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


                       MARKUP OF VARIOUS MEASURES

=======================================================================
                                MARKUP

                               BEFORE THE

                      COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                           FEBRUARY 28, 2023

                               __________

                            Serial No. 118-3

                               __________

        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                    
56-735                       WASHINGTON : 2024                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                           
                     COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                   MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas, Chairman

CHRISTOPHER SMITH, New Jersey        GREGORY MEEKS, New York
JOE WILSON, South Carolina           BRAD SHERMAN, California
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania            GERALD CONNOLLY, Virginia
DARRELL ISSA, California             WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
ANN WAGNER, Missouri                 DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
BRIAN MAST, Florida                  AMI BERA, California
KEN BUCK, Colorado                   JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee              DINA TITUS, Nevada
MARK GREEN, Tennessee                TED LIEU, California
ANDY BARR, Kentucky                  SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
RONNY JACKSON, Texas                 DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota
YOUNG KIM, California                COLIN ALLRED, Texas
MARIA SALAZAR, Florida               ANDY KIM, New Jersey
BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan              SARA JACOBS, California
AMATA RADEWAGEN, American Samoa      KATHY MANNING, North Carolina
FRENCH HILL, Arkansas                SHEILA CHERFILUS-McCORMICK, 
WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio                    Florida
JIM BAIRD, Indiana                   GREG STANTON, Arizona
MIKE WALTZ, Florida                  MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
THOMAS KEAN, 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

                Brendan Shields, Majority Staff Director
              Sophia A. LaFargue, Minority Staff Director
                            
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                              LEGISLATION
                             BILLS EN BLOC

                                                                   Page
H.R. 1093........................................................     2
H.R. 1159........................................................     9
H.R. 1189........................................................    12
H. Res. 90.......................................................    20
H.R. 406.........................................................    24
H.R. 1149........................................................    26
H.R. 1157........................................................    42
    Meeks Amendment #15 to H.R. 1157.............................    52
H.R. 1107........................................................    55
    Davidson Amendment #25 to H.R. 1107..........................    64
H.R. 1154........................................................    67
H.R. 1153........................................................    82
    Meeks Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute #16 to H.R. 
      1153.......................................................   112
    Meeks Amendment #11 to H.R. 1153.............................   122
    Kamlager-Dove Amendment #17 to H.R. 1153.....................   125
    Manning Amendment #4 to H.R. 1153............................   127
    Jacobs Amendment #11 to H.R. 1153............................   130
    Phillips Amendment #14 to H.R. 1153..........................   133
    Allred Amendment #8 to H.R. 1153.............................   136
H.R. 1151........................................................   138
    Kim of California Amendment #13 to H.R. 1151.................   151
    Perry Amendment #3 to H.R. 1151..............................   154

                                APPENDIX

Markup Notice....................................................   156
Markup Minutes...................................................   158
Markup Attendance................................................   159
Markup Summary...................................................   160

                        MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD

Statement for the record submitted by Representative Connolly....   162
Material for the record submitted by Representative Phillips.....   164

                                  VOTE

Vote Meeks Amendment #15 to H.R. 1157............................   167
Vote Allred Amendment #8 to H.R. 1153............................   168
Vote Jacobs Amendment #11 to H.R. 1153...........................   169
Vote Manning Amendment #4 to H.R. 1153...........................   170
Vote Kamlager-Dove Amendment #17 to H.R. 1153....................   171
Vote Meeks Amendment #11 to H.R. 1153............................   172
Vote Meeks Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute #16 to H.R. 
  1153...........................................................   173
Vote to Report H.R. 1153.........................................   174
Vote Y. Kim Amendment #13 to H.R. 1151...........................   175

 
                         FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP

                              ----------                              


                       TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2023

                          House of Representatives,
                              Committee on Foreign Affairs,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:53 p.m., in Room 
210, House Visitor Center, Hon. Michael McCaul [chairman of the 
committee] presiding.
    Chairman McCaul. The quorum being present, the Committee on 
Foreign Affairs will come to order.
    The committee's meeting today to consider H.R. 1093, to the 
Secretary of State to submit to Congress a report on 
implementation of the advanced capabilities pillar of the 
trilateral security partnership between Australia, the United 
Kingdom, and the United States; H.R. 1159, to amend the Taiwan 
Assurance Act of 2020 to require periodic reviews and updated 
reports relating to the Department of State's Taiwan 
guidelines; H.R. 1189, Undersea Cable Control Act; H.R. 1157, 
Countering the PRC Malign Influence Fund Authorization Act; 
H.R. 1107, PRC is Not a Developing Country Act; H.R. 1154, Stop 
Forced Organ Harvesting Act; H.R. Resolution 90, Demand that 
the Government of the People's Republic of China and the 
Communist Party of China immediately release Mark Swidan; H.R. 
1151, Upholding Sovereignty Airspace Act; H.R. 406, Providing 
Appropriate Recognition and Treatment Needed to Enhance 
Relations with ASEAN Act; H.R. 1149, Countering Untrusted 
Telecommunications Abroad Act; and H.R. 1153, Deterring 
America's Technological Adversaries Act.
    The Chair announces that any request for recorded votes may 
be rolled and as 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.
    I am pleased that we will be considering 11 China-related 
bills on today's markup. We must act now to stop China's 
aggressive behavior, whether it be in our airspace against 
Taiwan and our allies or against the Uyghurs and other minority 
populations.
    Pursuant to notice, I now call the measure and their 
amendments that were circulated in advance which without 
objection will be considered en bloc.
    [The amendments offered en bloc of Mr. McCaul follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairman McCaul. And each is considered as read. And the 
amendments to each are considered as read and are agreed to. 
And without objection, after remarks, the committee will vote 
to order the measures favorably reported en bloc.
    The measures in the en bloc package are H.R. 1093, to 
direct the Secretary of State to submit to Congress a report on 
the implementations of the advanced capabilities pillar of 
trilateral security partnership between Australia, the U.K., 
and the United States; H.R. 1159, to amend the Taiwan Assurance 
Act of 2020 to require periodic reviews and updated reports 
relating to the Department of State's Taiwan guidelines; H.R. 
1189, Undersea Cable Control Act; H. Res. 90, Demanding that 
the Government of the People's Republic of China and the 
Communist Party of China immediately release Mark Swidan; H.R. 
406, Providing Appropriate Recognition and Treatment Needed to 
Enhance Relations with ASEAN Act; and finally, H.R. 1149, 
Countering Untrusted Telecommunications Abroad Act.
    I now recognize myself for an opening statement. I 
introduce this bill with Ranking Member Meeks to begin in this 
committee the important task of examining the necessary steps 
to deepen diplomatic cooperation as part of the Australian, 
U.K., United States trilateral security agreement known as 
AUKUS. AUKUS is an agreement with two pillars.
    The first is a nuclear powered submarine program. The other 
pillar is to collaborate on high tech research and fielding of 
advanced capabilities. Pillar 2 is critical to the long-term 
success of AUKUS because it will maintain our technological and 
military superiority over the Chinese as well as our allies.
    But this agreement will require the export of defense and 
military-related technologies, a State Department 
responsibility. We are nearing the end of the 18-month 
consultation period on AUKUS which began on September 15, 2021 
and has largely been a DOD-led effort. What this bill intends 
to do is to bring diplomacy back into AUKUS with the State 
Department leading that charge.
    And it will examine State Department's implementation of 
the International Traffic and Arms Regulations commonly 
referred to as ITAR. We are facing a generational challenge 
from the CCP. We must bring all tools to bear and our efforts 
to counter Chairman Xi's attempts to disrupt the global balance 
of power. With the U.K. and Australia, our three nations have a 
shared strategic goal of defending the Indo-Pacific region.
    By preserving freedom of navigation and freedom of 
international commerce through waterways, this agreement will 
uphold the international rules-based order and most importantly 
protect American interest and prosperity. We are allies and 
partners in the Indo-Pacific region and cannot afford to wait 
on Xi or other authoritarian leaders to dictate when and under 
what circumstances the strength of our security agreements in 
the Indo-Pacific are to be tested. This bill presses the State 
Department to act and account for our arms transfers with the 
U.K. and Australia so that we can act seamlessly now and not 
during a time of crisis or war.
    I also support the Taiwan Assurance Implementation Act. 
There is no question that Taiwan is under threat from the CCP. 
They will use any means necessary to unify, even force. 
Secretary Blinken acknowledged that China's plans to annex 
Taiwan are moving much faster under Chairman Xi.
    As the PRC ramps up aggression against Taiwan, the United 
States must ensure that we are committed to a robust and 
expansive relationship with Taiwan. We cannot abide by outdated 
guidelines or self-imposed restrictions to bolstering our 
political, economic, and defense ties. This bill amends the 
Taiwan Assurance Act of 2020 to add a more specific reporting 
requirement and ensures Congress has appropriate oversight over 
our relationship with Taiwan.
    And the State Department's engagement with Taiwan is in 
coordination with our current geopolitical environment. This 
bill also strengthens the reporting requirement and the TAA 
which had bipartisan support last Congress. It also ensures 
that State is approaching this relationship in a manner 
consistent with current U.S. foreign policy and national 
security goals.
    Lastly, I urge my colleagues to join Mr. Cloud and me in 
condemning the malign actions of the Chinese Communist Party 
upon one of our very own Mark Swidan. Mark is a Houston 
resident from my own state of Texas who has been wrongfully 
detained by the Chinese Communist Party since 2012 for a crime 
he did not commit. He has not spoken to his family since 2018, 
and it is time to bring Mark home.
    In 2019, the U.N. working group on arbitrary detention 
looked into his case and found that factually it was impossible 
for him to have conducted any of the crimes charged against 
him. This resolution not only condemns the CCP for their brazen 
violation of international law but also demands the CCP 
immediately release Mr. Swidan. Additionally, it calls upon the 
Biden Administration to demand the immediately release of Mark 
and to hold the CCP accountable.
    If we are seen as a weak nation, we will be treated as 
such. Appeasement only invites aggression. As the CCP ramps up 
its hostage diplomacy, it is imperative that we demand the 
release of Americans in China and hold the Chinese Communist 
Party accountable for blatant violation of human rights and 
international law.
    With that, I now recognize the ranking member, Mr. Meeks.
    Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I support all the 
measures in the en bloc and will speak on just a few of them. 
On H.R. 1093, as the United States looks to build on the 
important shared security partnerships with Australia and the 
United Kingdom within the AUKUS framework, I am proud to co-
lead this bipartisan initiative with you, Mr. Chairman, on 
advanced capabilities.
    As we engage in strategic competition, sharing our own 
advances in defense capabilities in a safe, secure, and 
regulated manner with our partners is critical to this effort. 
And again, thank you in working together on this particular 
bill.
    I also support H. Res. 90 which condemns the unjust and 
arbitrary detention of Mark Swidan by the People's Republic of 
China and demand his immediate release. He has been detained 
for over ten years. And we need to redouble diplomatic efforts 
to secure his immediate release.
    Mr. Castro's timely bill, H.R. 406, reinforces the 
importance of diplomacy in our engagement in the Indo-Pacific. 
This measure strengthens our diplomatic ties with the 
Association of Southeast Asian Nations or ASEAN, one of the 
most critical regional organizations in the Indo-Pacific 
region.
    H.R. 1149 authored by Mrs. Wild takes several steps that 
will promote our foreign policy interests, bolster our national 
security, and aid our economy. It requires the State Department 
to ensure it is not relying on unsafe equipment and its 
embassies across the world. It authorizes the State Department 
to provide diplomatic support for telecommunication projects 
and pushes the United States Trade and Development Agency to 
finance important telecom projects.
    And finally, it requires mobile network operators listed on 
American stock exchanges to disclose whether they have Huawei 
or ZTE or other unsafe equipment in their networks or make use 
of unsafe surveillance video equipment. And I am also glad to 
support H.R. 1159 by Rep. Wagner and my friend, Jerry Connolly 
to amend the Taiwan Assurance Act, a bill that I think that is 
important and again speaks to the bipartisanship of this 
committee. With that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back the 
balance of my time.
    Chairman McCaul. Do any other members seek recognition on 
the en bloc? Mrs. Wagner.
    Mrs. Wagner. I thank you, Chairman McCaul. And I want to 
thank Ranking Member Meeks. I would also to thank them both so 
much for working with me on H.R. 1159, the Taiwan Assurance 
Implementation Act, which will ensure tangible and sustained 
progress in the U.S.-Taiwan relationship.
    I am happy to say it has been included in this en bloc 
package. I would also like to sincerely thank Representative 
Connolly for co-leading this legislation. He is truly a 
respected voice of authority on this issue and a tireless 
champion for the U.S.-Taiwan relationship.
    There can be no question that U.S. support for Taiwan is 
not just bipartisan but nonpartisan. And I thank the gentleman 
for working with me to advance the Taiwan Assurance 
Implementation Act. Confronting China is a once in a generation 
challenge.
    To guarantee the prosperity of American communities for our 
children, we must defeat China's plan to replace the United 
States as the world's preeminent power. If we are to be 
successful, we cannot be ruled by fear. That means boldly 
standing by our friends and partners, particularly Taiwan.
    But for decades, the United States unilaterally restricted 
its engagement with Taiwan to appease China, subjecting our 
partners to an exhaustive set of arbitrary guidelines and 
checklists to avoid being the slightest chance of offending 
Beijing. These guidelines dictated how and where U.S. diplomats 
could meet their Taiwanese counterparts with symbols Taiwanese 
officials could display and who was permitted to visit each 
country. In 2020, Congress pushed the administration to move 
beyond these outdated, unnecessary restrictions by passing the 
Chairman's Taiwan Assurance Act.
    Former Secretary Pompeo moved decisively to implement this 
important law, declaring all self-imposed guidelines null and 
void. And our partners in Taiwan welcomed this unmistakable 
show of support, hailing the decision as an end to decades of 
discrimination. However, the administration has declined to 
continue this policy of resolute unflinching public support.
    And hiding behind opacity and red tape hurts our 
partnership with Taiwan at a moment when we need to be standing 
shoulder to shoulder with our allies and our partners. Any 
waffling invites bullies like Xi and Putin to push the 
envelope. With Russia, trying to change the borders of an 
independent and sovereign neighbor by force and China 
threatening to do the same to Taiwan, the United States must 
not waiver.
    The geopolitical situation surrounding Taiwan is changing 
rapidly. Our relationship with Taiwan must be flexible enough 
to meet these new challenges. Unfortunately, the State 
Department's classified Taiwan contact guidelines are often not 
conducive to a robust relationship with Taiwan.
    And Congress has little insight into the decision making 
behind these guidelines. This Taiwan Assurance Implementation 
Act would re-authorize the 2020 law, strengthen its reporting 
requirements, and require greater transparency from the State 
Department. It would ensure the United States is approaching 
its relationship with Taiwan in a manner that deepens our 
relationships with democratic partners who are under threat by 
aggressive dictatorships.
    And it would ask the administration to identify 
opportunities to list remaining self-imposed restrictions on 
engagement. I urge each of my colleagues to support this 
important bill and vote yes on the entire en bloc package which 
I wholeheartedly support. And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman McCaul. Thank you. Do any other members seek 
recognition on the en bloc? Mr. Connolly is recognized.
    Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank 
you and Mr. Meeks for a bipartisan en bloc package. And I want 
to thank my friend, Mrs. Wagner, for her leadership on the is 
Taiwan legislation and join here in urging our colleagues to 
vote for it today.
    The Taiwan Relations Act is unique in many ways in foreign 
policy for the United States in that it originated in Congress 
itself. It was not an executive branch initiative. It was a 
legislative branch initiative in response to the normalization 
of relations with Beijing. And it was designed to provide a 
very thorough, clear architecture--not always clear, sometimes 
ambiguous for a reason--governing our relationship with Taiwan.
    And to me, central to that is the ability of Taiwan to 
defend itself with our help. And that is a promise, as you 
pointed out this morning, Mr. Chairman, that sometimes has been 
kept sort of in a breach and sometimes has been kept in a very 
slow moving way. And that is not the right signal to send to an 
aggressive Xi Jinping who is moving on many, many fronts, 
threatening his neighbors, encroaching on territorial waters 
and airspace, making ludicrous claims about the entire South 
China Sea, engaged in kinetic or threatening to be engaged in 
kinetic activity on the India border, on the Vietnam border, 
and, of course, with Taiwan across the Taiwan Strait itself.
    So this is the time for the United States, especially this 
Congress, to be very clear and very firm in reasserting our 
support for the right of the Taiwanese people to decide when 
and how and if they are going to manage their relationship with 
Beijing. So I welcome this legislation project, co-sponsor it, 
thank my friend from Missouri for her leadership, and urge my 
colleagues to support it. Thank you. I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. Thank you. Any other members seek 
recognition on the en bloc? Mr. Mast is recognized.
    Mr. Mast. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to, number one, 
just express my support for the en bloc package, and number 
two, speak about an issue that we are addressing in this en 
bloc package and that is undersea communications through cable. 
It is something that such a huge percentage of our 
communications, be it financial, be it telecommunications of 
any sort.
    It is the mode of transferring that trans-ocean. It is 
something that year after year we see an increasing amount of 
Chinese companies investing in the technology needed to bring 
this to fruition. The exact same Chinese Communist Party that 
wants to see American topple and communism on top, whether that 
is just for China or for Russia or for other dangerous allies 
that they have made.
    That cannot be the entities that we have to look to, to get 
the equipment, the parts, the technology that we need to be 
able to communicate across the globe. It is not just dangerous 
for the United States of America. It is irresponsible.
    And in this en bloc package, I am proud to see that this is 
an issue that we are addressing here very directly. And in 
that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the assistance on the 
legislation. I thank you for the en bloc package as a whole, 
and I yield back to you the remainder of my time.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back. Any other 
members seek recognition on the en bloc? Mr. Cicilline is 
recognized.
    Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it is very 
clear that members of this committee on both sides of the aisle 
recognize that the People's Republic of China's continued 
economic coercion and aggression in the Indo-Pacific presents 
serious challenges to our national security. To meet these 
challenges, the United States must be prepared to confront them 
with American leadership, diplomacy, and investment.
    And that is why I strongly support Representative Castro's 
H.R. 406, Partner with ASEAN Act, and this en bloc package and 
urge my colleagues to do the same. The Association of Southeast 
Asian Nations, or ASEAN, provides a unique opportunity for the 
United States to expand our diplomatic architecture, strengthen 
our relationships, and advance our shared goals in the region. 
I was pleased to see the Biden Administration announce the 
launch of five high-level dialogues as part of the newly 
established U.S. ASEAN comprehensive strategic partnership to 
expand engagement on issues from women's empowerment to climate 
and energy.
    The U.S.-ASEAN comprehensive strategic relationship is 
critical to enabling the United States and ASEAN to cooperate 
on a number of regional issues like tackling food insecurity, 
improving access to clean water, expanding opportunities for 
women entrepreneurs, investing in sustainable infrastructure, 
and expanding maritime cooperation to counter illegal fishing. 
At a time of strategic competition between the United States 
and China, it is time for Congress to pass the Partner with 
ASEAN Act and affirm this important relationship between the 
United States and our Southeast Asian allies. Other major 
regional, international organizations such as European Union 
and African Union have been recognized under the International 
Organizations Immunities Act, and ASEAN deserves to be held to 
the same standard.
    I would like to again thank Representative Castro and Young 
Kim for their leadership on this issue, especially during this 
moment of strategic competition with China. And with that, I 
yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. Any other members 
seek recognition on the en bloc? Mr. Smith is recognized.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And like 
other members, I support all of the bills included, embedded in 
the en bloc. And thank you for your leadership on all of this.
    I would like to speak very briefly in support of Brian 
Mast's bill, H.R. 1189, the Undersea Cable Control Act. My 
colleague from Florida--who has also just been reappointed as a 
member of the Congressional Executive Commission on China which 
I chair, I want to offer my congratulations to him--has 
pinpointed another overlooked area of strategic importance, 
undersea cables. His legislation would eliminate the transfer 
of sensitive technologies to our adversaries, i.e., the 
People's Republic of China, that could be used to enhance their 
undersea cable capability and threaten another area of U.S. 
technological preeminence.
    I would also like to stress a related point that a 
vulnerability of undersea cables. Cable locations are well 
documented which makes them susceptible to an international 
attack and one which does not require great offensive 
capabilities. Repair efforts depending on location and other 
factors could take several weeks.
    Submarine cables that serve the U.S. mainland are thus 
potential targets and any asymmetric plan of attack by a 
hostile power, one for which we are completely unprepared. And 
who would do such a thing? Well, just last week Chinese fishing 
boats or in reality Chinese maritime militia under the guise of 
fishing boats severed several cables in the Matsu Island, the 
offshore island still controlled by Taiwan which many will 
recall was a crisis point in the 1950s.
    Two cables were cut, the 20th time in the past five years 
that the cables had been so disrupted. It is reasonable to 
conclude that this is intentional sabotage, a trial run to 
disrupt communications at essentially a forward operating base 
in the defense of Taiwan as well as to inflict hardship on the 
residents of the island. This is a blunt, bellicose message not 
only to the brave people of democratic Taiwan but should also 
be one directed at us and a wake-up call.
    Again, I thank my friend for authoring this bill, Mr. Mast. 
I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman McCaul. Do any other members seek recognition on 
the en bloc? Mr. Lawler is recognized.
    Mr. Lawler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to 
commend you and my colleagues for putting forth this package of 
legislation today as a member of both this committee and the 
House Financial Services Committee. We are taking on the 
Chinese Communist Party and the People's Republic of China very 
clearly and in a bipartisan way.
    And I think the bills that we are advancing, both in this 
committee and the House Financial Services Committee today, are 
bills that are long overdue and legislation that will put the 
United States in a strong position moving forward. It is clear 
that the Chinese Communist Party and the People's Republic of 
China are our greatest geopolitical threat. And the work that 
this Congress is undertaking is critical to put us in a 
position to be economically competitive and also to ensure our 
military and national security successes going forward.
    And I thank Taiwan, and I want to commend the vice chair, 
the gentlelady from Missouri, for her legislation, the Taiwan 
Assurance Act. I think we are moving forward with a number of 
pieces of legislation that is important to strengthen the 
relationship with Taiwan and ensure that they are protected 
from naked aggression that China has engaged in, in recent 
years. And with respect to the ASEAN nations, I think moving 
forward, that will be a pivotal part of the world, both from 
the standpoint of our economic and national security 
perspective but also obviously in terms of keeping China and 
the Chinese Communist Party in check.
    So this is a great bloc of bills that you have put forth, 
Mr. Chairman. And I thank you for that, and I yield back my 
time.
    Chairman McCaul. Thank you. Any other members seek 
recognition on the en bloc?
    [No response.]
    Chairman McCaul. There being no further discussion, the 
committee will proceed to consider the noticed items en bloc. 
Pursuant to the previous order, the question occurs on the 
measures en bloc.
    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 
measure considered en bloc are agreed to.
    Without objection to the motion to reconsider is laid on 
the table. Staff is authorized to make any technical and 
conforming changes. Pursuant to the previous order of the 
committee, each measure is ordered favorably reported.
    Pursuant to notice, I now call H.R. 1157, Countering the 
PRC Malign Influence Fund Authorization Act of 2023. The bill 
was circulated in advance. The clerk shall designate the bill.
    [The bill H.R. 1157 follows:]
   [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    The Clerk. H.R. 1157, a bill to provide the authorization 
of appropriations for the countering of People's Republic of 
China----
    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? 
Ranking Member, Mr. Meeks, is recognized.
    Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We must authorize funds 
for the Countering People's Republic of China's Malign 
Influence Fund to position USAID and the State Department for 
strategic competition with China. This should be a bipartisan 
bill.
    It is unfortunate that despite our best efforts, it isn't. 
We want the State Department to be laser focused on the 
challenges posed by the PRC. We also need to make sure that our 
institutions are nimble and have the flexibility to address 
what is likely going to be a constantly evolving series of 
challenges.
    And the rigid language in the bill does not provide for 
this flexibility. Given the amount of money this bill 
authorizes, it is important that we have strong bipartisan 
deliberation on the strategic focus and the future of this 
fund. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. Is there any further 
discussion on the bill?
    [No response.]
    Chairman McCaul. 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. Meeks. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman McCaul. Ranking Member Mr. Meeks is recognized.
    Mr. Meeks. I have an Amendment No. 15 at the desk.
    Chairman McCaul. Clerk shall distribute the amendment. 
Clerk shall report the amendment.
    [The Amendment offered by Mr. Meeks follows:]
   [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1157, offered by Mr. Meeks of 
New York. Section 2(a), in the matter preceding paragraph (1), 
strike the dollar amount and insert ``400 million dollars''. 
Section 2(e), in the matter preceding paragraph (1), strike 
``shall include efforts'' and insert ``should include 
efforts''.
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection, further reading of the 
amendment is dispensed with. The gentleman, Ranking Member Mr. 
Meeks, is recognized for five minutes on the amendment.
    Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a simple 
amendment that I am offering to improve the legislation offered 
by my colleague, Representative Andy Barr. It increases the 
authorized amount for the Countering PRC Influence Fund to 400 
million dollars.
    My Republican colleagues are constantly telling us that we 
need to do more to counter China and criticize the President 
for not doing enough. So let's authorize this important tool 
with the amount requested by the administration and the amount 
Mr. McCaul's bill last year authorized. And let's make sure our 
diplomats and development professionals are set up for success.
    The amendment also makes two minor edits to the bill so 
that our diplomats are able to be nimble in the face of an ever 
evolving set of challenges posed by Beijing. I hope my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle will consider this 
amendment seriously. With this amendment included, I would 
enthusiastically support the underlying bill. So I urge my 
colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back. I oppose this 
amendment for the following reasons. The current year 
appropriations are 325 millions. House Appropriations Committee 
has asked us not to go over that amount given larger 150 
account concerns.
    We also need to find a CUTGO for the Meeks requested 
inquiries. Do any of the members seek recognition? Mr. Mast is 
recognized.
    Mr. Mast. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition to 
the ranking member's amendment. This amendment, it attempts to 
weaken the strict reporting requirements in this bill and it 
doesn't conform to the actual appropriations of the Countering 
Malign Influence Fund.
    This amendment, it does something important. You look at 
Section 2(e) where it says in the matter preceding paragraph 
(1), it says strike shall include efforts and insert should 
include efforts. And when it does that to change that instead 
of have the report include that shall, a definition of how such 
program or activity is relevant to the strategic competition 
with the People's Republic of China, it weakens this bill.
    The language of the amendment would decrease the specific 
reporting requirements to make sure that every single program 
funded in the Countering PRC Malign Influence Fund can show 
that it actually counters PRC malign influence. That is a big 
problem. So I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and 
I thank the Chairman for yielding me the time. And I yield 
back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back. Any other 
members seek recognition?
    [No response.]
    Chairman McCaul. There being no further discussion, the 
question now occurs on the amendment offered by Representative 
Meeks.
    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.
    Ranking member is recognized.
    Mr. Meeks. I would like a recorded vote.
    Chairman McCaul. Roll call vote has been requested. 
Pursuant to the Chair's previous announcement, this vote will 
be postponed. Are there any further amendments?
    [No response.]
    Chairman McCaul. There being no further amendments, 
pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R. 1107, PRC is Not 
Developing Country Act. The bill was circulated in advance. The 
clerk shall designate the bill.
    [The bill H.R. 1107 follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    The Clerk. H.R. 1107, a bill to direct the Secretary of 
State to take certain actions with respect to labeling the 
People's Republic of China as a developing country, 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. I now recognize myself for a statement 
on the bill.
    China is not a developing country despite PRC's self-
designation. The PRC is the world's second largest GDP and a 
top consumer exporter. It is home to more than one-fifth of the 
world's 500 largest companies.
    The PRC gets little to zero interest loans from the World 
Bank with a developing nation status. The PRC then turns around 
and uses that money to finance their Belt and Road debt trap 
diplomacy. This ends up holding other nations hostage or 
leaving them bankrupt through their malign activities to expand 
their footprint around the world, often raping countries of 
their--truly developing nations of their natural resources.
    It allows the PRC to get almost zero interest-free loans 
and charge these serious interest rates to truly developing 
nations who then turn around into a debt trap. Eventually, the 
IMF comes to their need with a bail out. This is the PRC's 
ability to manipulate current global institutions that we have 
the United Nations.
    For the life of me, I don't know why we allow them to 
continue with this developing nation status that they use to 
their advantage to finance their Belt and Road Initiative. And 
for these reasons among many more, it allows them to compete 
with the United States in space and hypersonic technology. I 
have been a longtime proponent of ending this designation.
    They are no longer a developing nation as they were when 
they first entered the WTO and the World Bank. And for that 
reason, I would support this amendment or this bill. And with 
that, I yield back.
    Mr. Connolly. Would my friend yield?
    Chairman McCaul. And Mr. Connolly is recognized.
    Mr. Connolly. I thank my friend for yielding. I just want 
to associate myself with those remarks. I saw this bill and 
felt it is about time.
    China has managed to become a great country but not always 
through noble means. It has stolen intellectual property. It is 
extorted from counties that invested in it.
    It has intimidated its neighbors. And as you said, it has 
manipulated the international machinery to its advantage. China 
is no more a developing country today than we are.
    And it has benefitted unfairly at the expense of others 
including us to get to a competitive position. Well, it is now 
the second largest economy in the world, largest military in 
the world. And it is more than capable of standing on its own 
two feet and competing with the rest of us on a level playing 
field.
    So I enthusiastically support the bill and associate myself 
with your remarks, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for yielding.
    Chairman McCaul. I thank the gentleman from Virginia. Well 
stated. I think we can all agree on this one. Is there any 
further discussion on the bill? Mr. Meeks is recognized.
    Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I strongly support this 
bipartisan measure, and thank Representatives Young Kim and of 
course Representative Gerry Connolly. Despite being the world's 
second largest economy, the People's Republic of China often 
enjoys, as indicated, and seeks the status of a developing 
country.
    And they do this in international treaties and 
organizations to gain undeserved special treatment or to avoid 
taking on greater global responsibilities. This bipartisan 
measure calls on the Secretary of State to take diplomatic 
action at various international organizations and treaties 
where China is a member to change the PRC status to an upper 
middle income, high income, or developed country. Propose the 
development of such mechanism if one does not exist and prevent 
the PRC from gaining preferential treatment if it does have the 
status of a developing country.
    The steps this measure calls for highlight why it is so 
critical that the United States remain engaged and present in 
international organizations and treaties. It is only engaging 
can we change things as we have seen time and time again. If 
the United States takes our ball and goes home, China 
immediately fills the void and takes advantage by shaping and 
guiding the institutions for its own benefit.
    This is a good bill. It sends the right message. And I 
support this measure and urge my colleagues to do the same. I 
yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. Is there any further 
discussion on the bill? Mr. Hill is recognized.
    Mr. Hill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for your 
leadership in this package of important bills today, 
particularly the ones that counter the Chinese Communist Party. 
I am glad that representative Young Kim is now also a member of 
the House Financial Services Committee where she is bringing 
her expertise that she is demonstrating in this bill.
    I want to associate myself with the comments made by Mr. 
Connolly and you, Mr. Chairman, and say that this is a good and 
important measure. China is deeply involved in the multilateral 
at the United Nations and in the multilateral banks. And this 
is a way for us to send the signal that it is time for them to 
graduate from developing country status and use this as a wake-
up call with our friends and allies around the world to be 
absolutely, as Ranking Member Meeks said, engaged in the 
multilateral.
    When we see this space, the Chinese take it. And if you 
have concerns about who is appointed at the World Health 
Organization, you ought to be involved. If you are concerned 
about telecommunication standards in the world, then you ought 
to be involved in the multilateral process.
    So at the World Bank, China is down to a billion dollars a 
year credit capability. And as Chairman McCaul has said, that 
is really like a carry tray. They get a billion dollars from 
the World Bank and then they are out making predatory loans 
around the world as the world's current largest creditor 
country.
    It just makes no financial sense whatsoever. So I think 
Young Kim has--with her bipartisan colleagues including Gerry 
Connolly have a bill here that we should all support and 
persuade the other G-7 countries to support this kind of effort 
as well. And with that, I yield back to the Chair.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. Is there any further 
discussion on the bill? Mr. Smith is recognized.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I want to thank 
Young Kim for this very important bill regarding the ongoing 
labeling of the PRC as a, quote, ``developing country''. This 
is smart targeted legislation which calls upon U.S. 
policymakers to oppose an international organization such as 
the United Nations such bogus labeling. The PRC is now a 
wealthy nation, much of it ill-begotten.
    And it directs much of its wealth towards placing countries 
such as Sri Lanka, Uganda, and Djibouti into debt bondage, 
bribing and corrupting local politicians the world over as it 
seeks to create dependency via programs such as the Belt and 
Road Initiative. The PRC should not be preferenced as a 
developing country when the reality is it is now an upper 
income developed nation which has directed resources outward as 
well as militarily in order to threaten the global order. I 
yield back, and I applaud her on her bill.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. Is there any further 
discussion on the bill? Mr. Davidson is recognized.
    Mr. Davidson. Move to strike the last word. Thank you, 
Chairman. Thanks to our colleague, Young Kim, for introducing 
this bill. I applaud the effort and have personally been 
affected prior to coming to Congress as the owner of 
manufacturing companies in Ohio.
    By China's refusal to comply with the terms of the World 
Trade Organization framework, they exploit the developing 
nation status. And this bill hopefully will correct that. I do 
have an amendment. I appreciate the hard work of Young Kim and 
her staff and the committee's staff to try to get language that 
will make it even stiffer.
    The underlying bill contains a provision that would be 
waivable by the President. And we continue to surrender our 
authority. And I think it is important for us to stake claim to 
that and say, well, under what conditions would you be able to 
waive it? And if you want a waiver, why not come back to us?
    But nevertheless, as has been highlighted, China is a net 
lender to countries. And frankly, when you look at a metric 
called net international investment position of countries which 
is what we own of the world versus what the world owns of us, 
for the United States, the world owns more of us than we own of 
them. China is the opposite.
    Germany is frankly in the strongest position per capita at 
about 32-37 per capita. But the United States is in a deficit 
of nearly 50,000 dollars per capita. China is in the middle of 
the pack in this metric, but they have a net favorable 
investment.
    So they own more of the world than the world owns of China. 
Now a lot of that goes with their refusal to comply with the 
terms of the World Trade Organization. And the exploitation of 
the developing country status is just the tip of the iceberg in 
terms of how they are exploiting it.
    But I am so thankful, Chairman, that you are moving this 
bill early in our markup and that it is so bipartisan to 
confront the abuses of China because it has been bad for 
America. It has been bad for our economy. It has been horrible 
for our middle class and the constituents we represent. And I 
urge all of our colleagues to support the bill.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back. Is there any 
further discussion on the bill? Ms. Kim is recognized.
    Mrs. Kim of California. Thank you, Chairman McCaul, for 
holding today's markup. And I am speaking in strong support of 
my bill, H.R. 1107, the PRC is Not a Developing Country Act. 
This is a legislation I introduced with my colleague, Gerry 
Connolly.
    And I thank all the members who spoke in favor of this 
bill. This bipartisan bill seeks to address the People's 
Republic of China's exploitation of its status as a developing 
country in treaties and international organizations. The PRC is 
the world's second largest economy, accounting for 18.6 percent 
of the global economy.
    The economy size is second only to that of the United 
States which is treated as a developed or high income country 
in treaties and international organizations. The PRC exploits 
their status as a developing country by applying for 
development assistance and loans from international 
organizations despite spending trillions on infrastructure 
projects in developing countries as part of the debt trap 
diplomacy scheme known as the Belt and Road program. In fact, 
their withdrawal of loans that should be for developing 
countries enables the PRC to finance the Belt and Road program.
    The PRC is Not a Developing Country Act states that it will 
be the policy of the United States to oppose the labeling or 
treatment of the PRC as a developing country in any treaty, 
international organization, or international agreement to which 
the U.S. is a party. It also directs the Secretary to seek 
mechanisms in international organization to change the status 
of the PRC from a developing country to developed country. This 
legislation will level the playing field for developing 
countries and hold the PRC accountable for its exploitation of 
development assistance and loans.
    So I urge my colleagues to support, and yield the balance 
of my time. Thank you.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields back. Is there any 
further discussion on the bill?
    [No response.]
    Chairman McCaul. There being no further discussions, let me 
just say I want to thank Congresswoman Kim for bringing this 
legislation. It is long overdue. This will force the State 
Department to treat the Chinese Communist Party and their 
government as who they really are, not a developing nation but 
an economic power that must be dealt with.
    And I think this will get to the core of their ability to 
manipulate our global institutions to get interest-free loans 
and then turn them around to manipulate developing nations at a 
usurious interest rate and then take over their rare earth 
minerals and ports and bases and then be bailed out by the IMF. 
I give them an A+ for being smart and clever. But I am glad we 
finally caught up to this.
    And we are going to pass this at a committee I hope 
unanimously and get it to the floor as soon as possible. So 
with that, does any other member--does any member wish to offer 
an amendment?
    Mr. Davidson. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
    Chairman McCaul. Mr. Davidson is recognized. And the clerk 
shall report the amendment.
    [The Amendment offered by Mr. Davidson follows:]
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1107, offered by Mr. Davidson 
of Ohio. Page 4, line 1, insert, not later than--
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection, further reading of the 
amendment is dispensed with. The gentleman is recognized for 
five minutes on the amendment.
    Mr. Davidson. I thank the Chairman. And I thank, as I said 
earlier, the committee staff and Congresswomen Young Kim's 
staff for working together. This puts bounds on the 
administration in terms of their ability to just waive this 
requirement.
    So a lot of times, we pass bills and we feel united in 
Congress. And they never become law because of the process for 
omnibus language. And it never sticks to the appropriations.
    And then we have laws that we are supposed to see 
faithfully executed by the executive branch. And they will come 
and say things like we heard earlier in the hearing about the 
Uyghurs. We ask about their opinions on matters.
    And it is, like, well, at some level, while I am curious 
about your opinion, your job in the executive branch is to 
faithfully execute what we passed and becomes law. And I just 
think this is such an important measure that we don't want them 
to just say, well, the Chinese people are going to get mad. 
Well, we know they are going to get mad.
    They have used this to their great advantage overall. And 
we have seen our people back home all over the country jumping 
up and down hopping mad because we are not confronting China. 
And in this Congress, in this moment when we are united, I 
would hate to give the administration an out. So while I had 
hoped that we could land on language that was maybe even 
tighter, this language does tighten it up and make it harder 
for the administration to waive this requirement to say you are 
going to stop supporting China's claim that they are a 
developing economy.
    I appreciate the thoughtful consideration of the amendment. 
I urge all of our colleagues to support it. And I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. Gentleman yields back. Let me just say I 
support this amendment. And do any other members seek 
recognition?
    [No response.]
    Chairman McCaul. There being no further discussion, the 
question now occurs on the amendment offered by Mr. Davidson.
    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?
    [No response.]
    Chairman McCaul. There being no further amendments, I move 
that the committee report H.R. 1107 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.
    Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the 
table. Staff is authorized to make any technical and conforming 
changes. Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R. 1154, the Stop 
Forced Organ Harvesting Act of 2023. The bill was circulated in 
advance. The clerk shall designate the bill.
    [The Bill H.R. 1154 follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    The Clerk. H.R. 1154, to combat forced organ harvesting and 
trafficking in persons for purposes of the removal of organs, 
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.
    Chairman McCaul. Is there any discussion on the bill? Mr. 
Smith, the author of the bill is recognized.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you so very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to 
thank you, the Ranking Member for including it in this markup.
    I want to thank you for cosponsoring it. I really deeply 
appreciate that. I want to thank Bill Keating, as well as Kathy 
Manning for joining on as cosponsors originals as well. It's a 
bipartisan bill. And I think it will make a difference.
    And special thanks to Mary Vegel, Vegil I should say, 
Janice Kaguyutan, did I get it right Janice? Pierre Lattazi and 
Doug Anderson for working to get this bill ready for today.
    Mr. Chairman, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime 
which monitors trafficking in persons as well as narcotics, 
last year estimated that human trafficking for forced organ 
removal is a criminal enterprise worth between $840 million and 
$1.7 billion. But, then they said, this is a mere tip of the 
iceberg and called it a hidden crime.
    Well, it has become apparent however through open source 
investigation and witness accounts is that there was one 
country, one country in particular which is engaged in state-
sponsored harvesting of human organs from otherwise health 
human beings on a systematic and industrial scale in absolute 
violation of ethics governing transplantation.
    That country is the Peoples Republic of China under Xi 
Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party. Their cruelty of 
murdering between 60,000 to 100,000 young victims every year, 
average age 28, to steal their organs, is unimaginable.
    In May of last year, I chaired a chilling, eye-opening 
hearing at the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission entitled 
Forced Organ Harvesting in China, Examining the Evidence. Ethan 
Guttman, Senior Research Fellow in China Studies for the 
Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation testified that 25,000 
to 50,000 camp detainees are being harvested every year.
    Twenty-eight year olds he goes on to say from Xinjiang 
camps can be theoretically harvested for two or three organs. 
That's up to 150,000 organs just from the Uyghurs. The Kilgour, 
Matas, Gutmann Report of 2016 estimated China's total 
transplant volume at 60,000 to 100,000 annually.
    Religious dissidents targeted for harvesting include Falun 
Gong practitioners, whose peaceful meditation and exercise 
practices unfortunately make their organs desirable. They're 
very healthy people, so they're targeted. They have been 
declared by the Chinese Communist Party an evil cult and thus, 
fit for butchering.
    Uyghurs and other central Asians in concentration camps in 
the Xinjiang Uyghur autonomous region are targeted as well. 
Indeed, we even know the ideal age, like I said, for harvesting 
is 28 years old. This has been deemed the peak of organ 
ripeness by the Chinese medical establishment. And young 
Uyghurs are subjected to comprehensive blood tests to find a 
cross match for organ recipients.
    Sifting through the evidence as an independent body called 
the International Tribunal sitting in London, has concluded, 
and I quote them, forced organ harvesting has been committed 
for years throughout China on a significant scale. And that 
Falun Gong practitioners have been one, and probably the main 
source of organ supply.
    And the evidence, Mr. Chairman, as you know has been in 
plain sight. We also know that through open source Chinese 
language media that elderly high ranking Chinese Communist 
Party officials have received replacement organs from the very 
people they despise and oppress, like the Falun Gong, like the 
Uyghurs, at the People's Liberation Army Hospital 301, located 
in Beijing.
    While this shocks me, and it should shock all of us, and I 
know it does, I can't say it surprises me. Almost 25 years ago, 
Doug Anderson remembers it so well because he was on our 
subcommittee, I chaired the first human rights hearing with a 
Chinese security official who testified that he and his other 
security agents were executing prisoners with doctors, of 
course, there and ambulances to harvest their organs for 
transplantation.
    But, it was done then on a very small scale. Now, it is 
massive and of course, the victims it is an unconscionable 
abuse of victims.
    Indeed, at the last hearing we actually had a doctor who 
testified how he had performed one such surgery on a victim, a 
botched execution, who as he began cutting, discovered that he 
was in the state of shock, that is to say, the victim, a live 
vivisection on a living human being.
    To combat these heinous and inhumane practices, we've 
introduced H.R. 1154. And what it does, it amends the Foreign 
Assistance Act of 1961 to require reports on forced organ 
harvesting and trafficking in persons for purposes of the 
removal of organs in foreign countries.
    It secondly imposes sanctions on any person the President 
determines funds, sponsors, or otherwise facilitates forced 
organ harvesting or trafficking in persons for the purpose of 
removing their organs. And it sanctions, those sanctions 
include blocking and prohibiting all transactions in property 
and interest in property, and making that person inadmissible 
to the United States, and ineligible to receive a Visa.
    This is a start. I hope this Committee will support it 
robustly. Yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. 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?
    There being no amendments, let me first just say, I want to 
thank the gentleman for bringing this long overdue bill. You've 
been a champion of human rights for many, many years in the 
Congress.
    And I can't think of anything more horrific or more 
barbaric than this practice that the Chinese Communist Party 
engages in to hold people down against their will, and 
sometimes anesthetize them, sometimes not, and take out their 
very vital organs and then sell them for hundreds of thousands 
of dollars. It is absolutely disgusting to me.
    And I want to thank you again, for bringing this not only 
to the Committee's attention, but to the American people who 
may not understand what type of nation we're dealing with. And 
how complete disregard for human life and human rights that the 
Communist Chinese Party has.
    There being no amendments, I move that Committee report 
H.R. 1154 to the House with a favorable recommendation. All 
those in favor signify by saying aye.
    All those oppose signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the Chair the ayes have it. The motion is 
agreed to. And, without objection, the motion to reconsider is 
laid on the table. Staff is authorized to make any technical 
and conforming changes.
    Pursuant to notice I now call up H.R. 1153, Deterring 
America's Technological Adversaries Act.
    [The Bill H.R. 1153 follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairman McCaul. The bill was circulated in advance and the 
Clerk shall designate the bill.
    The Clerk. H.R. 1153. A bill to provide to provide the 
clarification of non-applicability----
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection the first reading is 
dispensed with. The bill is considered read and open to 
amendment at any point. I now recognize myself for an opening 
statement.
    While the nation looked at the sky in disbelief as a spy 
balloon from the Chinese Communist Party's military traversed 
the continental U.S. gathering sensitive data and sending it 
back to the mother ship in Beijing, many Americans do not 
realize one of the greatest surveillance efforts from the CCP 
has been silently gathering personal data in their pockets.
    Of course, I'm referring to the social media app called 
TikTok. It is no secret that TikTok is beholden to the CCP. In 
fact, President Biden, his national security officials, have 
been sounding the alarm over the last three months.
    Biden's FBI Director said that TikTok's parent company is 
quote, controlled by the Chinese government, end of quotes. 
President Biden's Director of National Intelligence explained 
that the PRC is quote, collecting foreign data to then use it 
to target audiences for information campaigns, end of quote.
    And Biden's own Deputy Attorney General said quote, I don't 
use TikTok, and I would not advise anyone else to. And we just 
heard today from one of our witnesses, our Undersecretary for 
the Bureau of Industry and Security, stating that TikTok was a 
threat to the national security of Americans in the United 
States.
    The United States Congress, literally the people in this 
room, agreed that TikTok is so dangerous that we banned its use 
on federal government devices. And it's not only Congress, more 
than 30 states have banned TikTok from state issued devices, 
including my home state of Texas.
    So, why is Congress and the majority of states blocking 
access to TikTok? We've all seen what the PRC does with this 
type of data against its own people, interrogations, 
imprisonment, and shipping minority groups to genocide camps.
    TikTok is a modern day Trojan horse of the CCP used to 
surveil and exploit Americans' personal information. This 
legislation is the first step in protecting Americans against 
subversive data collection.
    Currently, the courts have questioned the Administration's 
authority to sanction TikTok. My bill empowers the 
Administration to ban TikTok or any other software application 
that threatens U.S. national security.
    And, make no mistake, TikTok is a national security threat. 
It allows the CCP to manipulate and monitor its users while it 
gobbles up Americans' data to be used for their malign 
activities.
    Anyone with TikTok downloaded on their device has given the 
CCP permission and a backdoor to all their personal 
information. In other words, it's a spy balloon in your phone. 
And I have no doubt the PRC will look to weaponize this 
intelligence as they seek to upend the global balance of power 
in this great generational competition.
    It is time to act. This is an issue that affects all 
Americans. And it's time we put an end to the hostile efforts 
of the CCP to exploit Americans and their personal privacy.
    And I urge my colleagues to support this bill as we did 
impose this on all members of Congress. Is there any further 
discussion on the bill?
    The Ranking Member, Mr. Meeks is recognized.
    Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I oppose this measure. 
And I do so actually regretfully, given that I strongly prefer 
when you and I work together and are able to figure and work 
something out collectively.
    But, on this I forcefully and unequivocally oppose. And 
that's because I think that this legislation would damage our 
allegiances across the globe, bring more countries into China's 
sphere, destroy jobs here in the United States, and undercut 
core American values of free speech and free enterprise.
    These ills are not just bad policy, they would actively 
undermine our national security. The legislation before us 
today is unvetted and dangerously over broad.
    It applies mandatory sanctions to companies that have 
independent American subsidiaries without giving any 
consideration to the consequences. What would happen to these 
subsidiaries?
    The bill does not say. The bill would impose sanctions on 
companies with a combined market capitalization of over a 
trillion dollars, while explicitly refusing to authorize one 
penny to the agency that oversees sanctions enforcement.
    How will the government handle enormous new 
responsibilities with no additional resources? The bill does 
not say.
    The Data Act will also result in sanctions on individuals 
and companies in ally and partner nations around the globe.
    Now, Mr. McCaul, Chairman McCaul to his credit, was ahead 
of the curve in Washington D.C. about the importance of 
semiconductors. He fiercely believes, and correctly so in my 
view, that semiconductor manufacturing and supply chains are 
crucial to national security.
    But, the TSMC, Samsung, SK Hynix, all make significant 
revenues selling chips for Chinese companies that would be 
sanctioned by this bill. Under the secondary sanctions set 
forth in this legislation this means each of these Taiwanese 
and Korean entities would be subject to mandatory sanctions.
    How does it make sense to sanction the very companies the 
Executive Branch and bipartisan members of this Committee are 
actively courting to build fabs in the United States? The bill 
does not say.
    A different approach is and was possible. We could have 
held hearings before the markup, and carefully crafted 
bipartisan legislation together.
    Instead, my staff and I received the text of this 
legislation a little over a week ago. And have only had several 
days to review a bill that would dramatically rewrite the rules 
based international economic order.
    We specifically offered the Chairman and his team a 
detailed outline of the scope of legislation we could accept 
under this significant time crunch. But, ultimately they were 
not amenable to that proposal.
    Even though this measure was noticed just a few days ago, 
and the text of the bill is still not available on Congress' 
official legislative website, companies, countries, and civil 
society groups have already reached out expressing concern 
about the scope and soundness of the legislation before us 
today.
    I believe my amendment in the nature of a substitute is a 
correct path that we must take. It will address the original 
stated scope of this bill, real and genuine privacy concerns 
related to TikTok, without causing more problems than it 
corrects.
    But, if my substitute amendment is not adopted, I must 
oppose this legislation and urge all of my colleagues to do the 
same.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back. Is there any 
further discussion on the bill?
    Mrs. Wagner is recognized.
    Mrs. Wagner. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I support this 
piece of legislation. China's digital espionage programs are a 
colossal national security risk to the United States of 
America.
    And, not just us, but also for all private citizens. The 
intelligence collected from American citizens through these 
programs supports the development of China's surveillance 
state.
    The Executive Branch needs clear authority to cut off the 
flow of private American data to the CCP through apps like 
TikTok. CCP data espionage empowers abusive--abusive as I said, 
Chinese--pardon me. I lost my place here.
    It absolutely empowers the abusive Chinese government to 
reach ever deeper into the lives of its own citizens, 
especially Uyghurs, Tibetans, Christians, and dissidents. The 
U.S. should not be complicit in these abhorrent practices.
    And I support the Chairman's bill to protect the privacy of 
American citizens and attack the CCP's mass surveillance 
systems. And I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields back. Is there any 
further discussion on the bill?
    Mr. Stanton is recognized.
    Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, data 
privacy is national security. And the U.S. government should 
take seriously any attempts by foreign governments or foreign 
owned corporations to gather unlimited data on U.S. citizens.
    But, the Data Act in its current form is a poor way to 
accomplish that goal. We've been asked to rush this bill 
through Committee with no input from sanction experts, 
technologists, the business community, or even the regulatory 
agencies who would be in charge of enforcing the ban. And I 
expect that they would have a lot of valuable feedback.
    The sanctions in this bill are extremely wide ranging, with 
an unknown impact on other businesses operating in the United 
States. Not to mention the real constitutional and legal 
questions this bill raises.
    If we want to get serious about protecting the data privacy 
of millions of Americans about our national security in the 
21st century, then this deserves close study and open dialog, 
neither of which have happened.
    For that reason, I urge my colleagues to vote no. Let's do 
this correctly.
    Chairman McCaul. Any further discussions on the bill? Mr. 
Cicilline is recognized.
    Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I'm wondering, Mr. 
Chair, if you would yield to a question?
    As I read the bill, I have some of the very same concerns 
that the Ranking Member and Mr. Stanton just raised. This 
appears to be a, maybe the broadest sanction and position I've 
ever seen and maybe ever imposed in history.
    And it's not permissive. It requires the imposition of 
sanctions. So, I think when you think about the unintended 
consequences, there aren't provisions that allow the President 
and the Administration not to impose them.
    So, I think we have to be particularly careful here. And 
what I'm particularly unclear about is in the--on page 12 of 
the bill it requires the imposition of sanctions if it's 
reasonably believed to have facilitated or maybe facilitating, 
or contributing to China's, and it lists a number of things, 
military intelligence, espionage, censorship activities, all 
those sound reasonable to me.
    But, Roman Numeral IV says, control or use of 
recommendation algorithms that are capable of manipulating 
content. There's no definition in the legislation of what the 
recommendation algorithms are.
    So, we are requiring the imposition of sanctions against an 
organization that facilitates or maybe facilitating, or maybe 
contributing to China's use of something called recommendation 
algorithms, with no definition of what that is.
    And so, I am just wondering what the intent is. I've spent 
a lot of time studying algorithms, and I'm so heartened to hear 
my colleagues talk about the surveillance state which allows 
technology platforms to relentless collect data even here in 
America.
    But I think the dangers are particularly obvious with 
respect to the Communist Party of China. But, this particular 
provision with recommendation algorithms, I have no idea what 
that means. And if we're requiring the imposition of sanctions, 
we ought to have a clear understanding at least of what that 
means. And I don't know if somebody can answer that.
    Chairman McCaul. Sure. And, the gentleman yields?
    Mr. Cicilline. Oh, of course.
    Chairman McCaul. Yes. The algorithms are manipulated by the 
PRC to send messages of influence, typically political messages 
on devices where TikTok has been downloaded as an app.
    This bill applies to PRC owned and facilitated use of this 
data with respect to military intelligence, espionage, or 
weapons proliferation activities. I think that's very clear.
    With respect to the fact this hasn't been discussed in the 
past, we discussed this on the EAGLE Act last Congress, as I 
recall. We've had a lot of discussion and debate on this.
    Why are we talking about this?
    Mr. Cicilline. Mr. Chairman, if I can just ask, I don't--my 
question is not about military intelligence or espionage, I get 
that.
    If you go down four more lines, Roman Numeral IV, it says, 
control or use of recommendation algorithms that are capable of 
manipulating content. What does that mean?
    Because recommendation algorithms is not a term of art. It 
is not defined in the bill. And again, this is requiring the 
imposition of sanctions if it's reasonably believed, or that it 
maybe facilitating, not just the items you mentioned, but also 
this item, control or use of recommendation algorithms that are 
capable of manipulating content.
    That--I don't even know what that is. And so, before I--
you're asking us to vote to require the imposition of sanctions 
on--that might reach a number of different companies.
    It seems to me I want to have an understanding of what's 
the attempt here. What is that language intending to require 
us, or require the Administration to impose sanctions on it?
    Chairman McCaul. This particular, you're taking about 
Clause IV, was actually brought to our attention by President 
Biden's national security team.
    That these algorithms, recommendations are being 
manipulated by the PRC to send messages to particularly most 
TikTok users are younger generation, to influence them, and to 
influence their political affiliation. And to gain influence to 
their--to favor the PRC.
    Mr. Cicilline. Yeah.
    Chairman McCaul. Again, why is this being brought up? 
Because the prior Administration tried to ban it three times. 
The courts considered that ban and said that the President did 
not have legal authority to do so.
    All I'm trying to do is create a Constitutional framework 
through which the President, and we don't have permissive 
language, you're correct in that. It is mandatory that the 
President would sanction companies that fall within this 
definition that deal with military intelligence, espionage, 
weapons proliferation.
    Mr. Cicilline. Well, I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would 
just say that I think what's most disappointing about this is, 
I think there is broad and maybe universal support on this 
Committee to do exactly what this bill attempts to do.
    But, this is incredibly important that it be done right and 
that it be done well. And I think we all have confidence that 
if Mr. Meeks and you had the opportunity to work in this in a 
serious way, we would come up with a bill that would earn the 
votes of every single person on this Committee.
    I'm not sure why we are being asked to sort of jam through, 
but I think with all due respect it's not well written. It 
doesn't have definitions about critical components.
    We all want very much to give the Administration the tools 
that it needs. But, I--in its current form without a lot of 
amplification and a lot of definitions, it's difficult for me 
to support this.
    And I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. Is there any further discussion on the 
bill? Mr. Mast is recognized.
    Mr. Mast. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague Mrs. 
Wagner.
    Mrs. Wagner. I thank my good friend and colleague from 
Florida for yielding. And I'd like to address, Mr. Chairman, 
this myth that somehow this bill is vague or over broad.
    The sanctions clearly apply only to companies under CCP 
control and facilitating transfers of sensitive personal data 
to the CCP military, espionage, influence operations, et 
cetera. I can also say that a national security waiver lets the 
Executive Branch decide the scope of actions preventing over 
broad use.
    And lastly, I'd say that, you know, it has a five year 
sunset. Which means Congress retains a check whether to extend 
the sanction authority or not.
    And I'd also say that this is an urgent, urgent issue. A 
supreme national security risk. The Biden national security 
officials, including the head of this Administration's CIA and 
FBI are ringing alarm bells about TikTok, and revealing extreme 
urgency.
    So, I think there is clear and present danger. The timing 
and the urgency are necessary. I thank the gentleman for 
yielding. I don't know if the Chair would like additional time 
or not.
    If you--I yield back to the gentleman from Florida.
    Mr. Mast. Thank you, Mrs. Wagner. And I would just say, I 
appreciate and I take the opportunity to thank the staff, both 
majority and minority, that work together on this legislation 
all the way back into February, looking at this. Looking at 
issues that the FBI, the CIA had been bringing up on this very 
issue. And what was brought up even long before that in the 
EAGLE Act.
    So, there was work done, bipartisanly across the Committee. 
And I want to thank all the staff for their work on that.
    And, Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. Any other further 
discussion on the bill? Mr.--Mrs. Kamlager-Dove.
    Mrs. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair and to our Vice--
to our Ranking Member, Mr. Meeks. I want to speak to this bill.
    I am strongly opposed to this ill-conceived and hastily 
drafted piece of legislation which could decimate U.S. 
companies at no benefit to U.S. national security, and has 
concerning implications for Americans' right to freedom of 
expression.
    I do believe until this is worked out more clearly that we 
should oppose this precipitous legislation. To me, this bill is 
clear evidence of an attempt to use a hot button issue to jump 
into the spotlight with no regard for the actual policy impact.
    For one, the bill tries to bypass a review of the Biden 
Administration's foremost experts on the topic, but CFIUS and 
the Commerce Department, which is drafting a strategy to 
address the implications of foreign owned applications.
    And anyone who cares about protecting national security, 
and I know that's all of us, and not just scoring political 
points, would allow the experts to fully analyze every single 
angle of this issue and recommend the best course of action.
    Even more concerning are the bill's vague definitions, and 
they are, under which American companies with no real 
connection to the PRC's malign influence could conceivably be 
banned from doing business in the United States. And I'm 
concerned about this because of all of the entertainment 
companies that are in my district who could become collateral 
damage as a result of this ill constructed bill.
    And, given that their work in the arts is a key avenue for 
Americans' freedom of expression, I can also see concerning 
implications for the protection of civil liberties in this 
country.
    Clearly, this bill would have serious ramifications that 
members of this Committee and civil society stakeholders have 
barely begun to address, but, I know care for deeply.
    So, I once again, believe this to be harmful and 
counterproductive. And I certainly urge my colleagues to 
continue to work on this issue and oppose this bill in the 
meantime.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Mast. Will my colleague yield for a moment?
    Mrs. Kamlager-Dove. Yes.
    Mr. Mast. I just--I was interested by what you said. I was 
wondering if you could just elaborate on some of the companies 
that you said would be affected?
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Well, I have an amendment here, because 
for example, there are video gaming industries that are in my 
district that could become collateral damage.
    They have nothing to do with national security. But, they 
are owned--they are Chinese owned companies, and so they could 
conceivably be banned.
    Mr. Mast. Could you tell me which ones so I could go look 
at this further?
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. I can certainly make sure that you get 
that information.
    Mr. Mast. Thank you.
    Chairman McCaul. Is there any further discussion on the 
bill? There being no further discussion, the Committee will 
move to consideration of amendments.
    Does any member wish to offer an amendment?
    Mr. Meeks. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman McCaul. Mr. Meeks is recognized.
    Mr. Meeks. I have an amendment, number 16 at the desk.
    [The Amendment offered by Mr. Meeks follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairman McCaul. The Clerk shall report the bill--
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 
1153, offered by Mr. Meeks of New York.
    Strike all after the enacting clause, and insert all----
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection, further reading of the 
amendment is dispensed with. The gentleman is recognized for 
five minutes on the amendment.
    Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Based on our 
conversations, I was really expecting your legislation to focus 
more narrowly on TikTok rather that the entire Chinese economy.
    And, with due respect, I believe that H.R. 1153 bites off 
more than it can chew, as I laid out in my comments on the 
underlying measure. And I'm offering this A and S Amendment 
because I want to lay out a roadmap for a pragmatic approach to 
address the challenge that arise from TikTok's popularity.
    Let me be clear on this. I believe concerns about TikTok by 
the United States government and our allies are justified.
    And I supported the restrictions of TikTok on government 
devices, and I'm glad that the European Union and Canada have 
quickly followed us in this prudent step. More needs to be done 
as well.
    Americans' sensitive data should not be going to 
ByteDance's Beijing headquarters. Stories about TikTok 
employees using locational data to spy on journalists is 
entirely unacceptable.
    Whatever action the United States government takes must be 
thoughtful, holistic, and with our American values, which we 
must never yield on, in mind.
    For years, the PRC has banned American internet companies 
from operating in China on baseless national security concerns. 
The CCP forced out Google, one of the largest companies in the 
world, out of fear that their citizens could search for 
accurate information.
    Now, Chinese exchange students cannot even use their Gmail 
when they go home for summer break. So, we should not blatantly 
imitate the PRC's censorship policies.
    More Americans use the TikTok app then citizens of any 
other country in the world. Six of the seven most followed 
accounts in the world are American.
    We should not dismiss the soft power that comes with the 
America way of life being broadcast all over the world. If our 
national security mandates more dramatic action, I will oppose, 
I will take it. But, we cannot act rashly without consideration 
of the very real soft power, free speech and economic 
consequences of a ban.
    My amendment lays out an alternative path. First, it asks 
the Administration to decide if TikTok should be sanctioned 
under current law via the Global Magnitsky Act or the recently 
passed Intellectual Property Violative Sanctions legislation, 
which I was proud to get done last Congress.
    Second, I want to allow the CFIUS process to play out. The 
Executive Branch is working on a negotiated compromise of 
TikTok as we speak.
    And, as I understand it, more drastic force divestment 
options remain on the table if TikTok fails to demonstrate that 
it can't keep American data safe. But, we should not preempt 
this careful interagency process that I am confident will 
produce a result.
    Finally, my A and S comes with a real deterrent. Once a 
negotiated agreement with CFIUS is reached, my A and S requires 
the President to regularly notify Congress if TikTok is keeping 
its end of the deal.
    If the company is not, my amendment grants the President 
the power to sanction TikTok notwithstanding the Berman 
Amendment. This will be an important lever to ensure the 
company's compliance.
    So, I urge all of my members to embrace this salient but 
still powerful approach to addressing TikTok. I also encourage 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle on the Energy and 
Commerce Committee to develop privacy legislation that will 
keep Americans' data secure from the PRC's draconian national 
security law.
    We need to address TikTok and this amendment in the nature 
of a substitute is a fine place to start. So, I urge bipartisan 
support for my A and S.
    And I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. I oppose this 
amendment. Let me just first say that we have had discussions 
with the minority staff since all the month of February. We 
asked for edits and never saw anything of substance.
    I raised an amendment at the EAGLE Act in 2021. Everybody 
knows what TikTok is. If it's too dangerous to be on our phones 
as members of Congress, in my judgment, it's too dangerous to 
be on our children's phones. And that's the whole point of this 
bill.
    It's also the point of this bill to give the Administration 
the constitutional framework within which to ban TikTok if it 
believes it's in the national security interest of the United 
States. It also mandates sanctions on companies engaged in 
espionage and involved with the military, the Chinese PLA.
    This was done after consultation with many legal experts, 
including many national security advisors within the Biden 
Administration, many of whom have said, as I've mentioned 
before, that TikTok is a threat to our national security.
    I met with many cabinet officials on this subject as well. 
And I will hold their conversations private. Suffice it to say 
that the ODNI, the FBI Director, the CIA Director, all believe 
that this is a threat, a backdoor into our children's phones. A 
spy balloon into their phones.
    I heard this over and over again. I believe the time to act 
is now. And I do not agree with the comments that somehow this 
is political or that any way this was brought in haste.
    We've been in discussions with the minority for a month on 
the language of this bill. We do have mandatory language. I 
don't believe permissive is proper at this point in our 
history.
    Again, the bill doesn't require the President to do 
anything. It doesn't give him the authority that he needs to 
address the threat of TikTok, and I'm talking about the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute, my good friend Mr. 
Meeks.
    I always like to work in a bipartisan fashion, and most of 
you who know me, including the Ranking Member, know that that 
is my style. But, the time has come to protect our children 
from the PRC, from the Chinese Communist Party putting a 
backdoor in their phones, unwittingly, I might add.
    Not knowing what the PRC is collecting when they get the 
keystrokes to what they are typing. When they get the data 
that's on their phone. When they push campaigns coming out of 
the PRC to influence their thinking.
    When they're addicted to this, this app, not knowing that 
it's allowing one of our major foreign adversaries, I would 
argue probably the biggest foreign adversary we have right now, 
access into their data. Passwords, privacy, bank accounts, all 
sorts of personal private information that we're allowing 
access to a foreign nation adversary.
    This should be a bipartisan bill Mr. Ranking Member. And 
you and I are often in a bipartisan manner working together to 
do the right thing for the American people.
    But, I want to rise above politics and do what's right for 
the American people and most importantly our children and this 
young generation who may not understand what unwittingly 
they're doing by downloading this app.
    So, there has to be a better way. This bill, unlike others 
introduced, provides the Constitutional legal framework to move 
forward to authorize the President of the United States, within 
his discretion, looking at our national security, the question 
whether to ban TikTok, as so many states have done, as Congress 
has already done amongst ourselves.
    How can we ban TikTok among ourselves and not ban it for 
our children? Again, I ask that question. That is the moral 
question of today and our time.
    So, let's talk about what's real here and what's not. This 
is a protection of privacy. It's a protection from a foreign 
adversary. It's a protection of our children.
    And, for that reason, I oppose this amendment.
    Mrs. Wagner. Will the Chair yield?
    Chairman McCaul. The Chair recognizes Mrs. Wagner.
    Mrs. Wagner. I appreciate that. I'd like to speak to the 
Ranking Member's, I'm going to call the myth, that Congress 
should somehow delay action until negotiations between TikTok 
and CFIUS end.
    Let's be clear. The negotiations between TikTok and CFIUS 
have no deadline. And TikTok has no requirement to reach an 
agreement.
    TikTok has no incentive to reach an agreement because U.S. 
courts have indeed questioned the Executive Branch's authority 
to restrict its operations.
    The bill does not preempt or foreclose an agreement with 
CFIUS. Instead, it gives the Executive Branch authority to act 
at any time, including a violation of any potential agreement 
between companies like TikTok and the U.S. government.
    I couldn't agree more with our Chairman, Mr. McCaul, that 
Congress must act to allow a ban on companies like TikTok to 
occur. Otherwise, this malign influence tool of the CCP will 
continue to operate as a threat to our children, a threat to 
our national security, a threat, I think, to our very way of 
life.
    So, I thank the Chair for yielding and I yield back the 
remainder of my time.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields back. Are there any 
other members seek recognition on this amendment? Mr. Stanton 
is recognized.
    Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'll yield my 
time to Ranking Member Meeks.
    Mr. Meeks. Thank you. And I want to say to the Chair, and 
generally we do, and we, you know, this is a rare that we have 
complete disagreement.
    You know, what I recall with the EAGLE Act, we had 
language. We laid out the language. We sat in offices. We went 
through the bill thoroughly, not just staff, but you and I, and 
trying to get something done.
    From what I'm told, the first time that my staff saw the 
bill, can't negotiate something without seeing the bill, the 
first time that they saw it was on February 17. And then we 
tried to figure out and have conversation in that regard.
    That's not trying to come up to something where we can 
really work on something that's important. And to say that we 
have to do it now and utilize fear to try to pass a bill, fear.
    Now, I've been in Congress now 25 years. I've seen that 
tactic utilized before. Fear that Iraq had weapons of mass 
destruction without evidence or proof.
    We should not be making judgments based upon fear. We 
should not be making judgements based upon speculation. 
Especially when we have a process going in place with CFIUS to 
determine what the facts are.
    This is far too serious for us to make a decision by fear 
and be wrong. It puts us in trouble with our allies and moving 
forward.
    There's no need to rush this. We could have hearings and 
discuss this, and witnesses, and experts. So that we can make 
sure that the world sees that the United States moves in the 
direction of making sure that we act on facts not fear.
    So, in my mind, we should get it right. You don't try a 
case without facts. Let's obtain the facts. Let's let the CFIUS 
process that's in work, that's in progress now, to be 
completed.
    There's no need to rush it. Let's get it right. My A and S 
helps us and focuses on what is in need right now. It gives us 
the flexibility to make sure that we move further if the facts 
show that they do.
    And it gives us the opportunity to again show the world 
that the values of the United States, the principals of the 
United States, and that we tell others, we live by. And not 
following the arbitrary ways of the PRC as they've done to some 
of our companies, as I annunciated as an example, with Google.
    We can do this the right way. With that, I yield back my 
time to Mr. Stanton, yield back Mr. Stanton's time.
    Mr. Stanton. Thank you, Ranking Member Meeks.
    I will yield back the remainder of the time to the 
Chairman.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
    Any further discussion on the amendment?
    [No response.]
    Chairman McCaul. Let me say we often--we work together. 
I've been--I brought this up as an amendment to the EAGLE Act. 
Our staff has been working for the month of February. They saw 
the text here right on the 17th. It's unfortunate we didn't get 
a lot of response.
    The CFIUS--all I heard back was that, well, let CFIUS right 
itself out. I don't know how long it's going to take to allow 
CFIUS to make a determination and what this bill does is it 
authorizes the president. It actually gives him an authority 
that the prior president administration did not have.
    So that if CFIUS is violated by ByteDance, TikTok, it gives 
the president authority to sanction them and it gives him 
authority to ban TikTok. And quite honestly, this is an 
authority that this administration, many of whom have asked us 
as Congress to give them because they know they don't have the 
authority under case law.
    The prior administration tried to ban it three times and 
this administration knows full well the dangers and risks of 
TikTok and what it poses to our children and they've been very 
clear about it.
    Even today, we heard testimony to that fact. Again, we're 
providing a constitutional legal framework. The president can 
then sanction and act on this and ultimately ban if he deems it 
in the national security interests of the United States.
    I don't think that's dangerous at all. I think it's 
dangerous not to pass this bill because if we don't and we 
allow TikTok to continue its surveillance in this country of 
Americans and particularly our children then we have not done 
our job on this committee.
    And I can't wait until CFIUS reaches an agreement and, 
again, this will give the president the authority to enforce it 
if it's violated.
    So with that, is there any further discussion on the 
amendment?
    [No response.]
    Chairman McCaul. There being no further discussion, the 
question now occurs on the amendment offered--in the nature of 
a substitute offered by Mr. Meeks.
    All those 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.
    Mr. Meeks. Mr. Chairman, I ask for 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.
    Are there any further amendments?
    Mr. Meeks. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, 
number 11.
    Chairman McCaul. Mr. Meeks is recognized. The clerk shall 
report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1153, offered by Mr. Meeks of 
New York. In Section 202(f) strike ``vital to the national 
security interests'' and insert ``in the national interest.''
    [The Amendment offered by Mr. Meeks follows:]
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection further reading of the 
amendment is dispensed with. The gentleman is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My second amendment is 
quite a simple one. It changes the waiver standard by--its 
waiver stand in the underlying bill to allow the administration 
additional flexibility and I want to explain how I think about 
waivers, going forward, as I am confident this issue will arise 
again during this Congress.
    First off, I do not believe we should be passing 
legislation without a waiver. The world is simply too 
unpredictable for Congress to sometimes permanently--
permanently lock in the executive branch to sanctions policies.
    Because of a lack of a waiver we have significant trade 
sanctions on some Central Asian countries that did not even 
exist as independent nations when the sanctions were imposed. 
We did not get rid of those Cold War relic sanctions on Ukraine 
until 2006.
    Second, I do not think there is a one size fits all 
template for sanctions. In some cases, a very high standard 
national security waiver is appropriate. This makes the most 
sense in situations where the economic impact on our country is 
negligible and when other allies and partners have already 
imposed the sanctions contemplated by the legislation.
    In cases where economic considerations are at the forefront 
of the bill, as with H.R. 1153, which repeatedly refers to 
economic considerations, I think a national interest waiver is 
the correct standard.
    It does not make any sense to refuse to let the president 
even consider the fact that people could lose their jobs and 
their incomes or make foreign policy considerations like the 
importance of maintaining alliances.
    I encourage all members to support my amendment as it 
allows the president to consider issues we do not want him to 
factor in--that we do want him to factor in when making crucial 
sanctions decisions.
    And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
    I oppose my good friend's amendment primarily because it 
lowers the bar for waiver authority in my bill. It goes from 
the vital national security interest to only national 
interests.
    We learned our lesson that this administration could abuse 
the national interest waiver with Nord Stream 2. We can't have 
a lower bar for something as important as this. We all need to 
protect Americans from the CCP influence. This amendment would 
overly undermine, I believe, the effectiveness of my bill and 
for those reasons I oppose.
    Do any other members seek recognition?
    [No response.]
    Chairman McCaul. Seeing no further discussion, the question 
now occurs on the amendment offered by Mr. Meeks.
    All those in favor signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed signify by saying no.
    In the opinion the Chair the noes have it and the----
    Mr. Meeks. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman McCaul [continuing]. Amendment is not agreed to.
    Mr. Meeks is recognized.
    Mr. Meeks. I ask for a roll call vote.
    Chairman McCaul. A roll call vote has been requested. 
Pursuant to the Chair's previous announcement this vote will be 
postponed.
    Are there any further amendments?
    Ms. Dove is recognized.
    Mrs. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have an 
amendment at the desk, number 17. And I just want to say as a 
new member of this committee how much I appreciate the decorum 
and the tenor of the Chair.
    This amendment that is being passed out illustrates how 
American companies in my district with no real connection to 
the PRC's malign influence would become collateral----
    Chairman McCaul. If the gentlelady will pause and allow the 
clerk to distribute the amendment.
    Mrs. Kamlager-Dove. Absolutely.
    Chairman McCaul. And the clerk shall report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1153 offered by Mrs. Kamlager-
Dove of California.
    [The Amendment offered by Mrs. Kamlager-Dove follows:]
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection further reading of the 
amendment is dispensed with. The gentlelady is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Mrs. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    This amendment illustrates how American companies in my 
district with no real connection to the PRC's malign influence 
would become collateral damage. In this case, an American video 
game company headquartered in my district is Riot Games and 
they actually make ``League of Legends''' is owned by a Chinese 
company and it would be directly impacted despite the 
relationship posing no real national security threat. The 
bill's narrow exemptions would not protect this company or 
others like it, which is why I am submitting one that would do 
so.
    I think people's ability to innovate, design, and create 
should not become victim to a counterproductive even though 
well intentioned approach to how we deal with the PRC. I 
encourage my colleagues to support this amendment and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields back.
    Are there--is there any further discussion on the 
amendment?
    Mr. Kean is recognized.
    Mr. Kean. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I oppose this amendment 
because it creates an unnecessary carve out for a sanctioned 
company. It's important as we're having these conversations 
that we have a comprehensive approach that captures all aspects 
of a corporate entity that has the potential to threaten our 
national security.
    Thank you. I yield back to you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
    Any further discussion on the amendment?
    [No response.]
    Chairman McCaul. There being no further discussion the 
question now occurs on the amendment offered by Mrs. Dove.
    All those in favor signify by saying aye.
    All those oppose signify by saying no.
    Chairman McCaul. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have 
it. The amendment is not agreed to.
    The gentlelady requests a recorded vote. A roll call vote 
has been requested. Pursuant to the Chair's previous 
announcement this vote will be postponed.
    Are there any further amendments?
    The clerk shall distribute the amendment.
    Mrs. Manning. The amendment is Manning number four.
    Chairman McCaul. The clerk shall report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1153, offered by Ms. Manning 
of North Carolina. Add at the end of Section Two----
    [The Amendment offered by Mrs. Manning follows:]
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection further reading of the 
amendment is dispensed with. The gentlelady, Mrs. Manning, is 
recognized for five minutes.
    Mrs. Manning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I offer my common sense amendment to H.R. 1153 to protect 
American companies, including those in North Carolina, from the 
unintended consequences of being exposed to sanctions if they 
happen to have foreign investors as minority shareholders.
    Mr. Chairman, we can agree that we should take concrete 
action to address serious threats to national security, data 
privacy, and cybersecurity.
    However, I'm concerned that without sufficient safeguards 
sanctions in this bill could be applied not just to companies 
in Europe and Asia but also to penalize transactions by 
American companies if they happen to have foreign minority 
shareholders, which, by definition, have a non-controlling 
interest in a company.
    This bill as written could expose some of the most 
successful homegrown American tech startups, including 
companies with multibillion-dollar valuations, which support 
thousands of American jobs like Epic Games in North Carolina. 
Sanctions could be imposed under this bill even though there's 
nothing to suggest that these American companies pose a 
national security risk.
    We should go after bad actors in a smart and targeted way 
without unnecessarily hurting ourselves or costing our 
constituents good jobs. That's why my amendment clarifies that 
this bill would not target independent U.S. entities engaged in 
legitimate transactions simply because they may have foreign 
investors.
    If we're going to succeed and win in our legitimate 
competition with China then we can't afford to pass overly 
broad or self-defeating policies that would harm our alliances 
or damage free enterprise, which are the source of our 
competitive advantage.
    We need thoughtful policies that accomplish our specific 
goals without inflicting damage on our own economy and that's 
why I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting my 
amendment, and I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields.
    I'm opposed to this amendment. Do any members seek 
recognition? Mrs. Radewagen.
    Mrs. Radewagen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I oppose this 
amendment because it creates an unnecessary exemption. We do 
not have a full understanding of the intent and consequences of 
this amendment and have seen how the PRC can manipulate various 
levels of ownership of companies to influence decision making.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields back.
    Any further--any other members seek recognition on this 
amendment?
    [No response.]
    Chairman McCaul. There being no further discussion, the 
question now occurs on the amendment offered by Ms. Manning.
    All those 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.
    Mrs. Manning. Mr. Chair, I 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.
    Are there any further amendments?
    Ms. Jacobs is recognized. The clerk shall distribute the 
amendment and the clerk shall report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1153 offered by Ms. Jacobs of 
California. Strike paragraph six section 201(a).
    [The Amendment offered by Ms. Jacobs follows:]
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection further reading of the 
amendment is dispensed with. The gentlelady is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Ms. Jacobs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment strikes a 
provision that imposes incredibly broad secondary sanctions on 
people and entities on top of the bill's already overbroad 
direct sanctions.
    This is counterproductive to national security. Russia's 
invasion of Ukraine has shown how important our relationships 
with our allies are. We've seen firsthand how our ability to 
build international coalitions has directly protected our 
national security interests and that means being a good partner 
and ally.
    Sanctioning our partner and allies' largest companies like 
this bill would require us to do is a formula to end alliances, 
not bolster them. The provision my amendment would strike also 
would apply to developing countries, which, as we heard from 
administration officials today, often explicitly state that 
they do not want to choose between the United States and China.
    If we force them to do so we may not like the choices they 
make, given the PRC's broad investments around the globe and we 
could risk losing them as partners altogether. The regulatory 
burden imposed by this provision on the U.S. government to 
enforce such sanctions would be unprecedented. This is 
particularly alarming, given that the bill explicitly refuses 
to authorize a penny for broader enforcement. This provision is 
a formula for weakening our alliances, downgrading America's 
standing in the developing world, and closing off America from 
the countries around the globe.
    We should strike it and I encourage all my colleagues to 
support this amendment to do that.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields back.
    I oppose this amendment. Do any members seek recognition on 
this amendment?
    Mr. Baird is recognized.
    Mr. Baird. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment because it 
undermines the criteria for sanctionable activity. Entities 
assisting companies that are threats to the national security 
should be subject to the same enforcement actions, including 
sanctions, and for these reasons, I oppose.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
    Are there any further discussion on the amendment?
    [No response.]
    Chairman McCaul. There being no further discussion the 
question now occurs on the amendment offered by Ms. Jacobs.
    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.
    Ms. Jacobs. Mr. Chairman, I request a recorded vote.
    Chairman McCaul. 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. Phillips. Mr. Chair.
    Chairman McCaul. Mr. Phillips is recognized.
    Mr. Phillips. I have an amendment at the desk, Phillips 
number 11, please.
    Chairman McCaul. The Clerk shall distribute the amendment. 
The clerk shall report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1153 offered by Mr. Phillips 
of Minnesota. Strike Section 101.
    [The Amendment offered by Mr. Phillips follows:]
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection further reading of the 
amendment is dispensed with. The gentleman is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Phillips. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And first, let me thank 
you for bringing this to the Foreign Affairs Committee. I just 
wish that this institution and this country was talking more 
about how to protect children and adults, all Americans, as it 
relates to their personal data and the algorithms that are 
indeed corrupting so many around the world.
    Unfortunately, this is, in my estimation, somewhat limited 
and we should be having a broader conversation. As it relates 
to this specific legislation, sadly, I do feel there are too 
many flaws. But I want to focus my amendment on one of the most 
sacred principles that we hold in America and that is freedom 
of speech.
    My amendment would strike Section 101, which aims to 
severely change the Berman amendment and drastically limit 
freedom of speech. The Berman amendment to IEEPA was 
established to protect Americans' First Amendment principles. 
This amendment took away the president's authority to regulate 
or ban imports of informational materials like films and 
photographs and other forms of media from adversarial countries 
since such authority would restrict free speech protections.
    Since its implementation the Berman amendment has been used 
to ensure that dissidents all around the globe can sell protest 
art, books, and films to Americans in the United States.
    Thus, it would be counter our values to ban a platform for 
free speech be it one from China, from any other country or, 
frankly, one domestically, and that's why I'm profoundly 
opposed to changing the Berman amendment.
    TikTok's management of Americans' privacy data and its 
potential to be used by a foreign government to influence 
American audiences is indeed an issue of real concern. That is 
true.
    However, this bill, in my estimation, is not the solution. 
It could have unintended impacts on our freedom of speech or 
commerce by law-abiding American companies and individuals and 
the activities of allied nations.
    It would also be irresponsible, in my estimation, to move 
forward without fully understanding the bill's consequences and 
implications. I believe we should seek out thoughtful, 
effective responses to the challenges of data privacy abuse, 
misinformation, particularly when it involves authoritarian 
governments such as China.
    But those responses should not come at the cost of 
Americans' freedom of speech and economic liberty. 
Unfortunately, I believe this bill does not represent such a 
measured approach. In fact, I call attention to a recent 
Bloomberg editorial on this subject.
    I quote verbatim, ``Perhaps the most important reason to 
avoid a ban is that it would be a missed opportunity. With 
Congress keen to crack down on the app, President Biden's 
administration could ask Chinese leaders to come to the 
negotiating table.
    In exchange for forestalling a ban it could ask for 
security concessions on TikTok, one of the country's few 
notable tech exports, and also press for better treatment of 
U.S. companies in China. It could even have tried to establish 
reasonable rules of the road for the digital economy including 
online privacy, data security, market access, and much more.
    In fact, a process of this kind--peaceful, technical and 
incredibly boring--is precisely the kind of thing that U.S. and 
China could use right now at a moment otherwise simmering with 
tension and unpredictability. Instead, Congress seems to be 
choosing blunt force, so don't expect much progress.''
    Thus, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and 
with that, I yield the balance of my time.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
    I oppose this amendment very succinctly. This is a 
clarification of the Berman amendment, not a change to it, and 
it's central--it gives the needed authority to the president to 
ban TikTok if in the national security interest of the United 
States.
    With respect to any negotiations with the CCP, this does 
not prohibit or put any restrictions on the president from 
having negotiations with a foreign adversary like Communist 
China, although I would offer my own editorial that I don't 
think a negotiation in good faith with the CCP on this issue 
would be very fruitful. But that's just my, perhaps, cynical 
view and opinion.
    And with that, is there any further discussion on the 
amendment?
    Mr. Baird is recognized.
    Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I oppose this amendment because it weakens the criteria 
that could be used to sanction PRC companies that are trying to 
influence U.S. policies in favor of the PRC's strategic 
objectives. We must have the necessary authority to act against 
PRC efforts and malign influence on U.S. policy.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
    There being no further discussion, the question now occurs 
on the amendment offered by Mr. Phillips.
    All those in favor signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of Chair, the noes have it. The amendment is 
not agreed to.
    Are there any further amendments?
    Mr. Allred. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk 
if we're not going to go vote.
    Chairman McCaul. Mr. Allrod [phonetic] is recognized.
    Mr. Allred. It's Mr. Allred, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman McCaul. Recognized.
    Mr. Allred. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, I share many 
of your concerns----
    Chairman McCaul. Before you begin, the clerk shall 
distribute the amendment and the clerk shall report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1153 offered by Mr. Allred.
    [The Amendment offered by Mr. Allred follows:]
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection further reading of the 
amendment is dispensed with. The gentleman is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Allred. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I share many of the 
concerns that have been discussed here about TikTok but I see 
the sanctions package here as overly broad and undercooked.
    I think it could have serious unintended side effects, and 
the broad brush approach advocated by this legislation could 
lead us to penalize TikTok, ByteDance, Tencent and its 
affiliates but also impact unrelated independent companies who 
just happen to be a subsidiary of TikTok's parent companies.
    Notably, the measure would have detrimental effects on our 
European allies' entertainment software industry. With the 
current introduced language European video game companies who 
are affiliated or subsidiaries of Tencent would automatically 
be designated under Section 202, immediately placing companies 
out of business and even affect our own domestic operations in 
this space.
    What my amendment does is clarify that European 
entertainment software companies should be excluded from 
Section 202 sanctions. If we wish to effectively curb Chinese 
influence we need to be cognizant of our allies so they do not 
get negatively affected.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
    I'm opposed to this amendment. Do any members seek 
recognition on this amendment?
    Mr. James is recognized.
    Mr. James. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I oppose this amendment 
because it creates an unnecessary loophole for a subsidiary of 
a sanctioned company. We cannot support a half measure that 
allows a subsidiary of a sanctioned PRC company to escape from 
needed accountability.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
    Is there any further discussion on this amendment?
    [No response.]
    Chairman McCaul. There being no further discussion the 
question now occurs on the amendment offered by Mr. Allred.
    All those in favor signify by saying aye.
    You don't have to. You don't have to if you don't want to.
    All those opposed signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. The 
amendment is not agreed to.
    The yeas and nays have been requested and pursuant to 
Chair's previous announcement the vote will be postponed.
    Are there any further amendments?
    Seeing no further amendments, we're going to take a short 
recess to vote and come back and entertain Mr. Meeks' final 
bill, and then we will vote on all the recorded votes.
    We stand in recess.
    [Recess.]
    Chairman McCaul. The committee will come back to order. 
Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R. 1151, Upholding 
Sovereignty of the Airspace Act.
    [The Bill H.R. 151 follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairman McCaul. The bill was circulated in advance. The 
clerk shall designate the bill.
    The Clerk. H.R. 151, a bill to hold the People's Republic 
of China accountable for the violation of United States 
airspace and sovereignty with its high-altitude surveillance 
balloon.
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection, first reading is 
dispensed with. The bill is considered read and open to 
amendment at any point. I now recognize myself for a statement 
on the bill.
    I would like to thank, Ranking Member Meeks, on this one we 
can agree. Working together, this legislation protects the 
sovereignty of the U.S. airspace and condemns the actions of 
the Chinese Communist Party. As the CCP grows more belligerent 
in their behavior we must make sure that we have the proper 
safeguards in place to prevent future surveillance aircraft 
from violating our airspace. Congress is united against the 
threat of the CCP. We must continue to condemn these brazen 
acts of aggression against us as well as our allies and 
partners.
    Earlier this month I introduced House Resolution 104 
condemning the CCP's use of their spy balloon. It passed 
unanimously 419 to 0. We must continue to show our nation and 
the world that our national security is not a partisan issue 
and that we are united in our efforts to counter the malign 
influence of the CCP.
    Data collection and large-scale surveillance by the CCP 
poses a significant threat to Americans as well as our national 
security. This legislation is important because it calls upon 
Secretary of State as well as the Director of National 
Intelligence and the U.S. representative to the United Nations 
to create a process to share information regarding airspace 
violations by the PRC.
    Most importantly, it requires a report on export controls 
for technologies that may be exported which would support the 
People's Liberation Army intelligence gathering which they 
could use against their own citizens to suppress, detain, and 
imprison their own citizens. It also authorizes sanctions 
against individuals in the PRC that are involved in the global 
surveillance balloon program. As the CCP ramps up its efforts 
to challenge the global balance of power we must stand united 
and condemn these activities.
    And I want to commend the ranking member, my good friend, 
Mr. Meeks, for bringing this bill forward.
    I now recognize the ranking member, Mr. Meeks.
    Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank 
you. Again, we could have vigorous debate, but we are always 
friends and working together. And here is a bill that we can 
agree upon. So I thank you for co-leading this bill with me.
    This bipartisan legislation is both timely and necessary. 
It has only been a few weeks since the PRC surveillance balloon 
intruded our airspace and violated U.S. sovereignty. Since then 
we have learned that the United States and Canada aren't alone, 
that PRC surveillance balloons have violated the sovereignty of 
over 40 nations across five continents. This blatant disregard 
for the airspace and sovereignty of other nations is not just 
inconsistent with international rules; it is dangerous and 
provocative.
    Since that incident, I have been deeply troubled by 
Beijing's response. Instead of apologizing, Beijing has 
resorted to denials and absurd misinformation and propaganda. 
And I am glad that President Biden safely and successfully took 
down the balloon earlier this month and in a way that allowed 
us to track/monitor the balloon and learn a great deal about 
the PRC's surveillance balloon program. Since that day, the 
Biden Administration has smartly declassified additional 
information about the PRC's global program and shared it with 
the world.
    H.R. 151 calls on the State Department to work with our 
allies and partners as well as in multilateral organizations to 
name and shame Beijing for its wanton infringement of other 
nations' sovereignty through its surveillance balloon program. 
It also provides the President an authorization to hold those 
responsible accountable and calls for reporting and action by 
the Department of Commerce to prevent U.S. companies from 
exporting goods and technologies that support the PRC's 
military civil fusion related to its surveillance balloon 
program.
    I support this legislation and I ask all of my colleagues 
to do the same. I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
    Is there any further discussion on the bill?
    Mrs. Kim of California. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment 
at the desk.
    Chairman McCaul. Mrs. Kim is recognized.
    Oh, I am sorry. There being no further discussion on the 
bill, the committee will move to consideration of amendments. 
Does any member wish to offer an amendment?
    Mrs. Kim is recognized.
    Mrs. Kim of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to 
thank Ranking Member Meeks for offering this legislation to 
hold----
    Chairman McCaul. If the gentlelady will pause, the Clerk 
shall distribute the amendment.
    [The Amendment offered by Mrs. Kim of California follows:]
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mrs. Kim of California. Okay. Sorry about that.
    Chairman McCaul. And the clerk shall report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1151 offered by Mrs. Kim of 
California. Section 4(a). Insert before paragraph 1----
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection, further reading of the 
amendment is dispensed with. The gentlelady is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Mrs. Kim of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do want 
to thank our Ranking Member Meeks for offering that legislation 
to hold PRC accountable for its blatant violation of U.S. 
airspace and I am offering an amendment to this bill to make it 
the policy of the United States to use its voice in the 
International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO, to advocate 
for Taiwan's participation in ICAO meetings and events.
    The PRC currently sits as a council member of this board 
and it is ironic considering how frequently the PRC violates 
the airspace of the United States, its allies, and Taiwan. The 
PRC's airspace violations do not conform with the principles 
outlined in the ICAO's strategic objectives.
    Taiwan is a frequent target of the PRC's airspace 
violations and in the last year has seen a significant increase 
in intrusions of its air defense identification zone by PLA 
aircraft. Taiwan does not currently have membership in an 
international organization devoted to aviation in which it can 
condemn these violations. This amendment would hopefully change 
that.
    So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and I 
yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields back.
    I support this amendment. Do any other members seek 
recognition?
    Mr. Meeks is recognized.
    Mr. Meeks. Yes, Mr. Chairman, the bill is about the PRC's 
surveillance balloon and an effort to call the PRC out for its 
violations of U.S. sovereignty and it actually has nothing to 
do with Taiwan.
    Last Congress, as Chair, I tried to make sure that we did 
not have any amendments or bad-faith Democratic amendments on 
bipartisan bills particularly that were agreed to ahead of the 
markup. And so even today I have tried to make sure that we did 
not have any bad-faith amendments on bipartisan bills. But this 
is a non-germane amendment, and I hope that we can work to make 
China an area of bipartisan cooperation in as many areas that 
we are there in bipartisan.
    But I unfortunately have to oppose this amendment and urge 
my colleagues to do the same because this amendment changes 
exactly what the focus of the bill is and I would believe--and 
I believe that the amendment is non-germane to the bill. And so 
with that I strongly oppose the amendment and urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
    Mr. Perry. Mr. Chairman, I have got an amendment at the 
desk.
    Chairman McCaul. The Chair yields back. Is there any 
further discussion on the amendment offered by Mrs. Kim?
    Mr. Perry is recognized.
    Mr. Perry. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I support 
Representative Kim's amendment. I think it is germane and I 
think we ought to approve it. And I yield the balance.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
    Any further discussion on the amendment?
    As I said, I support this amendment. I hope it will not 
jeopardize final passage. As I said, I am very much in favor of 
Mr. Meeks' bill on Chinese surveillance through the spy balloon 
and protecting our sovereignty and our airspace.
    There being no further discussion on the amendment the 
question now occurs on the amendment offered by Mrs. Kim.
    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. The amendment 
is agreed to.
    Mr. Meeks. I ask for a roll call vote.
    Chairman McCaul. Roll call vote has been requested. 
Pursuant to Chair's previous announcement, this vote will be 
postponed. Are there any further----
    Mr. Perry. Mr. Chairman, I have got an amendment at the 
desk.
    Chairman McCaul. Mr. Perry is recognized.
    Mr. Perry. I think they are going to distribute the 
amendment.
    Chairman McCaul. And the clerk shall distribute the 
amendment and the clerk shall report the amendment.
    [The Amendment of Mr. Perry follows:]
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1151, offered by Mr. Perry of 
Pennsylvania.
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection, further reading of the 
amendment is dispensed with. The gentleman is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Perry. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. This 
amendment requires a classified briefing on all UFOs since 
2017. Some of these incursions by China were characterized as 
unidentified foreign objects. I still am not aware of what the 
makeup of some of these objects were recently because they were 
characterized that way.
    And so I am asking in light of that in relation to this 
bill, which I think is a decent bill and I am planning to 
support it, that we also get a classified briefing because we 
are also now understanding that China has done this for some 
time, not just recently. And I would like to understand fully 
what their involvement has been, where if at all these have 
breached United States airspace, and what we know about these 
vehicles that allegedly have intruded United States airspace in 
the past.
    And so that is all it does is ask for--require a classified 
briefing on similar objects since 2017 and I urge adoption. And 
I yield.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
    Let me say I support this amendment. I think especially in 
light of the three unidentified objects after the spy balloon 
that this Congress and this committee that has oversight on 
espionage that we be entitled to a classified briefing on this 
issue.
    Do any other members seek recognition?
    Mr. Meeks is recognized.
    Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I will support 
this also. I will support this amendment, but I would like to 
point out that the administration has provided us this exact 
classified briefing already and has indicated they will 
continue to keep Congress appraised--apprised of similar 
developments in the future. I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
    Any other members seek recognition?
    Seeing none, no further discussion, the question now occurs 
on the amendment offered by Mr. Perry.
    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. The amendment 
is agreed to.
    Are there any further amendments?
    No further amendments, the committee stands in recess until 
7:15 as members of the Financial Services Committee return, at 
which time we will reconvene to have our recorded votes.
    [Whereupon, at 5:23 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to 
reconvene the next day.]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                [all]