretary of State, under the Biden Administration, Stated in 
his first few months that this Administration does not plan to 
prioritize religious freedom. It does not plan to prioritize 
religious freedom.
    And you can say anything you want to, ladies and gentlemen. 
Talk is cheap, as we say back at where I live. There was 
something else that follows, I will leave that out. But talk is 
cheap. It is your actions that matter. It is your actions.
    And for goodness sake, this Administration has found a way, 
has seen fit to have a special envoy for climate change, for 
climate change.
    Now, you would think, like I said, I got a problem with all 
these special envoys. Just let the State Department do what it 
is supposed to do. Let the Administration lead where it is 
supposed to lead.
    And that is OK. They have told us not by their words but by 
their actions what is important to them and what is not 
important to them. That is all I am doing, is pointing that 
out. I do not mean to offend anybody. But if you are offended 
by the facts, then be offended. Then be offended, I think.
    So if we can have a special envoy for climate change, well, 
again, I think that speaks volumes in terms of what we do not 
have for religious freedom.
    And I would just say this: where actions speak louder than 
words, it is not my actions. But just yesterday, the President 
of the United States issued a veto threat on support for the 
funding package that he advocated for for the Nation of Israel.
    Now, you can say whatever you want to. You can say, well, I 
support Israel. But in this instance, it seems to me your 
actions speak very loudly. And that is just another example.
    Again, my intent is not to offend. My intent is to give you 
the facts. And if they offend you, well, then I guess you 
should be offended.
    Religious freedom is an issue in Nigeria. It is an issue. 
Now, maybe climate change is too. Maybe it is. But I guarantee 
you, religious freedom is an issue. These folks traveled from 
Nigeria to be here to let us know that, to let us know that. 
And we on this side hear you loud and clear.
    With that, I yield the balance back to the gentleman, Mr. 
Moran.
    Mr. Moran. Thank you, Mr. Perry. And I yield to the 
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Self.
    Mr. Self. I will point out that a special envoy, the actual 
text of the bill says ``Should promptly appoint a person of 
recognized distinction in the fields of religious freedom and 
human rights as the special envoy.''
    We do not even have an ambassador in Nigeria. And this does 
not say ``shall,'' it said ``should'' promptly appoint. I have 
absolutely no confidence that even should this bill pass, that 
the President will appoint a special envoy. Hence, I do not 
think that we ought to be deluding ourselves.
    We need to disabuse ourselves of the idea that this 
President will do this. And I yield back.
    Mr. Moran. Thank you, Mr. Self.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman McCaul. Gentleman yields. Any other member seek 
recognition?
    There being no further discussion, the question now occurs 
on the amendment offered by Representative Self, No. 69, to the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. The 
amendment is not agreed to.
    Mr. Moran. Mr. Chairman, I request the yeas and nays.
    Chairman McCaul. A roll call vote has been requested. 
Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote will 
be postponed.
    There being no further amendments, further proceeding on 
this bill is postponed.
    Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R. 7159, the Pacific 
Partnership Act.
    [The Bill H.R. 7159 follows:]

                               H.R. 7159

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Chairman McCaul. The bill was circulated in advance. The 
clerk shall designate the bill.
    The Clerk. H.R. 7159, to bolster United States engagement 
with the Pacific Islands Region and for other purposes.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of 
Representatives----
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection, the first reading is 
dispensed with. The bill is considered read and open to 
amendment at any point.
    Is there any discussion on the bill?
    Mrs. Radewagen. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak in 
support of this bill.
    Chairman McCaul. Ms. Radewagen is recognized.
    Mrs. Radewagen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    This bill that would greatly increase U.S. engagement in 
the Pacific Islands. The U.S. is a Pacific Island nation. To 
emphasize this, I am going to give my brief statement in 
Samoan.
    [Speaking foreign language.]
    Mrs. Radewagen. My home is a Pacific island. We are 
increasingly under threat, especially from China. China is 
increasingly investing in the Pacific Islands, building 
infrastructure projects in just 70 miles from my home in 
independent Samoa.
    Now is the time to act. We have to show an American 
commitment to the Pacific. It codifies an American strategy for 
the Pacific Islands and codifies the partners in the Blue 
Pacific Initiative to de-conflict aid to the region and 
encourage cooperation.
    I want to thank Representative Case for his leadership on 
this bill and for all the members who have showed their support 
for the Pacific Islands. Thank you, and God bless.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman McCaul. Gentlelady yields back.
    Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    United States is an integral part of the Pacific Island 
region, and we have a responsibility to remain engaged and to 
strengthen the partnerships that have underpinned the Pacific's 
security and prosperity for decades.
    The Biden Administration has strengthened our diplomatic 
footprint in the Pacific Islands and participated in high level 
engagement with the Pacific Islands, both on a bilateral basis 
and multilaterally.
    Though the Pacific Island--through the Pacific Island 
forum, we have concluded negotiations on amended compacts of 
free association, which will secure our unique relationship 
with the Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, and the 
Republic of the Marshall Islands for the next 20 years.
    I have attended some of those forums, and I have seen the 
significance and the importance and the impact that the United 
States has on our diplomatic footprint in and on the Pacific 
Islands.
    The measure before us today, what it does, it strengthens 
our engagement with the Pacific Islands by requiring future 
Administrations to develop and update a strategy for U.S. 
engagement in the region.
    And I should say, when I participated in some, they 
welcomed the presence of the United States of America and said 
they wanted us to be an integral and continue to be an integral 
part.
    And so therefore I strongly support this measure that was 
put forward by my good friend Representative Case. And I urge 
all of my colleagues to do the same.
    And I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. Any further 
discussion on the bill? There being no further discussion for 
the bill, the committee will move to consideration of 
amendments.
    Does any member wish to offer an amendment? There being no 
amendments, I move that the committee report H.R. 7159 to the 
House with a favorable recommendation.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the 
motion is agreed to.
    Without objection, the motion will be considered as laid on 
the table. Staff is authorized to make any technical and 
conforming changes.
    Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.Res. 965, calling for 
the immediate release of Ryan Corbett, a United States citizen 
who was wrongfully detained by the Taliban on August 10, 2022, 
and condemning the wrongful detention of Americans by the 
Taliban.
    [The text of H.Res. 965 follows:]

                              H. RES. 965

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Chairman McCaul. The resolution was circulated in advance, 
and the clerk shall designate the resolution.
    The Clerk. H.Res. 965, calling for the immediate release of 
Ryan Corbett, a United States citizen who was wrongfully 
detained by the Taliban on August----
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection, the first reading is 
dispensed with. The resolution is considered read and open to 
amendment at any point.
    I now recognize myself in support of this resolution.
    Ryan Corbett is a loving husband and father who has 
dedicated his life to helping others. But instead of being home 
with his family right now, he is languishing away in a Taliban 
prison.
    His wife Anna testified before this very committee last 
November about Ryan's imprisonment. His wonderful children, 
Ketsia, Miriam, and Caleb.
    What he is not is a criminal. Yet in August 2022, the 
Taliban arrested Ryan without cause, and he has been held as 
prisoner for over 17 months.
    The Taliban has refused to allow Ryan the voice to advocate 
for himself. He remains detained in a nine by nine foot cell 
and is allowed outside once per month for just a few minutes. 
He is fed only scraps to eat. And he has faced solitary 
confinement for weeks on end.
    Ryan is facing serious medical conditions, experiencing 
seizures, and often fainting. I want to assure Ryan's family, 
friends, and coworkers who are watching this that we will 
continue our fight every day until we bring him home.
    As a father of five children myself, I cannot begin to 
imagine the pain and suffering Ryan's family is feeling right 
now. Unfortunately, Ryan's family is not the only one suffering 
through this horrific ordeal. There are several Americans 
currently being held hostage by the Taliban.
    This Congress and all Americans stand with Ryan. And that 
is why I am proud to support this bipartisan resolution that 
condemns the Taliban regime for its illegal imprisonment of 
Ryan and demands his immediate release.
    This will send a strong message to the Taliban that 
America, both Republicans and Democrats alike, will not 
tolerate illegitimate detention of American citizens. Our 
message is clear: Congress will not rest until Ryan and every 
American citizen wrongfully detained is brought home.
    With that, I yield back. Is there any discussion on the 
resolution? Mr. Meeks is recognized.
    Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And first I want to thank Representative Tenney for her 
work on this resolution to highlight the wrongful detention of 
my fellow New Yorker, Ryan Corbett, who the Taliban detained in 
the summer of 2022.
    Ryan and his family made Kabul home for more than a decade. 
And in 2017, he founded a business consultancy focused on 
strengthening Afghanistan's private sector.
    When Anna Corbett spoke in front of our committee this past 
November, she shared the harrowing experiences she and her 
family have been through, some of the insights she gained into 
Ryan's conditions in the Taliban prison, and pleaded with her 
government to continue to do all it can to bring him home.
    And I know that the Biden Administration has made Ryan's 
case a priority at the highest levels, particularly Special 
Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs, Roger Carstens, and 
Special Representative for Afghanistan, Tom West.
    I thank them for their focus on bringing American citizens 
wrongfully detained abroad home and pledge to continue to work 
with them, to work with also Representative Tenney and any 
others to bring Ryan home also.
    Finally, I want to also thank our Qatari partners, who 
serve both as our protecting power in Afghanistan and who have 
been key partners in helping to secure the release of American 
citizens in Afghanistan.
    And while we are grateful for the Qatari's ability to 
conduct occasional health and safety visits to Mr. Ryan, it is 
my hope that the Taliban will release Mr. Ryan and allow him to 
safely return home to his family.
    So I ask all of my colleagues, let's all join hands in 
supporting this very important measure. And I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. Is there any further 
discussion on the resolution?
    There being no further discussion on the resolution, the 
committee will move to consideration of amendments. Does any 
member wish to offer an amendment?
    There being no further, or no amendments, I move that the 
committee report H.Res. 965 to the House with a favorable 
recommendation.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the 
motion is agreed to.
    Without objection, the motion will be considered as laid on 
the table. The staff is authorized to make any technical and 
conforming changes.
    Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R. 6046, Standing 
Against Houthi Aggression Act.
    [The Bill H.R. 6046 follows:]

                               H.R. 6046

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Chairman McCaul. The bill was circulated in advance, and 
the clerk shall designate the bill.
    The Clerk. H.R. 6046, to designate Ansarallah as a foreign 
terrorist organization and impose certain sanctions on 
Ansarallah and other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and 
the House of Representatives of the United States----
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection, first reading is 
dispensed with. The bill is considered read and open to 
amendment at any point.
    Without objection, the McCaul Amendment in the nature of a 
substitute is circulated to members in advance and shall be 
considered as read and will be treated as original text for 
purposes of amendment.
    [The Amendment offered by Mr. McCaul follows:]

  AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE TO H.R. 6046 OFFERED BY MR. 
                                 MCCAUL

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Chairman McCaul. I now recognize myself for an opening 
statement.
    Since October 7, the Houthis have launched over 40 attacks 
on U.S. warships and commercial ships in the Red Sea. These 
attacks have threatened a wide array of regional security and 
international shipping interests.
    Crews have been taken hostage, ships have faced near 
misses, and our American sailors have been working overtime to 
protect and defend America's interest in the Red Sea.
    International shipping companies have been forced to 
reroute their ships, disrupting the global supply chain and 
driving up shipping costs by 450 percent. This is negatively 
impacting supply chains and the global economy.
    For almost 10 years, the Houthis have also waged a 
devastating civil war in Yemen, while also attacking our 
partners in the Middle East and destabilizing the region. Iran 
is providing the Houthis an arsenal of weapons. And while Iran 
was building a Houthi proxy army, this Administration sat idly 
by pursuing a policy of appeasement.
    With Iran's help, the Houthis are now able to manufacture 
their own weapons, building up lethal stockpiles and arming 
non-State actors who seek to spread terror across the globe. 
Despite Iran and its proxies building this war machine, in 
2021, the Biden Administration removed the Houthis' designation 
as a foreign terrorist organization, or FTO.
    This bill will fix that deadly mistake. With this 
designation, it is unlawful for any person in the U.S. or 
subject to U.S. jurisdiction to knowingly provide material or 
resources to the Houthis. Houthi representatives and members 
are no longer admissible to the United States.
    And U.S. financial institutions must take control of known 
Houthi funds within its possession and report them to the U.S. 
Department of Treasury.
    As a former Federal prosecutor, I know the importance of 
addressing terrorist financing and giving law enforcement the 
tools they need to do it. Despite the Administration's recent 
announcement to redesignate the Houthis as a specially 
designated--designation global terrorist, the Biden 
Administration refused to use the strongest tool at its 
disposal, an FTO designation.
    After a recent attack by Iranian proxies that killed three 
U.S. servicemembers, it is deeply concerning that this 
Administration still refuses to utilize every tool in its 
arsenal to deter Iran's proxies, such as the Houthis.
    I applaud Representative Clyde from Georgia for authorizing 
this important piece of legislation. And I also wanted to thank 
Chairman Jordan for allowing this measure to be marked up so 
quickly so we can use every tool in our toolbox to help stop 
Houthi aggression.
    We need to do everything we can to protect our 
servicemembers, combat Houthi aggression in the Red Sea, and 
defend our interests. And that starts with redesignating the 
Houthis as an FTO.
    With that, I yield back. Is there any discussion on the 
bill?
    Mr. Meeks is recognized.
    Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I, like many of my colleagues, I believe all of us, condemn 
the violent Houthi militant movements provocative and 
unwarranted rocket and missile attacks against the United 
States Navy personnel in the Red Sea, commercial shipping, as 
well as against Israel earlier this year.
    In response to these actions, the Administration placed 
additional sanctions on the Houthis, a move I strongly support. 
In light of these recent sanctions and the continued 
humanitarian crisis faced by millions of innocent Yemenis, I 
must oppose the amendment.
    The Houthis seized control of Yemen's capital in 2014 and 
fought a prolonged war against a Saudi-led military coalition 
that resulted in significant civilian death and destruction of 
much of Yemen's infrastructure. And as a result of this war, 
millions of Yemeni civilians suffer persistent food scarcity. 
And with a staggering 17.6 million people expected to face 
acute food insecurity in 2024, they suffer from preventable 
diseases, including cholera, and face extreme economic 
hardship.
    Though a continuous truce between Houthi militants and the 
Saudi military remains in place, Yemeni civilians have 
experienced little respite from years of hardship, and remain 
dependent on outside humanitarian aid for even the most basic 
necessities to survive. Amidst all of this, Houthi militants 
have cynically sought to exploit the current moment to launch 
wave after wave of drone attacks on commercial ships and U.S. 
naval vessels, and long-range missiles at Israel. But in 
response, the Biden Administration has conducted numerous air 
strikes against Houthi positions in Yemen, announced sanctions 
with designations of Houthi leaders and facilitators, and 
designated the Houthis as a Specially Designated Global 
Terrorist group.
    This measure further sanctions those facilitations and 
support networks coordinated by Iran which help the Houthi 
militants arm and equip.
    The bill forces the Administration to designate the Houthis 
a Foreign Terrorist Organization, or an FTO, a designation that 
risks jeopardizing the very lifesaving assistance Yemeni 
civilians are dependent on for their survival.
    As a consequence of the sweeping legal implications of an 
FTO designation, many commercial shippers and humanitarian 
organizations would be unwilling to do any business in Yemen, 
given their vulnerability to severe criminal liability. This 
would trigger a significant dropoff in the imports on which 
Yemen depends for nearly all of its basic goods and 
humanitarian support.
    While some may point to existing general licenses, the 
additional legal implications of an FTO designation render the 
general licenses moot without any new statutory organizations 
or exemptions.
    Finally, the Administration has made clear they oppose this 
bill, given these concerns and the detrimental impact the 
designations would have on millions of Yemeni civilians. While 
there is no disagreement about the reprehensible nature of 
Houthi violence, a mandatory FTO designation will trigger a 
significant dropoff in aid imports that the Yemeni people are 
relying upon for their survival.
    Because of this, a broad coalition of NGO's and 
humanitarian organizations publicly oppose such an FTO 
designation without humanitarian provisos.
    In light of these concerns, I must oppose this bill and I 
encourage other members to do so as well.
    And I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
    Any further discussion on the bill?
    Mr. Perry is recognized.
    Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I almost cannot imagine that we are, that we are having 
this conversation in this committee from the standpoint that 
there really shouldn't be any argument or dispute whether the 
Houthis should, should be designated a Foreign Terrorist 
Organization.
    And I remind my colleagues that it was the Administration 
in 2021 that removed the Houthis from the Foreign Terrorist 
Organization designation. And that, like other things, is 
inexplicable from the sense that you would think, well, is this 
good for America? Is this good for America's interests? Why? 
Why would this happen? Why would anybody do this?
    Well, let's just go through what Iran is. And the Houthis 
are just a proxy for Iran, like many other proxies for Iran. 
Iran's got proxies in Gaza, they have got proxies in Lebanon, 
they have got proxies in Syria, Iran, the whole neighborhood, 
doing Iran's bidding.
    But I will tell you what appears to me, and I think what 
appears to much of the country is that this Administration, the 
Biden Administration in particular, is so desperate for a 
nuclear deal with Iran that they are going to be on both sides 
of this war. And they are on both sides of this war. Let there 
be no doubt in your mind. And if you cannot think about it, 
just follow the facts yourself.
    I mean, being on both sides of the war goes like this:
    We are going to approve aid to some of our allies in the 
Middle East to fight the Iranian proxies because they need the 
aid. They need the military assistance, they need the 
munitions, they need to defend themselves.
    At the same time, at the very same time we are going to 
allow Iran to receive billions, maybe hundreds of billions of 
dollars either directly from the United States or from sanction 
money around the globe that has been unavailable to them 
because of their malign activities.
    And what do you think they do with it? You think they buy 
ambulances, and construct schools and hospitals for all the 
wanting people in the countries that they have proxies, like 
Iraq, or like Syria? No, they do not do that.
    Here's what they do, they supply missiles to Hezbollah. 
They supply all kinds of armament to Hamas. And they do 
everything they can to kill the Great Satan and the people that 
represent the Great Satan, the poor servicemembers caught in 
the middle of being on both sides of the war. And three of them 
just lost their lives because we are on both sides of the war.
    That is what is happening here, Ladies and Gentlemen. They 
do not want to designate the Houthis as a Foreign Terrorist 
Organization because it might offend the sensibilities of Iran, 
the greatest terrorist super State on the planet. And they 
would. And they will for the sake of the profits of those who 
would make a lot of money on the JCPOA or some other version of 
it, reinvited, reenvisioned, reincarnated. They would sacrifice 
the safety and the security of all the world, and in particular 
Israel, on the doorstep of Iran. But with ballistic missile 
capabilities, the United States of America, too, within reach, 
within reach of nuclear holocaust.
    That is what is happening right now. And so it is important 
that the United States of America pick a side. Pick a side. We 
understand that it is diplomatically difficult. Iran exists. 
The Mullahs in Iran, they are there. The Ayatollah, he is 
there. Not at the will of the Iranian people. He leads by fear. 
He leads by death, and torture, and torment.
    But every time the Iranian people speak up and say, well, 
we would like to be unburdening ourself from this, this 
Administration and one previous to the last one abandoned those 
folks. You know why? Because they want that nuclear agreement 
because it is worth billions and billions of dollars. And they 
had wed themselves to it. And they have been coopted by the 
Iranian, the Ayatollah's, Ayatollah's Iranian lobby in the 
United States of America, been coopted. And so we all, all 
sacrifice.
    Well, we must all not sacrifice. It is time now for 
Americans and people on this committee to stand up and say we 
are not going to stand with the Houthis, the terrorists, the 
proxy of Iran, stopping shipping, and bombing, bombing 
Americans and shipping interests in the region. We are not 
going to stand with them. We are going to designate them a 
Foreign Terrorist Organization because that is what they are. 
And they should be sanctioned as such.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
    Any further discussion on the bill.
    Ms. Wild.
    Ms. Wild. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I rise in opposition to H.R. 6046. The people of Yemen have 
suffered extraordinary devastation since the beginning of the 
war waged by the Saudi-led coalition: unprecedented levels of 
hunger caused by an inhumane blockade on fuel and other 
necessities of life, a cholera outbreak, hundreds of thousands 
of deaths. This year alone 17.6 million people across Yemen are 
expected to face acute food insecurity, and 4.5 million 
children are unable to attend school.
    We must deal with the attacks on ships in the Red Sea but 
we need to do so in a way that does not exacerbate the already 
staggering levels of suffering that the people of Yemen, 
including disproportionate numbers of children, are 
experiencing.
    This legislation would criminalize the taxes, registration 
fees, and customs duties that humanitarian organizations 
operating in Houthi-controlled areas are required to pay. It 
would have the practical effect of freezing aid delivery, and 
would turn the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Yemen into a 
catastrophe.
    This is why we are seeing an enormous coalition of 
humanitarian organizations speaking out against this bill. In 
response to the attacks, I support the Administration's 
decision to designate the Houthis as a specifically designated 
global terrorist organization with carve-outs for critical 
humanitarian and economic aid. And I support the fact that the 
Administration has been very explicit in its message to the 
Houthis. Our objective is de-escalation and the cessation of 
these attacks, not escalation and punitive measures against 
Yemeni civilians.
    We should continue following this course. I urge my 
colleagues to vote to protect humanitarian aid for the people 
of Yemen by opposing H.R. 6046.
    And with that, I yield back.
    Mr. Moran [presiding]. The gentlelady yields back.
    Are there any further members that would like to speak on 
this issue?
    The gentleman from Florida Mr. Mast is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Mast. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Let's lay out very literally this line in the sand that is 
at stake right now for the American people. And it is very 
literally a Republican/Democrat line as far as I am seeing it. 
Republican/Democrat because this is about redesignating the 
Houthis as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, not designating 
them a watered-down version of the Foreign Terrorist 
Organization designation like what the Biden Administration did 
after they took them off the Foreign Terrorist Organization 
list.
    So, let's, you know, let's just outline this again.
    President Trump puts them on the FTO list. Why? Because he 
does not want Americans that wake up on a daily basis and go to 
work and say, hey, let's take your tax dollars from America and 
let's put them through the State Department and send them over 
to Yemen into a country that wants to attack and destroy 
Americans and our interests. He did that.
    And then President Biden came in and he said, I am going to 
take them off the FTO list that President Trump put them on. 
And in the time since President Biden took them off the list, 
Yemen has received somewhere between $3 to $3.5 billion of the 
moneys of the American people.
    And now that these Houthis, these Yemenis are attacking 
America, and our interests, and our ships and that of our 
allies President Biden is saying, oh, crap, what a mistake I 
made to do that. But I do not want to have egg on my face, so 
do not let me go back there and do exactly what President Trump 
already did, which is make them a Foreign Terrorist 
Organization. Let me go out there and do something watered 
down, and know that the party will support it, and designated 
them something less than a Foreign Terrorist Organization.
    Why? And it was laid out very specifically here by my 
Democrat colleagues one after another after another. And I 
suspect we will hear more of them laid out, because they want 
to continue to send American moneys to the very country and 
people that are attacking Americans, our interests, our ships, 
that of our allies, those things coming through the Suez Canal, 
you name it. Go back to this Biden policy of paying those that 
are attacking America instead of the Trump policy that says, 
no, we are not going to be a part of that whatsoever.
    It is moronic. And it is, in my opinion, the exact line in 
the sand defining issue between Republicans and Democrats as 
you could ever pick one because from what I have heard, very 
specific differences on the directions that both sides want. 
One sending American dollars to the Yemenis, one not. And one 
designating them a Foreign Terrorist Organization, one not.
    So, that's the issue that we have going on here. The 
American people are going to see this play out in vote in this 
committee, and probably even see this play out in vote on the 
floor of the House of Representatives. And it will let you know 
exactly the differences that exist here in the House.
    And in that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my 
time.
    Mr. Moran. The gentleman yields back.
    Is there any further discussion?
    The gentlelady from California Ms. Jacobs is recognized for 
5 minutes.
    Ms. Jacobs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I oppose H.R. 6046, the Standing Against Houthi Aggression 
Act. Houthi attacks in the Red Sea should be condemned and 
require a response, but we cannot forget the innocent lives 
impacted by the decisions made in this chamber. The FTO 
designation is not just about Houthi action. It has limited 
actual benefits and significant humanitarian drawbacks.
    Yemen has a population of over 18 million people, half of 
them children in desperate need of humanitarian assistance. 
These children are not the ones sending these missiles.
    Yemen also relies on imports for 85 percent of its food, 
fuel supplies, and almost all medical supplies.
    Yemen is already experiencing some of the highest 
malnutrition rates already recorded.
    The United States already designated the Ansarallah as a 
Specially Designated Global Terrorist group, which will already 
impede some humanitarian assistance to the region. And an FTO 
designation would be even more devastating for the country as 
17.6 million people face acute food insecurity this year, and 
4.5 million people remain displaced.
    It would effectively criminalize certain transactions 
necessary to lifesaving humanitarian aid and exacerbate the 
chilling effects on commercial imports, remittances, and 
financial services.
    Even worse, this legislation does not even take these 
effects into account and includes no, none, no humanitarian 
exemptions or waivers.
    I encourage this chamber to think long and hard about the 
repercussions of such designations. And if my colleague wants 
to say that this is a defining line between Republicans and 
Democrats, we will take it, because we understand that 
addressing humanitarian needs around the world, we understand 
that addressing root causes of conflict, is actually what makes 
Americans safer, not bombast and FTO designations.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Moran. The gentlelady yields back.
    Is there any further discussion.
    The gentleman from Georgia Mr. McCormick is recognized for 
5 minutes.
    Mr. McCormick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I am sure I have heard the NGO's oppose the FTO designation 
to the Houthis. The problem is that, just like I see the NGO's 
doing nefarious things in our own nation when it comes to 
illegal immigration, they may have good intent but the results 
often are consequential to the harmful effect to the United 
States.
    In February 2021, the Biden Administration removed the 
Houthis' Foreign Terrorist Organization designation, as well as 
their specifically designated global terrorist group 
designation which the Trump Administration put in place. I have 
no idea why they did that to begin with.
    At the time, Secretary Blinken cited humanitarian concerns 
as the reason for these decisions, saying the humanitarian aid 
could not reach Yemeni people if the designator remained in 
place. But I happen to know a lot of people care about others 
that are in harm's way, and that is why we have non-
governmental agencies to do this sort of work.
    Since October 7th we have seen the consequences of going 
soft on terrorists in the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea. And the 
Houthis have launched attack after attack on commercial 
shipping and the United States Navy. These attacks have 
disrupted global supply chains, and two Navy SEALS recently 
lost their lives while interdicting weapons shipments 
designated to the Houthis. The Houthis, not the Yemenis by the 
way.
    This is a consistent pattern for the Biden Administration. 
Whether the border with the cartels, in Gaza with Hamas, with 
UNRWA, or in Yemen with the Houthis, this Administration 
constantly uses short-term humanitarian concerns to justify 
decisions that in the long term further deteriorate 
humanitarian conditions and undermine United States nation 
security.
    This can even be seen in the manner that the Biden 
Administration chooses to support Ukraine. They are more 
interested in a feel good solution than in winning a war 
against evil.
    The State Department recently announced their redesignation 
of the Houthis as a specifically designated global terrorist 
group. But there is no logical reason to not have the Houthis 
designated as an FTO. It begs the question, what is this 
Administration afraid of?
    It is not about humanitarian aid. We can get it to them 
through other means. This is an excuse to be soft on Iran.
    Are they afraid of being tough on Iran's regime? Are they 
trying to keep the door open for further disastrous Iranian 
deals?
    H.R. 6046 would require the State Department to designate 
the Houthis as an FTO for the President to impose property and 
visa-blocking sanctions on members or affiliates of the 
Houthis. And there is no other way to do that.
    We must correct the grave missteps of the Biden 
Administration. And that is why I am proud to be an original 
cosponsor of H.R. 6046, and why I am asking my colleagues to 
support this legislation.
    And with that, I yield the remainder of my time.
    Mr. Moran. The gentleman yields back.
    Is there any further discussion?
    The gentleman from Illinois Mr. Schneider is recognized for 
5 minutes.
    Mr. Schneider. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And I must confess, in the context of where we sit today 
where in the Senate a comprehensive package to address, as my 
colleague from Georgia just indicated, America's leadership in 
what is, I agree, a battle against evil. And the fact that my 
Republican colleagues are unwilling to stand up, I am a little 
stunned by some of the things I am hearing.
    But let me start with where we agree.
    I agree that the Houthis are terrorists. There is no 
question about that, that they are evil, that they are 
principally responsible for the mass humanitarian crisis that 
we have seen in Yemen over the years.
    I agree that the Houthis are bankrolled by Iran, they are 
supplied by Iran, they are a wholly owned subsidiary of Iran.
    Houthis are a threat to vital American interests and U.S. 
personnel in the region. No question about that.
    I also think that Iran is a far greater threat to American 
interests and American personnel than the Houthis. Houthis are 
an arm of what is known as the octopus. The head of the octopus 
sits in Tehran.
    But it is not just Tehran. We know that Iran and Tehran are 
supporting, are supplying Russia in the war in Ukraine. 
Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the possibility that Ukraine 
may fall is an existential threat not just to the U.S., but to 
our allies in Europe. If Ukraine falls and Russian troops are 
on the borders of several NATO allies, there is no question we 
will see many more American men and women stationed facing 
those troops.
    What we need to be talking about here, I believe, is how do 
we make sure that Ukraine has the resources, the weapons, and 
the international support to defeat Russia; that Israel has 
weapons, and the resources, and the international support to 
defeat Hamas and the attacks from Yemen from the Houthis. This 
is what we should be talking about. And we need to be doing it 
in a way that is smart, that is considered, that reflects the 
nuances of the challenges that stands up to the gravity of the 
challenges that we face.
    We shouldn't be here just talking about the Houthis, we 
should be talking about a comprehensive strategy.
    We shouldn't be here just debating a bill that is sending 
funds to our ally Israel who desperately needs our support, we 
should be talking about legislation to send support to Ukraine, 
to Israel, to our allies in the Indo-Pacific, and securing our 
border.
    I wish that is what we are talking about but, 
unfortunately, we are not.
    Mr. Moran. Does the gentleman yield back?
    The gentleman yields back.
    Is there any further discussion?
    There being no further discussion of the bill, the 
committee will move to consideration of amendments.
    Does any member wish to offer an amendment?
    The gentlelady from Pennsylvania Ms. Dean is recognized.
    Ms. Dean. Thank you, Chairman, for the recognition.
    I have an amendment at the desk.
    [The Amendment offered by Ms. Dean follows:]

 AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE TO H.R. 6046 
                          OFFERED BY MS. DEAN

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Mr. Moran. The clerk shall distribute the amendment.
    The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to H.R. 6046 offered by Ms. Dean of Pennsylvania. At 
the end of Section 3, add the following new paragraph.
    Mr. Moran. Without further objection--without objection, 
further reading of the amendment is dispensed with.
    The gentlelady is recognized for 5 minutes on the 
amendment.
    Ms. Dean. I thank you, Chairman.
    I offer this amendment, and it echoes the concerns of many 
of my colleagues on this side of the aisle as were begun by the 
ranking member so eloquently.
    But as this amendment is being passed out, there are two 
statements I would like to make in advance.
    I want to call out the incorrect and irresponsible 
statement made by the gentleman from Pennsylvania that the 
current Administration is ``on both sides of this war.'' That 
is incorrect. No matter how many times you say it does not make 
it true. And it is dangerously irresponsible.
    Second, I want to point out the fact that former President 
Trump felt so strongly about designating the Houthis as an FTO 
that he waited until January 19th, 2021, his last day in 
office, to do it. It took him 4 years. But on his way out the 
door he decided he would call them an FTO.
    So, let's know what political things are going on here.
    In terms of my amendment, I join my colleagues in 
condemning the Houthis' malign actions, including the recent 
direct attacks on the United States' ships. We cannot forget 
the dire humanitarian situation in Yemen.
    From CRS, according to the United Nations, 21.6 million 
people in Yemen, two out of every three Yemenis, need 
humanitarian assistance; 4.5 million are internally displaced; 
and more than half the population is food insecure. They are 
hungry.
    Over 90 percent of food is imported, making the food supply 
particularly susceptible to international shocks. U.N. appeals 
remain underfunded. The U.N. humanitarian response plan appeal 
for Yemeni--for Yemen, sought $4.3 billion for 2023. By January 
2024 it was almost 40 percent funded.
    Humanitarian access continues to be impaired by 
bureaucratic impediments and movement restrictions, largely 
Houthi-controlled areas.
    In response to the recent attacks, the Biden Administration 
has already designated the Houthis as a Specially Designated 
Global Terrorist group and imposed sanctions on the Houthi 
leaders. The designation, notably, was accompanied by general 
licenses for the provision of humanitarian aid.
    This bill, as written, provides no exceptions or waivers 
for the provision of humanitarian aid at a time when the area 
is in crisis. Numerous human rights organizations oppose this 
bill because of the concerns over their ability to continue to 
provide humanitarian aid.
    As some of the groups said in a statement, ``The addition 
of a further FTO designation could be devastating. It would 
effectively criminalize certain transactions necessary to 
facilitate lifesaving humanitarian aid, and almost certainly 
exacerbate the chilling effect on commercial imports, 
remittances, and financial services.''
    This amendment, my amendment, would provide necessary 
exceptions to allow further humanitarian aid to the people of 
Yemen. Further, it includes a national interest waiver to allow 
the President to waive these requirements, but requires 
reporting to both House and Senate committees if the national--
if it is in the national interests of the United States.
    The amendment also uses language similar to that which was 
included with bipartisan support in the Senate bill to 
designate the Wagner Group as an FTO.
    I urge my colleagues to consider these grave concerns for 
the citizens, the Yemeni citizens who are hungry, who are 
without. It is not lost on me or anybody else that humanitarian 
assistance is not considered in this bill because take a look 
at what we will be considering later in terms of aid to Israel, 
with an absolute absence of any humanitarian aid to Israel or 
to the people suffering in Gaza.
    So, I ask my colleagues to please consider these concerns, 
reconsider and focus on humanitarian aid while holding Houthis 
accountable for their, for their terrorist behavior.
    And at this time, Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw my 
amendment.
    Mr. Moran. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
    The gentlelady yields back.
    Do any other members wish to offer an amendment?
    There being no further amendments, I move that the 
committee report H.R. 6046, as amended, to the House with a 
favorable recommendation.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those oppose, signify by no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the 
motion is agreed to.
    A roll call vote has been requested.
    Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote 
will be postponed.
    Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R. 7122, Stop Support 
for UNRWA Act of 2024.
    [The Bill H.R. 7122 follows:]

                               H.R. 7122

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Mr. Moran. The bill was circulated in advance.
    The clerk shall designate the bill.
    The Clerk. H.R. 7122, To prohibit aid that will benefit 
Hamas, and for other purposes.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives--
--
    Mr. Moran. Without objection, the first reading is 
dispensed with and the bill is considered read and open to 
amendment at any point.
    Without objection, the Smith amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, circulated to members in advance, shall be 
considered as read, and will be treated as original text for 
purposes of amendment.
    [The Amendment offered by Mr. Smith follows:]

 AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE TO H.R. 7122 
                          OFFERED BY MR. SMITH

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

  AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE TO H.R. 7122 OFFERED BY MR. 
                                 SMITH

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Mr. Moran. Is there any discussion on the bill?
    Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Moran. Mr. Smith is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, 
H.R. 7122, The Stop Support for UNRWA Act, and I want to thank 
Chairman Mast and Chairman Wilson for co-sponsoring. It 
provides that the United States may not make any contributions 
to UNRWA or to the regular budget of the U.N. for the support 
of UNRWA.
    It is a simple, clean bill that will go a long way to solve 
a terrible problem, UNRWA, the most corrupt anti-Semitic terror 
complicit agency perhaps ever, but certainly at the United 
Nations. Last week, the Biden Administration paused funding for 
UNRWA following revelations that UNRWA employees were involved 
in anti-Semitic atrocities on October 7th. And it is a pause.
    We do not know for how long and how much will be held back. 
But to me, this is the point about UNRWA. Yes, that's like a 
flashpoint. But it goes so far, far deeper than that.
    UNRWA is really hate-filled anti-Semitic. That's the tip of 
the iceberg. And it's an anti-Semitic organization from top to 
bottom.
    And that said, and frankly, it's also deplorable. In 
reality, anti-Semitism and terrorist complicity of UNRWA has 
been established beyond a doubt for decades. I would point out 
to my colleagues that I and many others have raised the issue 
of UNRWA for decades.
    In 2003, I offered an amendment to the State Department 
authorization bill to shift funds away from UNRWA, 2003, 20 
years ago and with regards to its textbooks and all of the 
terrible poisoning of Palestinian youth. The amendment was 
adopted by the committee, and it passed the house with the 
authorization bill. At the time, some of the language that I 
had in the resolution talked about strongly encourage the 
Secretary to consider shifting U.S. funding away from UNRWA.
    It expresses outrage over credible reports that UNRWA 
facilities have been used as warehouses for weapon storage and 
for bomb making. It expresses deep concern over the teachings, 
educational materials, and textbooks that are funded by UNRWA 
that are filled with anti-Semitism. We noted at the time in the 
resolution that the head of UNRWA said, oh, we cannot expect 
the people under occupation who have textbooks which idolize, 
praise, and express love for their occupiers.
    Certainly not only a tacit but I think a very real embrace 
of what was going on. We had a hearing, and I thank my good 
friend, Chairman Mast. He and our committee had a hearing on 
January 30th.
    And one of those who testified, Marcus Sheff, said, the 
world is asking how human beings reach such depths of depravity 
on October 7th, and I'm here to provide a key answer. And then 
he talked at great length about the textbooks profoundly 
influencing millions of young impressionable minds. Time and 
again, we have warned that today's Palestinian textbooks are 
producing the terrorists of tomorrow.
    Sadly and tragically on October 7th, our worst fears came 
true. He also pointed out that for Hamas, the manual for the 
hatred and incitement which they crave have been conveniently 
provided for many years by schools and textbooks that they use. 
I would point out to my colleagues that we need, without a 
doubt, to shift the money.
    Yes, there's humanitarian concerns. We all recognize it. 
But it cannot go to UNRWA. Their time is up. There needs to be 
a pivot, very real and very decisive.
    I will be offering an amendment in a few moments to this 
amendment in the nature of a substitute that makes clear that 
nothing in this act may be construed to preclude the provision 
of humanitarian assistance through any agency or entity other 
than UNRWA to individuals or entities, and then it goes on from 
there. And the Secretary of State would have to certify to 
Congress that such an agency does not promote, espouse, or 
affiliate with entities or individuals that promote violence, 
terrorism, or anti-Semitism. As such as defined by the IHRA the 
working definition of anti-Semitism and does not employ 
individuals who promote, espouse, or affiliate with such 
entities or individuals.
    I ask my colleagues, really, if not now, when? We will be 
getting more information, I'm sure, as research is done about 
how many were involved. One of our witnesses the other day 
provided us with a book about this terrorism, and it was Hillel 
Neuer.
    And he talked about how thousands of UNRWA individuals were 
celebrating the massive genocide being committed against the 
Israelis on October 7th. And they go through--they 
painstakingly have the actual quotes. It is filled to 
overflowing with hatred.
    And why any American taxpayer should be supporting an 
organization like UNRWA. Again, I'm been raising it for 
decades. And I get very upset when people say, oh, now he needs 
to take a look at what the U.N. Secretary General might say.
    Yes, they've all enabled this, maybe unwittingly, but 
enabled it for decades as well. And I find that very, very 
disturbing in the extreme. So again, we're providing, or have 
provided--Trump knocked off all the money when he was 
President.
    In 2021, the Biden Administration resumed lavish funding 
for UNRWA. And we have donated more than a billion dollars to 
UNRWA since 2021 and on track to provide 371 million during the 
current fiscal year. We do not know what the pause means or for 
how long.
    Now there are agencies out there, I'm sure, WFP, UNICEF, 
UNHCR and others that could provide humanitarian assistance. 
But we got to make sure that UNRWA which, again, is a massive 
entity that wants Israel utterly destroyed. I mean, no doubt 
about that.
    And those refugees would then take their place in Jerusalem 
in a new Palestinian State and elsewhere that is currently 
Israel. And they follow the Hamas dogma. Read the charter going 
back to 1988.
    It talks about slaughtering Jews. If you see a Jew, kill 
him or her. I read it on the floor during a debate recently. It 
is horrific with its hate. And again, UNRWA is very much part 
and parcel of Hamas. I yield back.
    Mr. Moran. The gentleman yields back. Is there any further 
discussion? The gentleman from New York, Mr. Meeks, is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Meeks. I strongly oppose this measure. UNRWA is flawed. 
But prohibiting U.S. funding of UNRWA while the people of Gaza 
are suffering an acute humanitarian disaster undermines the 
United States and Israel's interests.
    It erodes the United States' moral authority and further 
endangers the lives of more than two million Palestinians 
residing in Gaza. Cutting funds to UNRWA, the only entity 
currently able to deliver lifesaving humanitarian aid in Gaza 
could rapidly result in the starvation of millions.
    In fact, the government of Israel agrees which is why a 
senior Israeli official announced just days ago, and I quote, 
``If UNRWA ceases operating on the ground, this could cause a 
humanitarian catastrophe that would force Israel to halt its 
fighting against Hamas. This would not be in Israel's interest. 
It would not be in the interest of Israel's allies either.''
    UNRWA's collapse would further harm regional stability, 
including in the West Bank, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria, at a 
time when the United States and Israel are seeing to de-
escalate and contain spillover from the war in Gaza. It would 
be a gift to Iran and its allies Hamas, Hezbollah, and Bashar 
al-Assad. A humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza may also threaten 
Israel and our own relationship with the Abraham Accord 
partners and others we hope would join the Abraham Accord 
coalition.
    Israel does not want the collapse of UNRWA to further 
Gaza's humanitarian crises. Our regional allies and partners do 
not want the collapse of UNRWA to further Gaza's humanitarian 
crises, nor do our allies and partners in Europe and other 
places around the world.
    Let me be clear. I am concerned about the disturbing 
allegations against the 12 UNRWA employees and I welcome 
Secretary Blinken's decision to temporarily pause UNRWA's 
funding while the United States investigates. However, without 
UNRWA's staff and logistical support, the humanitarian 
situation in Gaza would be significantly worse than the 
disastrous conditions facing Gazans today.
    This legislative effort is irresponsible. Despite major 
flaws calling for its immediately elimination in attempting to 
jettison UNRWA's funding with no realistic plan to replace it 
would have dire consequences for the Palestinian people, the 
State of Israel, and the United States and our allies. My 
friends on the other side of the aisle, we must listen to our 
partners in Israel.
    We must listen to our own intelligence community, our own 
defense community, and our diplomatic community who know how 
harmful this cynical initiative really is. There are two 
million lives at stake. Israel's future is at stake.
    And this bill abruptly increases the risk to all. This 
committee must support all efforts to advance U.S. interest and 
the broader Middle East region, including peace and stability 
in Gaza. This bill undermines our interest as well as the 
interest of our allies which is why I encourage all of my 
colleagues to reject this measure. And I yield back the balance 
of my time.
    Mr. Moran. The ranking member yields back. Is there any 
further discussion? The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Perry, 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And of course as you 
might expect, I support this effort. I think that UNRWA 
absolutely needs to be defunded by the United States.
    I mean, I had an amendment on the floor less than a month 
before the horrific October 7th attack. I had an amendment to 
defund UNRWA. It failed. It failed.
    We all saw what happened on October 7th. Those are the 
consequences of failure. The Biden Administration has given 
UNRWA 730 million dollars during its term here, 730 million 
hard earned tax dollars of good Americans who wake up in the 
morning, oftentimes leave their homes in the dark, lunch box in 
hand, do not get to see their kids off on the school bus.
    We're sending them money since 1949, ladies and gentlemen. 
Since 1949, we've been sending this money to United Nations 
Relief and Works Agency. Here's what they're doing.
    They're relieving Israel of their sovereignty and they're 
working on destroying Israel and the United States of America. 
That's what they're doing. I mean, it's not just 12 people that 
were in Hamas that work for UNRWA.
    Ten percent, at least 10 percent of UNRWA's work force 
we're told is closely tied to Hamas, a terrorist organization, 
again, sponsored by Iran. I know my good friend and colleague 
from Pennsylvania does not like the assertion that the 
Administrations on both sides of the war. But 730 million 
dollars has gone to the people that attacked Israel.
    We're going to give Israel billions of dollars to defend 
themselves. We're going to give billions of dollars to Israel 
to attack Gaza and essentially level most of it. And then 
they're going to ask for more money to fix Gaza.
    Ladies and gentlemen, I do not know what the definition of 
being on both sides of the conflict are. But it seems to me 
that would qualify. It seems to me that would qualify.
    Now since 1949, our American tax dollars have funded the 
United Nations, United Nations Relief and Works Agency. This 
isn't the United States going over there. Maybe it'd be 
different.
    Hopefully, it would be different. But it's the United 
Nations. And I do not know if you're keeping up with current 
events. United Nations seems a little hostile to our friends in 
Israel, just a little hostile.
    But we keep on giving them money. And then they send it to 
UNRWA. And they tell you, oh, my goodness, it's for housing, 
it's for milk for the little children, it's for clothing, all 
those basic needs.
    Meanwhile, the textbooks tell the little children in Gaza 
to slit the throats of the Jews, and you pay for that. I do not 
know how you feel about that. But I'm not really thrilled about 
it.
    And I wonder since 1949 whose responsibility is this? I 
mean, my goodness. We've released the funds to Iran, hundreds 
of billions of dollars. Maybe Iran wants to fund UNRWA, or the 
money can just go direct to Hamas. It does not have to go 
through UNRWA.
    I'm not sure, but here's what I do know. The solution at 
hand right now isn't working. Now my friends will say, well, 
they're the only ones that can do it.
    They're the only one son the planet that can do it. I do 
not know who among you believe that. But it seems to me that 
every Member of Congress must think that they're the only ones 
that can be in the seat.
    But miraculously when they decide to leave or their voters 
determine that they've got to leave, somebody else can fill the 
position. Ladies and gentlemen, somebody else can do this work 
and somebody else needs to do this work. And we're talking 
about humanitarian assistance.
    Let's have it vetted and certified. And if we're vetting 
and certifying it now, my goodness, are we a failure. I do not 
know what kind of wake up call we need to get.
    I do not know if the United Nations through UNRWA has to 
send people with machine guns and machetes and whatever else on 
paragliders into the United States to attach synagogues across 
the--maybe they'll get it then. But this should happen. This 
needs to happen.
    It's a forcing function. Maybe somebody else will do it. 
But they're not going to do it as long as UNRWA was there. And 
as long as we keep funding them, they're going to keep doing 
it.
    The United States needs to take a leadership role to the 
rest of the world that also pay into the United States--or 
correction, the United Nations with their tax dollars to fund 
the United Nations Relief and Works Agency and say, we've had 
enough. Since 1949, I do not know what track record you need to 
see is. But I will tell you this and I'll conclude with this.
    People are asking for a two State solution, and the 
Administration is now calling for the recognition of a 
Palestinian State. What happened on October 7th is what you get 
with an UNRWA provided two State solution. I yield the balance.
    Mr. Moran. The gentleman yields back. Is there any further 
discussion? The gentlelady from Pennsylvania, Ms. Dean, is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Dean. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too rise in opposition 
to H.R. 7122. It is clear that UNRWA has serious challenges, 
many of which were highlighted in last week's joint 
subcommittee hearing.
    But I want to be clear. We've heard misstatements here 
today, and we heard them last week. It is Hamas who attacked 
Israel on October the 7th. It is not UNRWA.
    While there were bad actors allegedly within UNRWA, at 
least 12 that we know of and maybe more, we cannot constantly 
be repeating false claims. Hamas attacked Israel. UNRWA did not 
attack Israel.
    Nevertheless, it's also clear that UNRWA's continued 
existence and ability to provide humanitarian assistance 
remains essential for both the people of Gaza and for Israel, 
at least for the time being. As Stated by Professor Rudman, 
sustaining the current funding pause will result in starvation 
for the people of Gaza, starvation for more than two million 
people. UNRWA is currently the only organization present on the 
ground and capable of providing for those immediate needs of 
the people of Gaza.
    I too want to call out the statement by a senior Israeli 
official to The Times of Israel. Prime Minister Netanyahu's 
government does not support the immediate discontinuation of 
UNRWA. If this bill becomes law, the ability of UNRWA to 
continue operating will be in question.
    And they said, quote, ``If UNRWA ceases operating on the 
ground, this could cause a humanitarian catastrophe that would 
force Israel to halt its fighting against Hamas. This would not 
be in Israel's interest and it would not be in the interest of 
Israel's allies either.''
    There is a need, an immediate need, for reform of UNRWA. 
But it cannot be done in a manner that results in a greater 
humanitarian crisis and in greater human suffering. That will 
be even further destabilizing for the region. I urge my 
colleagues to oppose this bill, and I yield back.
    Mr. Moran. The gentlelady yields back. Is there any further 
discussion? The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Mast, is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Mast. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to make a couple 
statements, ask a few questions. So just No. 1, I would say 
Israel is American's ally. Would anybody in this room like to 
disagree that Israel is American's ally? Be on the record. Now 
is your chance. Hearing nobody.
    Palestinians are not our ally. Would anybody in this room 
like to disagree with that and say that Palestinians are our 
ally? The ranking member, top Democrat on the committee just 
walked out as I was asking this.
    Would anybody like to say that Palestinians are our ally? I 
hear crickets. Nobody in here is willing to say that 
Palestinians are our ally. Nobody wants to refute that Israel 
is our ally.
    Our ally, Israel, is at war with our non-ally. And UNRWA 
exists, its whole existence is to support our non-ally. And 
99.9 percent of their employees are Palestinians who are our 
non-ally.
    So if we support UNRWA, No. 1, we are paying literally the 
salaries of our non-ally that is at war with our ally. Let that 
sink in. We're paying the salaries if we support UNRWA of our 
non-ally who is at war with our ally.
    Does that make sense to anybody? I do not think so. It does 
not make any sense to me. So I find it amazing that there is 
disagreement about this in this committee, that there are 
people in this Congress--and apparently this is very party 
line, Democrat versus Republican on this issue.
    Democrats want to fund an entity that is made up of and 
exists to support our non-ally at war with our ally. Can't make 
sense of it. I want to take the remaining couple minutes that I 
have here and just ask one other question.
    And this is an important question because we asked this in 
a hearing last week, asked this question of somebody that was 
referenced by one of my Democrat colleagues, Ms. Rudman, 
Professor Rudman. And she was parroting the talking point for 
the Democrats. And the talking point for the Democrats was we 
cannot defend what UNRWA did, but we want to make sure that 
they still get funding.
    Let that sink in. That was the talking point, the point of 
what they're saying. Can't defend what they did. Can't defend 
the 12 individuals alleged to be in direct support of Hamas.
    Can't defend that an estimate by them, 10 to 15 percent of 
at least of UNRWA employees are probably in support of Hamas if 
they are representative of the rest of the Palestinian 
population. Can't defend what they did, but want to continue 
supporting them. So the question that I would pose here for my 
Democrat colleagues or my Republicans if they want to answer 
this.
    But we know that we have thresholds on the Republican side. 
Is there any threshold for my Democrat colleagues for which 
they would say that is a bridge too far? If UNRWA did that, 
then that would be too far and we would not support funding 
UNRWA.
    If UNRWA went beyond the 12 people, went beyond the hiding 
of rockets under UNRWA facilities, the hiding of bombs and 
weapons under UNRWA facilities, went beyond the curriculum that 
they're teaching in the schools to hate Jews, went beyond the 
tunnels that are being built underneath UNRWA facilities. 
Because that's not a threshold for my Democrat colleagues. But 
if UNRWA went at this point beyond that, then yes, finally, 
that would be a bridge too far.
    So let's stop funding them. And I'll just sit here and wait 
for the remaining 40 seconds of my time to see if any of my 
Democrat colleagues want to rejoin the room and answer any of 
those questions. And if my time runs out, then I'll yield back.
    Mr. Moran. Chair seeing no responses, the gentleman yields 
back.
    Mr. Mast. No, I did not yield back yet, Mr. Chairman. I 
still got 25 seconds that I'm going to give my colleagues to 
answer. I would say, Mr. Chairman, let the record show nobody 
disagreed that Israel is our ally. Nobody disagreed that 
Palestinians are not our ally. And no Democrats placed a 
threshold on eliminating support for UNRWA.
    Mr. Moran. The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman 
yields back. Is there any further discussion? The gentleman 
from Kentucky, Mr. Barr, is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Barr. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
    Mr. Moran. The gentleman is recognized.
    Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I enjoyed my 
colleague from Florida, Mr. Mast's very persuasive commentary 
there. But I want to address another issue and thank the 
chairman for including my bill, a bipartisan bill that I 
introduced with Representative Ed Case, the Pacific Partnership 
Act, in this markup.
    And I want to thank my colleagues for passing this bill out 
of the markup with a voice vote. This legislation builds off of 
a successive Administration's actions to strengthen the United 
States engagement in the Indo-Pacific. The 2017 national 
security strategy and the 2019 Indo-Pacific strategy report 
both recognize the region's critical role in the broader Indo-
Pacific.
    During the Trump Administration through the leadership of 
Secretary Pompeo, the United States invested hundreds of 
millions of new dollars into the Pacific Islands through the 
Pacific pledge of the Indo-Pacific strategy. I'm grateful that 
the current Administration continued this important work 
through the Pacific partnership strategy. While these executive 
actions are welcome, it's essential that Congress assert its 
authority in showing that we are not just interested but 
invested in an enduring relationship with our Pacific Island 
partners.
    This important legislation codifies the Pacific Partnership 
Act and ensures that it is updated every 4 years. The Pacific 
partnership strategy points out that the Pacific region covers 
15 percent of the globe. While this territory is vast, it is 
comprised of many small communities across countless islands.
    These are the same islands that Americans gave their lives 
liberating in the Second World War. While our relationship with 
these islands has developed over these past 80 years, it's 
essential that the United States continues to look to the 
future and establishes ever deeper ties with these islands.
    This is personal to me. My grandfather fought in New Guinea 
and the Philippines in World War II. My other grandfather was 
on a destroyer in the South Pacific.
    This legislation ensures that we are taking a whole of 
government approach to efficiently and effectively engage with 
our partners in the Pacific. We know these islands are facing 
an ever more aggressive China which is all too happy to tempt 
these communities with offers of infrastructure or bribery. And 
when that does not stick, resort to intimidation or other 
tactics.
    Instead, this legislation helps to ensure that the United 
States remains a partner of choice. Legislation like this shows 
that these communities are very important and that we're 
interested in a relationship with the Pacific Islands because 
we see mutual benefit built upon decades of trust, not just 
because a competitor like China is on the prowl. In addition to 
this, the bill designates the Pacific Islands Forum as an 
international organization with diplomatic privileges to 
encourage the establishment of a PIF mission in the United 
States.
    It requires the President to report to Congress on the 
implementation timeline for the Pacific partnership strategy 
along with any staffing or funding required to implement the 
strategy. It codifies the partners in the Blue Pacific 
Initiative with Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and the United 
Kingdom and others to deconflict aid to the region and 
encourage coordination, expands regular reports on 
transnational crime in the Indo-Pacific to include the Pacific 
Islands, to ensure the region is integrated into our broader 
work in the Indo-Pacific.
    I am grateful to my many colleagues who have co-sponsored 
this legislation. I'm grateful to this committee for passing 
this legislation, this markup on a voice vote. And I am 
particularly grateful to Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Meeks.
    And I want to thank Krista in Congressman Ed Case's office 
and also my staff, Hunt Vandertal, for leading the charge on 
this and working together in a bipartisan way. I encourage the 
committee to continue to push this legislation to the House 
floor. This bill, the Pacific Partnership Act, deserves 
favorable consideration by the entire Congress. And I yield 
back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Moran. The gentleman yields back. Is there any further 
discussion? Seeing none, there being no further discussion on 
the bill, the committee will move to consideration of 
amendments. Does any member wish to offer an amendment? The 
gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Schneider, is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Schneider. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment 
at the desk.
    Mr. Moran. The clerk shall distribute the amendment. The 
clerk shall report the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
    [The Amendment offered by Mr. Schneider follows:]

SUBSTITUTE FOR THE AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE TO H.R. 7122 
                        OFFERED BY MR. SCHNEIDER

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    The Clerk. Substitute for the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to H.R. 7122 offered by Mr. Schneider of Illinois.
    Mr. Moran. Without objection, further reading of the 
amendment is dispensed with. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Smith. I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment.
    Mr. Moran. The gentleman from New Jersey reserves a point 
of order. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Schneider, is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Schneider. Thank you. And I want to thank the chairman 
for holding this markup. I'd also like to thank the staffs of 
the minority and the majority for working to find compromise 
where they could.
    Unfortunately, this bill is not one of the measures where 
we were able to achieve a compromised text. There's no question 
that UNRWA is a big problem. And I've said that time and time 
again not just in this committee but in public.
    And I'm grateful to Mr. Smith for taking the issue 
seriously, taking it seriously for years and raising it 
repeatedly in hearings on a subcommittee. And we share a view 
that UNRWA must be replaced. We know that at least a dozen 
members of UNRWA were involved in the horrific attacks of 
October 7th.
    Far too many of its employees, estimates of reports of 10 
percent or more are affiliated with Hamas. And many, many more 
have family members who are involved with the terrorist 
organization. That's why the U.S. Administration as well as 
many of our allies decided to pause funds to the agency.
    Even the United Nations, often the last to admit or 
recognize its own problems, announced that it will reopen an 
investigation. Everyone recognizes that UNRWA is a big, big 
problem. But it's also a very complicated problem.
    And that's why we should look askance at a bill that uses 
but five lines of operational language to address what is a 75-
year challenge. The government has always been clear that it 
does not want UNRWA to implode as was noted in the Wall Street 
Journal just yesterday. There is a fear that if the critical 
services provided by UNRWA are no longer provided by the 
organization, it'll be left to Israel to step in or was as 
noted earlier in the conversation today that Israel would have 
to pause its operations to defeat Hamas.
    Likewise, the pro-Israel community, including AIPAC, is not 
coming out in support of this legislation. Why have UNRWA's 
harshest critics including myself not gone on board with this 
bill? We can get rid of UNRWA.
    The World Health Organization's spokesperson Christian 
Lindmeier said clearly that the WHO could scale up if needed as 
have many NGO's at least in private. But UNRWA provides 
essential services, including a distribution, management of 
desalination of water, and the like. Ending these overnight, 
ending these immediately would cause a humanitarian catastrophe 
far greater than what we've already seen and would only serve 
Hamas' goal of getting as many civilians killed on both sides 
of the conflict as possible.
    Again, UNRWA must be replaced. And that's hard and complex 
work. We cannot just wish the complications away, and that's 
why I'm proud to author legislation that would introduce a hard 
deadline of a year to cutoff funding permanently and create a 
congressional commission and interagency process that will get 
the replacement part of the challenge correct as well as 
instruct our mission to the U.N. to fight for lowering assessed 
dues to the agency.
    But as with so many initiatives regarding the sacrosanct 
U.S.-Israel bilateral relationship often driven by Republican 
leadership, the bill under consideration today puts politics 
first and does not do the hard work of addressing the extremely 
complicated nature of the problem at hand. The U.S.-Israel 
relationship is not a game and it must not be about politics. 
We need a supplemental to get 400 votes in the House, not one 
that plays games with the IRS or goes against the Senate's hard 
fought bipartisan compromise.
    I'm begging my colleagues across the aisle to take this 
issue seriously and to work with Democrats, to work with me, 
and the longstanding pros and committed on this bill. So they 
can get rid of UNRWA once and for all in a way that is 
effective, permanent, centers the role of Congress, and does 
not produce severe unintended consequences that nobody wants. 
Recognizing that the chair is likely to rule that this bill is 
non-germane, I'm willing to withdraw the amendment.
    All I ask is that we continue to try to work together to 
replace UNRWA with agencies that can provide humanitarian 
services while also contributing to the prospects to a better 
future, to better lives for both Israelis and Palestinians. If 
we do this right, if we do this in a thoughtful way, we have a 
far greater chance of success. And with that, I yield back.
    Mr. Moran. Without objection, the amendment in a nature of 
a substitute offered by Mr. Schneider is withdrawn. Does any 
member which to offer an amendment? Mr. Smith?
    Mr. Smith. I have an amendment at the desk.
    Mr. Moran. The clerk shall distribute the amendment. The 
clerk shall report the amendment.
    [The Amendment offered by Mr. Smith follows:]

 AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE TO H.R. 7122 
                          OFFERED BY MR. SMITH

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

  AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE TO H.R. 7122 OFFERED BY MR. 
                                 SMITH

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to H.R. 7122 offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Add 
at the end of the following----
    Mr. Moran. Without objection, further reading of the 
amendment is dispensed with. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes on his amendment.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you so very much, Mr. Chairman. Chairman, 
this amendment makes very clear that nothing in the underlying 
bill may be construed to preclude the provision of humanitarian 
assistance to any agency or entity other than UNRWA. And the 
Secretary of State would certify.
    They would be required to certify that such an entity 
receiving those funds does not promote, espouse, or affiliate 
with entities or individuals that promote violence, terrorism, 
or anti-Semitism. And it goes on from there. I would remind my 
colleagues again over these many, many decades of trying to end 
U.S. taxpayer funding for UNRWA and to give it to other 
agencies that are not trying to create young people who quickly 
become terrorists.
    And I did read a moment ago from Marcus Sheff from IMPACT-
se. And he makes the point again that for Hamas the manual for 
the hatred that is cited which they crave has been provided for 
many years by UNRWA schools. There's no doubt about that.
    And I mentioned earlier how in a bipartisan way I tried 
repeatedly with amendments, legislation that even passed the 
House going back 20 years to say let's find the alternative. 
And what happens every time is that there's some mitigating 
circumstance, there's some reason why, not now. And then not 
now becomes not ever.
    Delay becomes denial. And we will have denial in perpetuity 
in my opinion if we do not. I read just recently again a GAO 
report that was on UNRWA. And they made the point because our 
appropriators were trying over the years to make sure that it 
was good solid language in the appropriations.
    Well, they found GAO that State requires UNRWA--this is 
2003--to certify that accepting each contribution from the 
U.S., UNRWA is taking all possible measures to assure that the 
U.S. funds do not benefit terrorists or refugees receiving 
military training from guerilla groups. Does anybody believe 
that hasn't happened since then and then and before? So again, 
we need to find an alternative.
    There are alternatives out there. If we put a very long 
time period on that, that will quickly morph into waivers in 
perpetuity. And that's the last thing we need.
    So let's stand up now for certain agencies to step up and 
say, we'll take it from here. And there are others out there, 
WFP, UNICEF, High Commissioner for Refugees. There are others 
out there.
    But UNRWA has proven itself to be not just a malign actor 
but to cause unbelievable child abuse to these Palestinian 
children who are taught to hate. And they believe it. Why do we 
have young people, 13 to 14 year olds, toting AK-47s and be 
willing, really trying, to think someday, I'll be a martyr for 
Hamas and for a radical Islamic view.
    That's absurd. Teach them to want to co-exist, to respect 
other people, including Jewish men, women, and children. 
They're taught to kill them and to hate them.
    That's why there's almost no end to the number of 
volunteers and people that go into Hamas because they've been 
taught from the earliest stages to do so. So this says let's 
get the humanitarian aid there. I hope the Administration would 
work with us if we were to get this enacted into law, although 
the President probably would veto. And I say that sadly.
    And again, a year from now, 2 years from now, we'll say, 
gee, we had an opportunity to shift those funds away and we did 
not do it. We need to do it. This amendment makes clear we want 
humanitarian aid to flow to those people in Gaza who are 
suffering.
    Mr. Moran. Does the gentleman yield back?
    Mr. Smith. I yield back.
    Mr. Moran. The gentleman yields back. Do any other members 
seek recognition on this amendment?
    There being no further discussion, the question now occurs 
on the amendment offered by Representative Smith, Number 96.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the 
amendment is agreed to.
    The committee will recess because of floor votes and will 
reconvene at approximately 4:30 p.m.
    [Whereupon, at 1:46 p.m., the committee recessed, to 
reconvene at 4:37 p.m., the same day.]
    Mr. Smith [presiding]. The committee will come to order. 
The committee will resume consideration of H.R. 7122. Are there 
any further amendments? Mr. Meeks.
    Mr. Meeks. I have an amendment at the desk.
    [The Amendment offered by Mr. Meeks follows:]

 AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE TO H.R. 7122 
                          OFFERED BY MR. MEEKS

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Mr. Smith. The clerk will distribute the amendment. The 
clerk shall report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to H.R. 7122 offered by Mr. Meeks of New York. Add 
at the end the following new section: Section certification, 
certification required. The prohibition under Section 2 shall 
not apply until the date on which the Secretary of State 
certifies in writing----
    Mr. Smith. Without objection, further reading of the 
amendment is dispensed with. The gentleman from New York is 
recognized for 5 minutes on his amendment.
    Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. An immediate collapse 
of UNRWA, which this underlying bill is attempting to achieve, 
would have a devastating impact on the people of Gaza and the 
State of Israel. That is exactly why Prime Minister Netanyahu's 
government is not calling for UNRWA's immediate collapse. The 
collapse of UNRWA would also devaState the United States' 
ability to provide humanitarian assistance in Gaza.
    But beyond that, an abrupt end to UNRWA would result in 
serious regional stability issues. Let's briefly look beyond 
Gaza to the West Bank where tensions are already 
extraordinarily high. If UNRWA collapses, 266,000 West Bank 
Palestinians lose access to primary health care, 100,000 lose 
emergency food and cash assistance, and nearly 46,000 girls and 
boys would no longer go to school. Such a situation does 
nothing to help Israel or, for that matter, the United States.
    In Jordan, where 2.4 million registered Palestinian 
refugees reside, the loss of UNRWA would result in the loss of 
primary health care to almost 900,000 patients. Food support 
would be lost to nearly 60,000; and 20,219 Palestinian refugees 
from Syria would lose their support. 108,000 girls and boys 
would be out of school. This potential chaos in Jordan does not 
help Israel or the United States.
    In Lebanon, where we would hope to avoid a full-blown 
Israel-Hezbollah war, the loss of UNRWA would create a 
humanitarian, catastrophic, and civil unrest. 200,000 primarily 
health care patients would lose access to services, 50,000 will 
lose access to hospitals. 170,000 children, elderly, and 
disabled persons would lose their sole source of income, and 
38,000 schoolchildren would lose access to schools. None of 
this is in the interest of Israel or the United States.
    In Syria, the termination of funding will affect some 
438,000 refugees, 90 percent of whom live below the poverty 
line. Implications will include immigration from Syria to 
Europe. There will be a halt to emergency food assistance 
programs to supplement food and medicine needs and rent. Most 
of the refugees would be evicted from their rental homes; and 
schools will close, leaving 50,500 children with no alternative 
education.
    UNRWA should be retired and replaced, but at the right time 
and in coordination with all of the regional partners. My 
amendment simply does that. It retires UNRWA once the Secretary 
of State certifies that a replacement is found. We should not 
cause an immediate defunding. This approach is the responsible, 
serious way to go about addressing this problem.
    I encourage everyone to support this amendment because it 
makes sense and it saves lives. It is for the benefit, also, of 
the people in the State of Israel and the United States and for 
the basic humanitarian needs of the Palestinian people. This, I 
think, is consistent with our values and who we are and how we 
can move forward so that we can change the paradigm of what is 
happening in the Middle East and then, 1 day, have peace in a 
two-State solution that will make it better for Israel, for the 
States, for the countries, the Gulf States, and the United 
States of America.
    With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you. The gentleman yields back his time, 
and I rise in opposition to the amendment and I yield myself 5 
minutes. I would say to my colleagues that this amendment would 
nullify our bill, the one that Mr. Mast and I, Chairman Mast 
and I have written. It would prevent further, our bill would 
prevent further funding to UNRWA, but the amendment says that 
the prohibition on funding would not apply until the Secretary 
decides it should. The amendment literally provides that the 
prohibition shall ``not apply until the date on which the 
Secretary of State certifies in writing that there is a viable 
replacement for UNRWA in respect of seven different factors.'' 
Yet, it provides no guidance on what constitutes viable 
replacement, nor does it obligate the Secretary to certify. It 
is left entirely up to the discretion of the Secretary to do 
so. So a year from now, 6 months from now, 2 weeks from now he 
could decide to do that, but there is nothing in the amendment 
that says he has to.
    Since the Biden Administration resumed UNRWA funding in 
2021, after it was cutoff by the Trump Administration, after 
its terrorist and antisemitic affiliations were notorious, it 
only paused funding following the most shocking revelations 
next week. We can assume that the Administration intends to 
resume funding of UNRWA at some time. We do not know when, but 
it could be any time now.
    The amendment is written so as to permit the Administration 
to resume unrestricted funding of UNRWA and it provides no 
restraints. I would point out to my colleagues that the U.S. 
Department of State said in its current pause in UNRWA funding 
we're looking at what options exist for supporting civilians in 
Gaza through partners like the World Food Program, UNICEF, and 
other NGO's. We believe we can continue to do important work 
through other NGO's and other partners.
    And I remind colleagues that the amendment that I added to 
the amendment in the nature of a substitute makes very clear 
that it is UNRWA that we are defunding, not humanitarian 
assistance. And those other partners, those other NGO's or 
government agencies, or U.N. agencies at that, like the World 
Food Program, are there; and we need to do everything we can to 
get that money which is needed to them.
    When my good friend, Mr. Meeks, talks about education, that 
is one of the worst parts of what UNRWA does each and every day 
to young people. They train them to be antisemitic. I mean, I 
have seen the textbooks. I have had briefings on the textbooks. 
As I mentioned earlier in this debate in 2003, I offered an 
amendment on this, that is 20 years ago, that brought out all 
of these issues about the textbooks and the teaching of hatred, 
total intolerance toward Jewish people, and, I might add, a 
close second, Americans, as well. And then we are supposed to 
fund those teachers, those schools. We need to find a 
replacement, we need to find it fast. And delay, as I mentioned 
earlier today in the debate, absolutely is denial.
    So, again, I ask members, with all due respect to my good 
friend and colleague, to vote no to Mr. Meeks' amendment. We 
have got to be serious. We have, for decades, not done what we 
should do, and that goes through different Administrations. 
Trump did cut it off, but, during the Bush Administration and 
other Administrations where this was a serious, serious 
problem, we would get talking points from UNRWA, we would get 
talking points from those who felt they were doing a great job. 
I would read those talking points and I would dissect them, and 
I would raise issues. We have had three hearings, a joint 
hearing with Chairman Mast just last week.
    And, you know, you look at UNRWA's Terrorgram. This was a 
book put out by U.N. Watch, Hillel Neuer. It is filled to 
overflowing with hatred, hatred, let me say again, hatred for 
Jews. Let me also point out that the Hamas charter of 1988 
could not be clearer about slaughtering Jewish men, women, and 
children and for destroying the Nation of Israel. It is right 
there in their charter. It could not be clearer. And Hamas, 
this is, as I said earlier during the debate, this is their way 
of getting recruits that never end, in perpetuity, because the 
young people are being told to hate Jewish men, women, and 
children.
    So, again, I ask members to vote no, and I yield back the 
balance of my time. Would any other members like to speak? Mr. 
Mast and then--yes.
    Mr. Mast. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. President Reagan once 
said, well, the problem with our well-meaning liberal friends 
is not that they are ignorant, it is just that they know so 
much that isn't so. And I think this is something that really 
plays right into that idea.
    And I am going to give the 101 that I thought we went 
through earlier about the math of supporting UNRWA, 
Palestinians, Hamas, in general. You know, you look at this, 
and you say, OK, I will ask the question again: is Israel our 
ally? I'll make the statement that, yes, they are. Anybody care 
to disagree? No. Everybody agrees Israel is our ally. Are 
Palestinians our ally? I would say no. Anybody care to 
disagree? Nobody in here, not the ranking member, not any of my 
democrat colleagues right now, say that Gazans and Palestinians 
are our allies.
    So our ally is at war with our non-ally. UNRWA's sole 
existence is to support our non-ally. UNRWA has 30,000 people, 
roughly, that are non-ally working for them that we pay their 
salaries. That makes no sense to pay the salary of our non-
allies that are at work with our allies. None of this makes 
sense, not to do it yesterday, not to do it today, not to do it 
tomorrow, and not to wait for 365 days or some time less 
because, truthfully, Secretary of State Blinken will be gone 
before then, but not to wait until even Secretary of State 
Blinken continues out his term. It makes no sense to continue 
funding an entity that supports the destruction of our ally. 
That is an entity that supports our non-ally. The math just 
does not simply add up.
    And so, you know, I will just State one more time for the 
record that nobody in here disagreed that Israel is our ally, 
and nobody in here disagreed that Palestinians are not our 
ally. I still do not see anybody disagree on that. So there 
should be common ground on this. It is amazing to me that it is 
not and that----
    Mr. Schneider. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Mast. I did not hear who asked, but I usually do.
    Mr. Schneider. Down here.
    Mr. Mast. Absolutely, I will yield. I always enjoy a good--
--
    Mr. Schneider. So not to debate you, but I will agree with 
you Israel is our ally. In fact, Israel is our most important 
ally in the Middle East, perhaps one of our most important or 
most important allies in the world. The United States has no 
better friend than Israel, and Israel has no better friend than 
the United States.
    That is why I am so frustrated, so angry that my colleagues 
on the other side are using Israel as a stunt, as a tool, to 
advance their own partisan politics, rather than standing up 
and making sure we give Israel the support it needs and make 
sure we protect not just Israel but work to help our Ukrainian 
allies.
    The Palestinians are neither an ally or an enemy. 
Palestinians are a population. They are a population that have 
been failed by their leadership for more than a hundred years. 
As Abba----
    Mr. Mast. I am going to give you about 30 more seconds to 
make a point here before----
    Mr. Schneider. Palestinians have been failed by the 
leadership. Abba even said they have never missed an 
opportunity to miss an opportunity. But it is important that 
the people are not punished for their leadership by starvation 
or by deprivation of that education. In fact, it is in the 
United States' interests that we make sure that the 
humanitarian needs for the Palestinians are addressed, so we 
can get to a place where the Palestinians--I am not sure who 
said that--so we can get to a place where the Palestinians will 
recognize Israel, Israel can have the security it deserves----
    Mr. Mast. I am going to regain my time.
    Mr. Schneider. OK. You can have it back.
    Mr. Mast. And I am always happy to engage in this because I 
think it is important that we hear what anybody says on this. 
But what was said by the ranking member is that, if we cut of 
funding, well, we are cutting off funding for their health 
care, we are cutting off funding for the sole source of income 
for this many tens of thousands individuals. If we do that, we 
are putting in jeopardy a two-State solution, which I think we 
should absolutely have in jeopardy. It makes no sense to make a 
State out of an entity that we would immediately have to 
designate a foreign terrorist organization. That makes no 
sense.
    But, you know, I would beg the question, what 
responsibility is it of the American people to pay for the 
health care or the sole source of income for any Palestinian? 
And it is not the responsibility, in my opinion, of any of us, 
and they are absolutely.
    I would disagree with you, they are absolutely either a 
friend or an ally. You can very much say it is binary that an 
entity or a group is one or another. Houthis are not 
necessarily a nation, but we can say whether they are a friend 
or an ally or whether they are an enemy; and they are 
absolutely an enemy. Palestinians are enemies of Israel and 
enemies of the United States of America. Nobody in here argued 
if I asked if they were an ally. Nobody said that Palestinians 
are an ally. Let's keep that for the record. Anybody who wants 
to change that, I would encourage you to speak up.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Mast, Chairman Mast. 
Anyone else like to be heard? Yes, Mr. Schneider.
    Mr. Schneider. So I will continue what I was trying to say. 
You asked why should the United States have an interest in the 
humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian population. United 
States has an interest in peace. United States has an interest 
in ensuring that Israel's security is guaranteed. Israel is a 
Jewish democratic nation. It is protected. And to leave the 
Palestinians in despair, to deprive them of humanitarian relief 
and assistance, only feeds Hamas. You asked who is an enemy--he 
is leaving. Let the record show he is not staying to hear.
    But who is an enemy? Hamas is an enemy, an enemy of Israel, 
an enemy of the United States, an enemy of peace-loving people, 
Hezbollah is an enemy, Palestinian Islamic Jihad is an enemy, 
all supported by Iran. What we should be doing in this body is 
uniting, working across aisle, Democrats and Republicans, to 
make sure that our interests are protected not just in the 
Middle East and around the world. Protecting democracy, 
protecting the sovereignty of nations like Ukraine, protecting 
the security of allies like Israel. And we cannot turn a blind 
eye to the humanity of Palestinians, and we cannot turn a blind 
eye to the fact that Israel is fighting a war for its existence 
against Hamas. We can do both. I yield back.
    Mr. Mast. Will you yield since I----
    Mr. Schneider. Happy to yield.
    Mr. Mast. Thank you. You made the right point, in my 
opinion, toward the end that Israel is in a fight for their 
existence, and I would just go back to the point, for an ally 
that is in a fight for its existence, why would we give funding 
to the entity that is out there supporting who they are in a 
fight for their existence against? Thank you for yielding me 
time.
    Mr. Schneider. I will reclaim the time. And I agree with 
you. I want to replace UNRWA. UNRWA has been a problem for 75 
years. We have to do it in a way that is smart, that does not 
sacrifice the humanitarian needs of the Palestinian people, and 
does not put Israel in a place where they are responsible for a 
civilization without the vehicles to deliver humanitarian aid 
that it is desperately needed.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Smith. The chair recognizes Mr. Mills for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Mills. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, a lot has 
been said, and I first just want to start by saying that I have 
a tremendous amount of respect for my colleague from New York, 
Ranking Member Meeks. He has been tremendous in his ability to 
work across the aisle in bipartisan agreements.
    But I would say that I stand in strong opposition to the 
Amendment 63. Many of the members who sit in this body, unlike 
myself, have been here multiple terms. And throughout those 
terms, we continue to talk about things like, well, we need to 
work on the replacement of the AUMF, we need to work on the 
replacement of UNRWA. And as the sitting chairman, Mr. Smith, 
has said multiple times, who has proposed this for 20 years, 
this is nothing more than kicking the can. And, meanwhile, 
while we are kicking that can, as we did last year, we 
contributed another $363 million to fund UNRWA so that, as was 
recorded in the last hearing, 10 to 15 percent of the 13,000 
employees were in support of Hamas; 12 members of UNRWA 
actually took part in the horrific attacks on October 7th; 
3,000 UNRWA teachers celebrated the attacks on Israel. So when 
we talk about withdrawing UNRWA feeds Hamas, that is not 
factual because right now, by continuing the funding of UNRWA, 
we actually are feeding Hamas.
    You know, this idea that we would deprive them of 
education. Well, as the sitting chairman has talked about, as 
well as for the members of our recent committee, the 
radicalized education system is actually working to create 
hate. And if any of us remember former Congressman Wilson, one 
of the things that he used to talk about consistently after the 
defeat of Russia was that we must ensure that education is put 
in place so that we can make a guarantee that we will not have 
the rise of further radical extremists.
    I am sorry, but there are things, like UNHCR, UNHRC, who 
can fill that gap, if need be, World Food Program, implementing 
partners out of the United States Agency of International 
Development. So this continuation, this desire to kick the can, 
for those who have been in office here for two and three and 
five and seven terms, it is unacceptable and just leads to show 
that you are here to play politics and be a politician, not to 
be a Statesman and representative to actually get things done.
    And I happily welcome any member in this body to tell me 
about standing with our allies because I did not see a single 
face in this room with me on October 11th, as I was pulling 
Americans out of Israel myself, or on August 26th of 2021 when 
I was conducting the first overland rescue of Americans out of 
Afghanistan. So I do not think my patriotism is going to be in 
question here, but I do think your ability as officials to 
actually get things done is in question.
    And so I stand in opposition of this because it is time for 
us to remove ourselves from UNRWA, to take actual actions to 
defend the people of Israel. And I do not think that kicking 
the can on this is actually going to serve the purpose which is 
what we are wanting, which is for Israel to exist. For all of 
us who swore an oath to our Constitution, let us not forget 
that it is based on our Christian-Judeo beliefs, and I do not 
think that our constitutional obligation is to worry about 
supporting funding to an organization that continues to go 
against the very people who is trying to destroy the people of 
Israel.
    With that, I yield.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you very much. I yield to Mr. Self, 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Self. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of 
questions. Why would it surprise us that 12 UNRWA employees 
participated in October 7th? Why would it surprise us that 
their locations have been used for storage spots when the vast 
bulk, probably more than 90 percent, of the 30,000 UNRWA 
employees that have already been referenced in this hearing are 
Palestinian? Why would that surprise us? It should not. And 
this is the ultimate case of the fox guarding the henhouse, and 
I stand in strong support of this bill and against this 
amendment.
    Mr. Smith. The gentleman yields back. Thank you. Is there 
any further discussion on the Meeks amendment? There being no 
further discussion, the question now occurs on the amendment 
offered by Ranking Member Meeks, No. 63. All those in favor, 
signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it, and the 
amendment is not agreed to.
    Mr. Meeks. Roll call vote.
    Mr. Smith. The gentleman has asked for a roll call vote. 
Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote will 
be postponed.
    Are there any further amendments? The chair recognizes
    Ms. Manning. I would like to thank my good friend and 
colleague, Representative Chris Smith, for his leadership on 
these issues, including the important hearings he has held in 
our subcommittee on UNRWA. For years, many of us have been 
concerned that UNRWA workers were fostering hatred against 
Israel and against Jews with the textbooks they use in UNRWA 
schools and lessons being taught by UNRWA teachers. We have 
raised those concerns with UNRWA and more broadly with the U.N. 
and the Secretary General to no avail.
    Sadly, we recently learned that at least 12 of UNRWA's own 
employees participated in or helped plan the barbaric October 
7th terrorist attack against Israel, in which more than 1200 
innocent civilians were brutalized, raped, murdered, and 
hundreds, including Americans, were taken hostage. More than 
100, including Americans, are still being held hostage. There 
have even been reports that UNRWA employees harbored hostages 
in their own homes. This is simply unacceptable. U.S. taxpayer 
money should never be used to support terrorists who fight for 
the destruction of our democratic ally, Israel.
    We are, however, sensitive to the plight of innocent 
Palestinians used by Hamas as human shields, and we know how 
critical it is to get humanitarian support to innocent 
Palestinians who are caught in Hamas' brutal war. And as we 
heard in this committee room last week, there is currently no 
aid group on the ground in Gaza with the broad ability of UNRWA 
to get humanitarian assistance where it is needed. There are 
some aid groups, but they do not have the ability to address 
the crisis at hand.
    It is in Israel's interests to have humanitarian aid 
provided to innocent Palestinians. Israel has said as much. 
Once this conflict is over and the rebuilding of Gaza begins, 
we can evaluate whether UNRWA's very mandate is problematic, as 
I believe it is, and whether different aid agencies should be 
supported and replace UNRWA, which I believe is the right long-
term move.
    But, in the meantime, we need UNRWA to provide much-needed 
humanitarian aid to innocent Palestinians. However, we must 
ensure that UNRWA does not continue to employ or use people who 
are members of Hamas or who provide material support to Hamas. 
That is why my amendment would require the Secretary of State 
to first certify to Congress that no current UNRWA employees 
participated in the brutal October 7th Hamas attacks on Israel 
and that no UNRWA employees are knowingly providing material 
support to Hamas. If the Secretary is unable to make that 
determination, then the remaining provisions of the bill would 
still apply.
    This common sense amendment would increase our leverage and 
our oversight of UNRWA, helping to make sure that our 
international assistance can never be used to promote 
terrorism. I believe this amendment would strengthen 
accountability and oversight of UNRWA and make crystal clear 
that we will not tolerate taxpayer dollars going to Hamas.
    Thank you. And I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Smith. I would like to continue recognizing Ms. Manning 
to offer her amendment at this point, if you would.
    Ms. Manning. Chairman Smith, it has been a long day. I have 
an amendment at the desk.
    [The Amendment offered by Mr. Manning follows:]

 AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE TO H.R. 7122 
                         OFFERED BY MS. MANNING

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Mr. Smith. Without objection, the clerk will distribute the 
amendment and shall report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to H.R. 7122 offered by Ms. Manning of North 
Carolina. Add at the end the following new section: The 
Secretary of State, by way of the prohibition under Section 2, 
if the Secretary certifies to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 
and the Committee on----
    Mr. Smith. Without objection, the amendment will be 
considered as read. The gentlelady----
    Ms. Manning. Chairman Smith, I hope that the members who 
were listening will apply all of the comments I made before my 
amendment was read to my amendment, and I do not want to take 
the committee's time in repeating my presentation.
    With that, I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul [presiding]. The gentlelady yields back. 
Any other members seek recognition?
    Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman McCaul. Mr. Smith.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With respect to my good 
friend, we co-chair the Combating Antisemitism Caucus, I do 
rise in opposition to this amendment. I just want to make very 
clear to my colleagues that this will, again, gut the 
underlying bill. It permits the Secretary of State to waive the 
prohibition on funding for UNRWA so long as the Secretary 
certifies that no one employed by UNRWA as of the date of 
enactment of the bill participated in the October 7th attack or 
knowingly provided financial or material support.
    The problem is that what UNRWA has done systematically and 
aggressively over the course of many, many decades is to train 
up an entire generation of Palestinian youth. And I would argue 
it is more than training, it is child abuse, causing them to 
hate Jews, to be filled with virulence and false images of 
Jewish people. I remember asking a group of Palestinian youth 
on one trip right after 9/11, and they were very, very 
intelligent, the best of the class. And they started telling me 
how no Jews died in 9/11, and I begged to differ with them and 
I said I know at least five widows in my district who are 
Jewish and their husbands were Jewish. Then they said the Jews 
caused 9/11.
    There is so much misinformation and lies being proffered by 
UNRWA, and it has been. And if you just look at the textbooks, 
and I remind my colleagues that our three hearings that we have 
had, they have put a real focus on what is taught, and what is 
taught is to hate and hope that Jews are killed.
    So we need to find an alternative. Our amendment, the 
amendment that would be pending that I offered would say that 
we need to find an alternative that is not, I say again, not 
antisemitic, and UNRWA is not it.
    So we need to pivot now. And believe me, there are 
organizations, we have mustered and brought together forces in 
the past to ensure that humanitarian crises are met and they 
are met effectively. UNRWA has proven itself, has disqualified 
itself over and over again in this regard, especially as it 
relates to what they have done to generation after generation 
of Palestinian youth.
    So I really, with all due respect, rise up against it and 
ask my colleagues to vote no.
    Chairman McCaul. Any other members seek recognition? Mr. 
Meeks.
    Mr. Meeks. Yes. I agree with my colleague, Representative 
Manning, that no U.S. funding should support any entity that 
supports terrorism or employs individuals who support terrorist 
organizations, including in UNRWA. That is why I support this 
amendment.
    I would also say that, basically, I think, in a bipartisan 
way, we had united in that we want to help and support Israel. 
We all have seem to have said that the life span of UNRWA, you 
know, moving forward, has to be reviewed and changed. But we 
are in a particular moment of crises right now, and the deal is 
whether or not right now, today, if we defund UNRWA, what would 
happen to millions of people. The fact of the matter is no one 
would be or should be more concerned about UNRWA than the 
Israeli government itself, and we should listen to what the 
Israeli government has said on this matter. The Israeli 
government, the Israeli government. And I quote again, this 
comes from a senior Israeli official, ``If UNRWA ceases 
operating on the ground,'' he is talking about right now, 
``this could cause a humanitarian catastrophe that would force 
Israel to halt its fighting against Hamas. This would not be in 
Israel's interest, and it would not be in the interest of 
Israel's allies either.''
    So at this moment of time in which we are in, what this 
bill does undercuts what Israel thinks is in its best interest 
as we move forward. And I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. Does any other 
member seek recognition? Mr. Mast.
    Mr. Mast. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have heard this point 
made numerous times today, Mr. Ranking Member. Do you have a 
name? I have never heard you reference a name to this.
    Mr. Meeks. I can get you a name. I do not have the name.
    Mr. Mast. Because I have heard it said in debate earlier 
and debate now. I would think that that would be pretty 
relevant.
    Mr. Meeks. So I'm told that there was no name, but the 
Israeli government gave the quote to the Times of Israel 
directly.
    Mr. Mast. A janitor or somebody important?
    Mr. Meeks. The Israeli government, a high official in the 
Israeli government, a senior Israeli----
    Mr. Mast. How do we know that? Like I said, it has been----
    Mr. Meeks. The Israeli government.
    Mr. Mast. I would just say it has been referenced 
irresponsibly I do not know how many times today to say, oh, 
this person in the government, this person in the government 
said this, and we, as the U.S. House of Representatives, the 
American government, we should do what this unknown person in 
the Israeli government tells us to. Pretty much every American 
that I can think of back in my community would pretty much have 
my head for saying that that should be the way that we operate. 
But I appreciate you at least trying to get me an answer on 
that, and the answer is we do not know who in the world the 
person is at this moment.
    I did have a question about the amendment, ma'am, if you 
would oblige me. Would that prohibition on financial or 
material support to Hamas, would that include anybody that 
writes the UNRWA school curriculum, distributes the UNRWA 
school curriculum, teaches the UNRWA school curriculum that all 
teaches Jew hate?
    Ms. Manning. I would consider that material support to 
Hamas.
    Mr. Mast. Thank you for answering that, and I think I have 
had all of my questions answered. Thank you.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. Any other members 
seek recognition? Mr. Sherman.
    Mr. Sherman. Thank you. Having spared the committee my 
pontifications up until this point, I will take 1 minute to 
address the Houthi bill, and then I will come back to this one. 
There are those--we should designate the Houthi in the highest 
terms as a terrorist State. I know there are some in the aid 
community who say, well, that will make it a little bit more 
difficult for us to provide food to the Yemenis who live under 
Houthi control.
    What those aid agencies haven't focused on is the number of 
people dying because of what the Houthi are doing. First, huge 
grain exports come from the Black Sea. They come from Russia, 
they come from Ukraine. The only way, the fastest way, the best 
way for them to get to hungry people in Ethiopia and Sudan and 
in India is through the Suez Canal. The Houthi have stopped 
that. Now, that means that people who can barely afford food in 
some of the poorest parts of the world are now barely affording 
two meals instead of three.
    Second, what the Houthi have done is lower the standard of 
living in Europe to some degree by preventing exports from 
coming to Asia to Europe. That will inevitably affect the 
generosity of Europeans and their willingness to keep funding 
the very aid agencies that are telling us do not mess with the 
Houthi.
    Now to this bill. I have had extensive conversations, as 
have some others of this committee, with Israeli officials 
focused on UNRWA and aid to the Palestinians. I have no doubts 
how evil some elements of UNRWA are. I want to thank this 
committee and the floor finally for passing a bill I have been 
working on for half a dozen years to at least require a report 
on UNRWA's schools. And as has been pointed out, you might be 
able to say, well, they are at half a dozen, a dozen terrorists 
identified who are UNRWA employees, do not blame the top 
management. The top management has known for decades what is 
being taught in those schools, and what is being taught is 
terrorism.
    So I have no love for UNRWA. I would have supported this 
bill if it had been a bit more practical. But my discussions 
with Israeli officials have illuminated me a bit. First, Israel 
trusts the other agencies of the United Nations, UNICEF, World 
Food Program, et cetera, which surprised, frankly, because I am 
aware of the U.N. General Assembly and, as a Zionist, I am not 
a fan. Second, Israel knows that the Palestinians have to be 
fed for the coming months. They are not calling for us to pull 
the plug immediately on UNRWA. So I think this bill would be a 
much better bill if it gave the State Department until the end 
of the year to pull the plug on UNRWA. I suggested that to the 
author. We were not able to reach an agreement. But if this 
bill became effective on December 31, I would be a yes vote. 
Instead, I have to reluctantly oppose this, and I feel a little 
odd because I am not a fan of UNRWA and worked for years on a 
bill that is regarded, well, that shines a light on how they 
educate for terrorism.
    So I support the amendment, although I do not know how you 
would certify that every one of thousands of employees was not 
associated with Hamas. I support the objective of the bill, 
which is to see that aid to Palestinians in the future goes 
through organizations that are benign, rather than through 
UNRWA. But I cannot support a bill that goes into effect 
immediately or even with a couple of months' delay because 
UNRWA is there on the ground, Palestinians are hungry, and it 
is not in Israel's interests to see that food does not get 
delivered.
    So I hope that we, in the future, can deal with a practical 
bill that cuts off UNRWA after a reasonable period of time to 
start working with and staffing up these other agencies, 
including U.N. agencies. And I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. Let me just announce 
for the committee we have votes called at 5:45. I certainly do 
not want to do anything to stop this debate that we are having; 
but, in the interest of members who would like to get the votes 
done before that vote on the floor; otherwise, we will be 
coming back after the votes on the floor to finish. But I just 
say that as a point of reference. I do not want to have any 
chilling effect.
    Mr. Wilson. Well, Mr. Chairman, I was going to say----
    Chairman McCaul. Mr. Wilson is recognized.
    Mr. Wilson. I was going to say something nice about Kathy 
Manning, but I will not. Thank you.
    Chairman McCaul. Do any other members seek recognition? 
There being no further discussion, the question now occurs on 
the amendment offered by Representative Manning, No. 48. All in 
favor, signify by saying aye.
    All opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it, and the 
amendment is not agreed to. A very quick roll call vote has 
been requested. Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, 
this vote will be postponed.
    There being no further amendments, further proceedings on 
this bill are postponed.
    Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R. 7152, the Divided 
Families National Registry Act. The bill was circulated in 
advance.
    [The Bill H.R. 7152 follows:]

                               H.R. 7152

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Chairman McCaul. The clerk shall designate the bill.
    The Clerk. H.R. 7152 to direct the Secretary of State to 
establish a national registry of Korean American divided 
families and for other purposes----
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection, first reading is 
dispensed with. The bill is considered read and open to 
amendment at any point. Is there any discussion on the bill? 
Ms. Young Kim is recognized.
    Ms. Young Kim. Thank you, Chairman McCaul, for recognizing 
me and holding today's markup. I am a proud co-sponsor of H.R. 
7152, Divided Families National Registry Act. This bill directs 
the Special Envoy on North Korea Human Rights to identify 
Korean American families who wish to be reunited with family 
and their family members in North Korea and to establish a 
registry of the names to help facilitate future reunions.
    As a Korean American with family members who fled North 
Korea, this is an issue that is deeply personal to me, and I 
have great empathy for these families. And making these 
reunifications happen has been a top priority of mine.
    Last congress, I joined Representative Grace Meng to 
introduce the Divided Families Reunification Act, which 
requires the Secretary of State to consult with South Korean 
officials on family reunion opportunities for the Korean 
American families and their relatives in North Korea. And I 
also introduced House Resolution 126, which is a bipartisan 
resolution calling on the U.S. and North Korea to treat family 
reunifications as a humanitarian issue and to reunite Korean 
American divided families with immediate relatives.
    Time is running out to make family reunification a reality, 
so we must treat this issue with urgency. While I am pleased 
that we are marking up this bill, there is still much more that 
needs to be done. North Korea's behavior is getting only more 
erratic, and the crimes against humanity he commits against his 
own people will only worsen if we do not take him seriously.
    The North Korean Human Rights Act, which authorizes 
activities promoting the free flow of outside information into 
North Korea and protecting North Korean defectors, expired last 
year. So I join Senator Marco Rubio to introduce the North 
Korean Human Rights Reauthorization Act, which reauthorizes and 
makes improvements to U.S.-North Korean human rights policy by 
stepping up efforts to get information not controlled by Kim 
Jong Un inside of North Korea. I hope that the committee will 
work with me on this legislation so that we can show Kim Jong 
Un that we take his human rights abuses seriously and show the 
innocent victims of his crimes that the United States supports 
them.
    I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 7152, and I yield the 
balance of my time.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields. Any further 
discussion on the bill? There being no further discussion, the 
committee will move into consideration of amendments. Does any 
member wish to offer an amendment? Mr. Meeks is recognized.
    Mr. Meeks. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment in the nature 
of a substitute at the desk.
    [The Amendment offered by Mr. Meeks follows:]

  AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE TO H.R. 7152 OFFERD BY MR. 
                                 MEEKS

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Chairman McCaul. The clerk shall distribute the Meeks 
amendment in the nature of a substitute. The clerk shall report 
the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 
7152 offered by Mr. Meeks of New York. Strike all after the 
enacting clause and insert the following: Section 1 short 
title. This act may be cited as the Divided Families National 
Registry Act. Section 2----
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection, further reading of the 
amendment is dispensed with. The gentleman from New York is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support this 
legislation, and I want to especially thank Representative 
Wexton, the author, for her work in reconnecting Korean 
families that have long been separated from one another for 
decades. The separation of Korean family members on either side 
of the border remains one of the most painful legacies of the 
Korean War. This is true not just for South Koreans but also 
for Korean Americans and the United States who have been 
separated from their family in North Korea. Over 100,000 Korean 
Americans have been separated from their relatives, and many of 
us have heard emotional stories from constituents about the 
pain this causes them and how they yearn to see, to talk with, 
and to hug their relatives once again.
    Unfortunately, 70 years after the war, too many families 
still remain divided. As that first generation of Korean 
Americans reaches the autumn of their lives, it is important 
that they be given an opportunity to reconnect with their loved 
ones. It is time for the U.S. Government to actively work to 
help Korean Americans reach and reunite with their relatives. 
It is time to help Korean Americans finally gain some closure 
by helping them track down information about relatives that may 
have passed on.
    H.R. 7152 does this by collating information about Korean 
Americans that are interested in being reunited with their 
families and working with them to help facilitate many 
reunions, as well as information exchange, with and about their 
family members in North Korea. This bill also calls on the 
State Department to prioritize the issues of family reunions 
and any dialog with the DPRK.
    Though I would have preferred to see the authorization 
numbers stay in the bill, I understand the majority asked for 
that language to be removed to comply with their conference, 
and wanting to move in a bipartisan spirit, we have come to 
this agreement. And we will fight to make sure funds are 
appropriated to accomplish the modest program set forth in this 
legislation.
    I hope you will join me in supporting this measure and 
ensuring that our Korean American constituents have the ability 
to stay connected to those taken from them as a result of war. 
And I yield back.
    Mr. Connolly. Would my friend yield?
    Mr. Meeks. I yield.
    Mr. Connolly. I thank my friend. And I just want to thank 
him for this A&S, and I think it is not only a tribute to the 
Korean people but a tribute to our colleague, Jennifer Wexton. 
This is an important legacy issue for her. It is something she 
has worked on. We have a very large Korean American community 
throughout Northern Virginia. Of course, it is not as big as 
California, but it is maybe the second biggest in the country. 
And so many first-generation Koreans affected by the issues, 
Mr. Meeks, you just described, in terms of very painful 
separation. People haven't seen relatives since the division of 
Korea and are unlikely ever to see each other again, and it is 
one of the cruel aftereffects of the division and of the 
Korean-American war, and I am so glad we are addressing it 
legislatively here today. And, again, I think it is also a 
tribute to our colleague, Jennifer Wexton, and I am proud to 
join you and thank you for introducing it. And I thank the 
chair for putting it in the markup.
    Mr. Meeks. I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back. Any other 
members seek recognition? There being no further recognition, 
do any members wish to offer an amendment to the Meeks 
amendment in the nature of a substitute? There being no further 
amendments, the question now occurs on the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute offered by Representative Meeks. All 
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the 
amendment is agreed to. There being no further amendments, I 
move that the committee report H.R. 7152, as amended, to the 
House favorable recommendation. All those in favor, signify by 
saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the 
motion is agreed to. Roll call vote has been requested. 
Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote will 
be postponed.
    The committee will recess briefly to set up the electronic 
voting system, and we plan to vote in approximately 10 minutes.
    [Recess.]
    Chairman McCaul. The committee postponed further 
proceedings on the roll call vote on Amendment No. 104 offered 
by Representative Davidson to H.R. 6609 on which the noes had 
prevailed by voice vote. The question now occurs on agreeing to 
the amendment. Members will vote using the electronic voting 
system. The clerk will open the vote.
    OK. Have all members voted? Come on, Mr. Issa. We are 
trying to get this done before the floor votes, man.
    Have all members voted? Does any member wish to record or 
change his or her vote. The clerk will close the vote and 
report the tally.
    The Clerk. On this vote, the ayes are 21, the noes are 25.
    Chairman McCaul. That's it. The noes have it. The amendment 
is not agreed to. There being no further amendments, I move 
that the committee report H.R. 6609, the Tiger Act, as amended, 
to the House with a favorable recommendation. All those in 
favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the 
motion is agreed to. A recorded vote has been requested. 
Members will vote using the electronic voting system. The clerk 
will open the vote.
    Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change 
their vote? The clerk will close the vote and report the tally.
    The Clerk. On this vote, the ayes are 26, the noes are 20.
    Chairman McCaul. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed 
to.
    Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the 
table. Measures were favorably reported, as amended, as a 
single amendment in the nature of a substitute, and the staff 
is authorized to make any technical and conforming changes.
    The committee postponed further proceedings on reporting 
H.R. 7089, the Global Anti-Human Trafficking Enhancement Act, 
as amended, favorably to the House on which the ayes prevailed 
by voice vote. The question now occurs on reporting the measure 
to the House with a favorable recommendation. Members will use 
the electronic voting system. The clerk will open the vote.
    Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change 
their vote? The clerk will close the vote and report the tally.
    The Clerk. On this vote, the ayes are 46, the noes are 
zero.
    Chairman McCaul. The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to. 
Without objection, motion to reconsider is laid on the table. 
The staff is authorized to make any technical or conforming 
changes.
    The committee postponed further proceedings on reporting H. 
Con. Res. 27, Condemning Russia's Unjust and Arbitrary 
Detention of Russian Opposition Leader Vladimir Kara-Murza, who 
has stood up in defense of democracy, the rule of law, and free 
and fair elections in Russia, as amended, favorably to the 
House in which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. The question 
now occurs on reporting the measure to the House with a 
favorable recommendation. Members will vote using the 
electronic voting system. The clerk will open the vote.
    Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change 
their vote? The clerk will close the vote and report the tally.
    The Clerk. On this vote, the ayes are 47, the noes are 
zero.
    Chairman McCaul. The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to. 
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the 
table. Staff is authorized to make any technical and conforming 
changes.
    The committee postponed further proceedings on reporting 
H.R. 6603, the No Technology for Terror Act, as amended, 
favorably to the House in which the ayes prevailed by voice 
vote. The question now occurs on reporting the measure to the 
House with a favorable recommendation. Members will vote using 
the electronic voting system. The clerk will open the vote.
    Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change 
their vote? The clerk will close the vote and report the tally.
    The Clerk. On this vote, the ayes are 45, the noes are two.
    Chairman McCaul. The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to. 
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the 
table.
    The committee postponed further proceedings on the roll 
call vote on Amendment No. 69 offered by Representative Self to 
the Smith amendment in the nature of a substitute to H. Res. 82 
on which the noes have prevailed by voice vote. The question 
now occurs on agreeing to the amendment. Members will vote 
using the electronic voting system. The clerk will open the 
vote.
    Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change 
their vote? The clerk will close the vote and report the tally. 
Have all members voted? How is Mrs. Wagner recorded?
    The Clerk. Mrs. Wagner is not recorded.
    Chairman McCaul. OK. I will do this again. Have all members 
voted? Does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk 
will close the vote and report the tally.
    The Clerk. On this vote, the ayes are 25, the noes are 22.
    Chairman McCaul. The ayes have it, and the amendment is 
agreed to.
    There being no further amendments, the question now occurs 
on the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by 
Representative Smith, No. 97. All those in favor, signify by 
saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the 
amendment is agreed to.
    There being no further amendments, I move the committee 
report H. Res. 82, as amended, to the House with a favorable 
recommendation. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the 
motion is agreed to. A recorded vote has been requested. 
Members will vote using the electronic voting system. The clerk 
will open the vote.
    Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change 
their vote? The clerk will close the vote and report the tally.
    The Clerk. On this vote, the ayes are 26, the noes are 21.
    Chairman McCaul. The ayes have it. Without objection, the 
motion to reconsider is laid on the table. The measure is 
ordered favorably reported, as amended, as a single amendment 
in the nature of a substitute. The staff is authorized to make 
any technical and conforming changes.
    The committee postponed further proceedings on reporting 
H.R. 6046, the Standing Against Houthi Aggression Act, as 
amended, favorably to the House on which the ayes prevailed by 
voice vote. The question now occurs on reporting the measure to 
the House with a favorable recommendation. The members will 
vote using the electronic voting system. The clerk will open 
the vote.
    Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change 
their vote? The clerk will close the vote and report the tally.
    The Clerk. On this vote, the ayes are 34, the noes are 13.
    Chairman McCaul. The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to. 
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the 
table. The measure is ordered favorably reported, as amended, 
as a single amendment in the nature of a substitute. Staff is 
authorized to make any technical and conforming changes.
    The committee postponed further proceedings on the roll 
call vote on Amendment No. 63 offered by Representative Meeks 
to H.R. 7122 on which the noes have prevailed by voice vote. 
The question now occurs on agreeing to the amendment. Members 
will vote using the electronic voting system. The clerk will 
open the vote.
    Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change 
their vote? The clerk will close the vote and report the tally.
    The Clerk. On this vote, the ayes are 21, the noes are 26.
    Chairman McCaul. The noes have it, and the amendment is not 
agreed to.
    The committee postponed further proceedings on the roll 
call vote on Amendment No. 48 offered by Representative Manning 
to H.R. 7122 on which the noes have prevailed by voice vote. 
The question now occurs on agreeing to the amendment. Members 
will vote using the electronic voting system. The clerk will 
open the vote.
    Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change 
their vote? The clerk will close the vote and report the tally.
    The Clerk. On this vote, the ayes are 22, the noes are 27.
    Chairman McCaul. The noes have it, and the amendment is not 
agreed to.
    There being no further amendments, I move that the 
committee report H.R. 7122, as amended, to the House with a 
favorable recommendation. All those in favor, signify by saying 
aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the 
motion is agreed to. A recorded vote has been requested. 
Members will vote using the electronic voting system. The clerk 
will open the vote.
    Have all members voted? Does any member wish to record or 
change their vote? There being no further amendments, I move 
the committee report H.R.--I'm sorry. The clerk will close the 
vote and report the tally.
    The Clerk. On this vote, the ayes are 30, the noes are 19.
    Chairman McCaul. The ayes have it. Without objection, the 
motion to reconsider is laid on the table. The motion is 
ordered favorably reported, as amended, as a single amendment 
in the nature of a substitute.
    The committee postponed further proceedings on reporting 
H.R. 7152, the Divided Families National Registry Act, as 
amended, favorably to the House on which the ayes prevailed by 
voice vote. The question now occurs on reporting the measure to 
the House with a favorable recommendation. Members will vote 
using the electronic voting system. The clerk will open the 
vote.
    Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change 
their vote? The clerk will close the vote and report the tally.
    The Clerk. On this vote, the ayes are 49, the noes are 
zero.
    Chairman McCaul. The ayes have it, and the motion is agreed 
to. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the 
table. This concludes consideration of the measures noticed by 
the committee for today. The committee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 5:57 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

                                APPENDIX

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                                 VOTES

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


     MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD FROM REPRESENTATIVE MCCAUL

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


         MATERIALS FOR THE RECORD FROM REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                             MARKUP SUMMARY

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



                              [all]