Datasets:

Modalities:
Text
Formats:
text
Languages:
English
Libraries:
Datasets
License:
CoCoHD_transcripts / data /CHRG-118 /CHRG-118hhrg51597.txt
erikliu18's picture
Upload folder using huggingface_hub
af5846d verified
raw
history blame
99.9 kB
<html>
<title> - FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP</title>
<body><pre>
[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP
=======================================================================
MARKUP
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
March 28, 2023
__________
Serial No. 118-10
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) 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
51-597 PDF WASHINGTON : 2023
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey GREGORY MEEKS, New Yok, Ranking
JOE WILSON, South Carolina Member
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
DARRELL ISSA, California
ANN WAGNER, Missouri
BRIAN MAST, Florida
KEN BUCK, Colorado
TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee
MARK E. GREEN, Tennessee
ANDY BARR, Kentucky
RONNY JACKSON, Texas
YOUNG KIM, California
MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR, Florida
BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan
AMATA COLEMAN-RADEWAGEN, American
Samoa
FRENCH HILL, Arkansas
WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio
JIM BAIRD, Indiana
MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
TOM KEAN, JR., New Jersey
MIKE LAWLER, New York
CORY MILLS, Florida
RICH MCCORMICK, Georgia
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas
JOHN JAMES, Michigan
KEITH SELF, Texas
BRAD SHERMAN, California
GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
AMI BERA, California
JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
DINA TITUS, Nevada
TED LIEU, California
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota
COLIN ALLRED, Texas
ANDY KIM, New Jersey
SARA JACOBS, California
KATHY MANNING, North Carolina
SHEILA CHERFILUS-MCCORMICK,
Florida
GREG STANTON, Arizona
MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
JONATHAN JACOBS, Illinois
SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
JIM COSTA, California
JASON CROW, Colorado
BRAD SCHNEIDER. Illinois
Brendan Shields, Staff Director
Sophia Lafargue, Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
BILLS, AMENDMENTS EN BLOC
H.R. 314......................................................... 2
Amendment to H.R. 314 offered by Mr. Meeks....................... 16
Amendment to H.R. 314 offered by Ms. Kamlager-Dove............... 19
Amendment to H.R. 314 offered by Mr. Jackson..................... 23
H.R. 1684........................................................ 26
APPENDIX
Hearing Notice................................................... 54
Hearing Attendance............................................... 56
Hearing Minutes.................................................. 57
VOTES
Votes submitted for the record................................... 58
STATEMENT SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD FROM REPRESENTATIVE CONNOLLY
Statement submitted for the record from Representative Connolly.. 62
MARKUP SUMMARY
Markup summary................................................... 64
FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP
Tuesday, March 28, 2023
House of Representatives,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in
room 210, House Visitor Center, Hon. Michael McCaul (chairman
of the committee) presiding.
Chairman McCaul. A quorum being present, the Committee on
Foreign Affairs will come to order. The committee is meeting
today for consideration of H.R. 314, the Fighting Oppression
Until the Reign of Castro Ends Act; and H.R. 1684, the Haiti
Criminal Collusion Transparency Act of 2023.
The chair announces that any requests for recorded votes
may be rolled and he may recess the committee at any point,
without objection, so ordered.
Pursuant to House rules, I request that members have the
opportunity to submit views for any committee report that may
be produced on any of today's measures. Without objection, so
ordered.
Pursuant to notice, I now call H.R. 314, the Fighting
Oppression Until the Reign of Castro Ends Act. The bill was
circulated in advance and the clerk shall designate the bill.
[The Bill H.R. 314 follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Clerk. H.R. 314, to prohibit the removal of Cuba from
the list of State sponsors of terrorism until Cuba satisfies
certain conditions and for other purposes.
Chairman McCaul. Without objection, the first reading is
suspensed with and the bill is considered read and open to
amendment at any point. And I will now recognize myself for a
Statement on the bill.
Cuba remains on the State sponsor of terrorism list because
the communist regime continues to support acts of terror. In
addition to harboring terrorists from Latin America, Cuba is
allied with America's adversaries including Russia and China.
The Cuban Government remains in lockstep with these malign
actors seeking to upend the global balance of power. And Cuba
continues to support Venezuela's brutal dictatorship, the very
same government whose leadership is wanted in the U.S. on
narcoterrorism charges.
Representative Salazar's FORCE Act will prohibit the Biden
administration from removing Cuba from the SSOT list until they
meet a basic set of requirements. These are the same
requirements that a bipartisan majority in Congress and
President Bill Clinton agreed were necessary for lifting the
U.S. embargo on Cuba's regime, that is, legalizing political
parties, labor unions, and free political prisons, committing
to holding free and fair elections.
President Biden caved to the Cuban regime's request for
U.S. foreign assistance, permitting the regime to re-allocate
funds toward its oppressive institutions. We cannot allow the
Biden administration to continue to project weakness on the
global stage by providing relief for the communist regime in
Havana.
I was in Miami. I have been there many times. I met first
hand with victims of the Castro regime and I know many Cuban
exiles who long to return to their home that was stolen from
them. It is time to stop rewarding the Western Hemisphere's
longest-ruling communist dictatorship. I am proud to support
this critical piece of legislation and I commend my friend and
colleague, Representative Salazar, for her tireless efforts on
behalf of the Cuban people.
Is there any further discussion on the bill?
Mr. Meeks is recognized.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me say I oppose
this bill. And while I appreciate the sponsor's passion on
these issues and in fact, share her goals for a more free,
prosperous, and democratic Cuba, I break with her on the best
way to bring about these changes.
My views on U.S. engagement with Cuba are clear. I have
been against policies which seek to further isolate and
alienate the people of Cuba and I have seen the impact of what
establishing relationships with the people of Cuba can do in
just a short time.
During the Obama Administration, the warming relations with
Cuba inspired Cuban people to build private businesses, explore
new opportunities, and organizing using social media and their
own voices to do so. As an added benefit, engagement also
strengthened the United States' credibility in the entire
region.
I oppose this bill on a number of other grounds. Most
importantly, I believe it would deepen the wedge between the
people of Cuba and the people of the United States on issues of
mutual and global concern.
Our partners in the region are also focused on these issues
such as access to humanitarian support in times of crises,
economic development, and the ability to recover from crises
especially in the wake of COVID-19 pandemic and the barrage of
natural disasters which have caused the people of Cuba great
hardship in recent months.
I also oppose this bill because intelligence reviews have
found no, and I repeat, no indication that the Cuban Government
provided weapons or paramilitary training to terrorist groups,
contrary to what some believe. Failing to be a democracy is not
criteria for remaining on the list. It is not a democracy, but
that does not mean that it is a terrorist country.
Cuba was put back on the list by the Trump administration
to intentionally complicate the United States and Cuba
relations. This State Department's findings on Cuba in its
annual report to Congress have failed to meet the standard for
designation as a State-sponsor of terror. The country simply
does not meet the definition of State sponsor of terrorism, so
putting Cuba on the list with North Korea, Iran, and Syria
weakens the impact of what the list is intended to do and that
is to thwart the activities of those who have repeatedly
provided support for acts of international terrorism.
There are many countries around the world that fall short
of the democratic and human rights requirements imposed by this
legislation for Cuba to escape the State sponsor of terrorism
list. But we do not place them on the State sponsor of
terrorism list for these shortcomings. There are many other
tools in our foreign policy tool kit to demonstrate our
disapproval including assistance cutoffs, travel restrictions,
trade controls, financial sanctions. We do not need to impose
an inaccurate terror designation to signal our disapproval.
Now if we are serious about supporting the Cuban people and
Cuba's aspiring entrepreneurs and facilitating the flow of
information and communication, we need to remove barriers to
engagement. The State sponsor of terrorism designation for Cuba
impacts us all. Whether direct or indirect, it gets in the way
of the type of change we all want to see happen on the island,
while also diminishing hope for a better day.
Open relationships are a more powerful change agent than
isolation. How do we know? We have isolated Cuba for over 60
years and nothing has changed. We saw the biggest change when
we tried to improve the relations which gave that
communications that were important, what we saw taking the
Cuban people to the streets. It is time for a more carrots-
based approach to the challenges being faced on the island. We
know the incentive can work.
Unfortunately, the Cuban people have bore the brunt when
U.S. policy uses its sticks-only approach. Removing Cuba from
the list and resuming normalized relations which we have
already seen, had and would improve the atmosphere for
bilateral and multilateral dialog on a wide range of issues of
mutual interest. And with that, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. Any further
discussion on the bill? The author of the bill, Ms. Salazar, is
recognized.
Ms. Salazar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you--very
brave on your part to having brought this bill to be considered
in front of the committee, so that is why I am proud this
committee is considering H.R. 314, the FORCE Act, a bill I
introduced to keep Cuba on the State sponsor of terrorism list
until the Cuban regime is democratically reformed.
Last week, here in this hall, I pressed Secretary Blinken
to answer whether Cuba had reached the high bar, high bar that
it takes to be taken off that list and he admitted clearly that
it has not. So I am assuming that the Secretary of State is in
full support of keeping Cuba on the list of State sponsors of
terrorism.
And why is that? Because him and I and the whole world
knows the truth, that Cuba belongs on that list and let me
explain just a few of the details why it still belongs on that
list.
Cuba's regime bankrolls foreign terrorist groups like the
ELN in Colombia, like Maduro in Venezuela, in Bolivia, and
Nicaragua, and every other dictator it could find in the
hemisphere or in Africa.
In 2019, this group attacked a police academy. I am talking
about the ELN in Colombia. It attacked a police academy
injuring 68 cadets and killing 22 others. In 2020, they carried
out 76 massacres, 82 massacres the next year, and Cuba was
there helping them.
Just last month, it was reported that the ELN was planning
more of these terror attacks. But Cuba just doesn't pay for
terrorists or helps them. Cuba also hides them. Best example,
the most important example is an American fugitive called
Joanne Chesimard from New Jersey. She was serving time for
shooting a New Jersey police officer at point blank range,
execution style. But for almost 40 years, 40, she has lived
peacefully in Cuba. The FBI has asked the Cuban regime,
specifically, Fidel Castro, to send her back. Never. It never
happened.
Then we have William Morales, a bomb maker from Puerto
Rico. He was implicated in over 50 bombings in the 1970's and
in one of those bombings he killed 4 people and maimed another
50 in the fire. When police went to arrest him, Morales said
very happily, they are not going to hold me forever. And he was
right. Cuba was there to welcome him with open arms and he has
lived in Cuba ever since.
We cannot give the Castro regime an inch and we are one bad
decision away from Russia reopening the Lourdes spy base in
Cuba, only 90 miles off the coast of the United States.
Therefore, taking Cuba off this list would be the beginning
of the end of Latin America. Our hemisphere is already poisoned
by the spies in Venezuela and Bolivia. The FORCE Act will put
this decision back in the hands of Congress who will ensure the
LIBERTAD Act is obeyed.
And just to say a few more words, when President Obama
established relations with the Cuban regime, specifically with
the Castro brothers, it was the perfect moment for that regime
as my colleague, Congressman Meeks, just pointed out, it was
the perfect moment for the Castro regime to prove to the world
that they really wanted to engage in the international economic
community. President Obama gave everything in exchange of
nothing and 3 years later, the Cuba regime did not open up, not
even one inch, what we were expecting on the economic front
what Obama had expected. So it was a major disappointment for
the foreign policy for the Obama Administration to have given
everything in good faith and received nothing back.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields. Does any other
member seek recognition?
Mr. Sherman is recognized.
Mr. Sherman. This bill does not say that Cuba stays on the
list until it stops supporting international terrorism. It says
that Cuba stays on the list until it becomes a liberal
democracy. That is bad anti-terrorism policy writ large and
worldwide. If we turn to the world and say if you are not a
liberal democracy, we are putting you on the terrorist list and
we are keeping you there, then why--then a country has nothing
to lose unless it has decided to become a liberal democracy and
at least 100 countries haven't. So we turn to these 100
countries that we have yet to convince to adopt democracy,
freedom, and liberty and say well, since you are not going to
be a democracy, you are on the international terrorist list. At
that point, there are no further consequences to them actually
supporting international terrorism.
I think we should stick with the policy that has guided us
in our international terrorism policy for at least two decades,
the terrorism list is for those countries that engage
international terrorism on a substantial scale. Whether Cuba
does or does not fit into that category is a reasonable debate
and if this resolution said keep Cuba on the list until
Congress determines that it is no longer engaged in
international terrorism that would be a reasonable approach.
But instead, it says keep Cuba on the list until it becomes a
liberal democracy with full freedom. I don't think that we can
have a policy of saying--once you do that, you create a
precedent that logic would require you apply to the rest of the
world.
So the terrorism list is for terrorist States. If Cuba is a
terrorist State, it should be on the list. If Cuba is no longer
at some point a terrorist State, it should be off the list even
if it doesn't become a democracy. That doesn't mean that we
don't do many, many things to try to bring democracy to Cuba,
but the terrorism list is not something that we should apply to
any one of 100 countries in the world that is not a democracy,
but does not support terrorism. And with that, I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. Any further
discussion on the bill?
Mr. Perry is recognized.
Mr. Perry. I thank the chairman. Wishful thinking. Wishful
thinking, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. We all wish
that Cuba wouldn't do the things it does, but relaxing the
standard is just going to encourage more. We have seen it. We
have already seen this. We don't have to try it again to see
that no good deed will go unpunished. We have tried with Cuba.
So I support the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Salazar's
bill, and she has clearly articulated, if you didn't listen to
her, why Cuba remains a terrorist State. She has articulated
it.
But included in that, even though she didn't articulate it
is the fact that Cuba hosts Lourdes, the largest listening post
on the planet, operated by the Communist Party of China pointed
at the United States of America. And if that is not enough, co-
located there is Torrens, where Moscow maintains their largest
signals intelligence facility outside of their geographic
bounds of their country.
Cuba does not have an army that we are concerned about, but
they do have a biological warfare threat that exists and is
real. And I will remind everybody it is 90 miles off the coast.
Cuba enables the repressive systems in Venezuela and
Nicaragua. It hijacks legitimate protests in Colombia and Chile
that are striving to become communist nations.
Listen, folks, a block of the United Socialist Republics in
our hemisphere would be completely, completely
counterproductive. The soft on crime, let's all put a Che
Guevara t-shirt on, and act like he was some kind of freedom-
fighting hero, quite honestly is absurd and ridiculous.
It would be awesome if the members of this committee could
agree that Cuba does not work in the best interest of the
United States. Quite honestly, it does not work in the best
interest of humanity. And while we all agree, we all agree with
the people of Cuba, the people of Cuba. When I was growing up
in Miami, our neighbors, Cubans, where not only just our
neighbors, they were close, family friends. Their freedom,
their livelihood, their property, their heritage, stolen from
them by Fidel Castro. That vision exists today in the
leadership of Cuba and to believe anything otherwise I am not
sure what that is. I am really not sure what that is. I hope it
is just ignorance.
We are not doing this to Cuba by the way. I have heard, oh,
we have punished Cuba and we have sanctioned Cuba and this is
all the United States' fault. No, this is Cuba's fault. This is
the leadership of Cuba, it is not the people of Cuba, but they
are never going to get out of it if we continue to help the
leadership of Cuba which by the way when we send them anything,
we relax anything, they use it to their benefit, not to the
people of Cuba's benefit, to their benefit.
Understand how totalitarian regimes work. They are not
waking up in the morning and say, how can we get the United
States to help us so we can help our people? They are figuring
out how can they get the international community help them stay
in power and oppress their people. Let's not be part of that,
ladies and gentlemen. I urge you to support and vote for the
bill and I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
California, Mr. Issa.
Mr. Issa. I thank the gentleman and I don't want to make
this go any longer than necessary because I believe that there
are not just enough votes, but there is an overwhelming
majority in support of this.
I might just comment, my good friend, Mr. Sherman noted,
the details of what this bill does and doesn't do, and he is
technically correct and I am not going to disagree with him.
But what I would say is that Congress, in my 23 years, we are
perfectly capable of passing a law that says do this, don't do
this until they do that, and if they make even the smallest
move toward freedom, toward not oppressing their people, toward
not destabilizing the region, toward not exporting terrorism
throughout South and Central America, just the slightest move,
I would be happy and I hope that we are both still here in that
time and that it is soon, but I would be happy to join the
gentleman, my fellow gentleman from California, in passing
another bill that says we are going to have an outreach and we
are going to support an administration's outreach. But while we
still have people who have permanent damage from having been
bombarded through a somewhat unknown brain injuring event
because we went there and opened our arms to the Cuban
Government, we cannot do less than what we are doing today, so
I am a cosponsor. Support it. And I thank the gentleman for
yielding. I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. Any further
discussion?
Mr. Cicilline is recognized.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am proud to
represent a vibrant Cuban community in the State of Rhode
Island. Cuban Americans represent some of the hardest working
and brightest minds, not just from Rhode Island, but across our
country. In 2016, I traveled with then President Obama on his
historic trip to Cuba, as his administration charted a new
course on U.S. policy toward Cuba.
After 50 years of isolating Cuba, it was clear that U.S.
foreign policy was not working. But through the Obama
Administration's actions, we began to see positive developments
between our countries, including expanded cooperation on
counterterrorism, counternarcotics, coastal and marine
protection and more. While there remain many unresolved issues
in the relationship between our two nations, these changes gave
the United States more tools to promote positive changes for
the Cuban people.
The Biden administration has made it clear that standing up
for democracy and human rights will remain at the center of
U.S. foreign policy, but we can still engage with the Cuban
Government as we do with a number of other countries around the
world that we have significant differences with. And that is
why I was so disappointed to see President Trump and his
administration roll back President Obama's actions on Cuba.
This included the re-listing of Cuba as a State sponsor of
terrorism with the likes of Iran, Syria, and North Korea,
despite an intelligence review conducted in 2015 under
President Obama showing that Cuba did not meet the statutory
definition to be on that list.
The classification of a country as a State sponsor of
terrorism should always be led by the facts, not politics. The
actions carried out by the Trump administration less than 10
days before the 2021 inauguration of a new President, weakens
our credibility and really delegitimizes the State sponsor of
terrorism list.
And so as my colleague, Mr. Sherman, made clear, this is
not a list of countries that aren't democracies. That would be
a very long list. We have very robust relationships with many
countries that are not democracies and we should always
continue to promote democracy in every part of the world that
we can, but this a very different designation. This is a State
sponsor of terrorism. There is a definition for that. And there
are three countries on it that have been repeatedly engaged in
acts of terrorism around the world, Iran, Syria, and North
Korea. We ought to take that seriously. We ought not undermine
and delegitimize those classifications which mean something
very, very specific, just because we have a long-standing
disagreement with Cuba about their governance.
The requirements that are contained in this proposal are
very specific. It requires the development and sustaining of a
very strong, liberal democracy. There are many countries that
we deal with on a very regular basis that would not meet this
definition, maybe as many as a hundred, but there is value in
ongoing diplomatic relationships and work that we can do to
improve the lives of the residents of those respective
countries.
So I think this is a very, very dangerous precedent. If we
are going to lump on a list of State sponsors of terrorism
countries that, in fact, are not meeting the statutory
definition, countries that don't meet it as Iran has, Syria
has, and North Korea, I think it makes a mockery of that very
serious designation and is very counterproductive and will
prevent us from continuing to engage with countries like Cuba
in an effort to promote democracy and free speech and free and
fair elections, et cetera.
So I think this is a terrible idea. I have tremendous
respect for the sponsor of this, but I urge my colleagues to
vote no and I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. Any further
discussion?
Mr. Huizenga.
Mr. Huizenga. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will make a couple
of comments and then yield to my colleague from Florida. My
colleague from Rhode Island just had said this is about a
``disagreement about their governance.'' This is far more than
a disagreement about their governance.
Last week, we had a hearing regarding the oppression of the
Ortega regime in Nicaragua where they are literally throwing
church leaders and political opponents in jail. Who are they
supported by? Cuba.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that is a definition of a
State sponsor of terrorism. And to me, if it walks like a duck,
quacks like a duck, and supports terrorism, it is a State
sponsor of terror. So why would we not say that?
And I ask this question somewhat rhetorically. When has the
Castro regime ever actually helped battle terrorism? They are
there supporting the terrorists, both economically, as well as
through encouragement and work through various agencies around
the world.
So I couldn't help and I will finish with this and pass it
off to my colleague, I couldn't help but notice our next bill
is dealing with Haiti, rightfully so. We are going to try to
root out corruption and illegal activity and we are going to
put sanctions on those folks and that bill would require that
and a report to Congress. And we are talking about rolling that
back for Cuba. And I simply don't understand it. I am
supporting Cuba because of those Cuban families that came to
West Michigan supported by my Dutch Reformed Church after the
revolution, the Lugo
[phonetic] family, the Cortina
[phonetic] family, the Flores
[phonetic] family, the Carro
[phonetic] family. That is why we cannot forget. And I
would like to yield to my colleague from Florida.
Ms. Salazar. Thank you, my colleague, Mr. Huizenga.
You know, it's the Cuba issue is dear to me because I
represent the city of Miami, where you have 2 million Cuban
Americans who escaped probably the worst revolution that the
Americas has seen since the arrival of Christopher Columbus in
1492. We're talking about the Cuba that Fidel Castro was able
to elevate repressive methods to scientific levels. We're
talking about a revolution that has been able to take away the
spirituality, the human fiber from the average Cuban.
So, I speak from the heart because I represent them, and
respectfully, I disagree with the chairman and with other
colleagues on the other side that do not agree with this
amendment. It is that Cuba is a very bad actor. And if we give
them 1 inch, they will take the whole body.
If we allow--if we send the message to the Chinese and to
the Russians that the Lourdes spy base is going to be up and
open for business, we're going to have not one Chinese balloon,
we could have many Russian balloons and Chinese balloons,
because Cuba is dying to harm the United States in any way,
shape, or form--not only the United States, through being
proxy, like my colleague said, in Nicaragua, in Honduras, in
Central America, in the Sandinistas, with Maduro, in Bolivia.
Any way Cuba could find to harm the United States and to spread
communism, it will be there. It will be there.
But, even more so, they terrorize their own people. Like
I'm not sure if you guys know, but, for instance, Cuba is in
the business of human trafficking. You send doctors to the
different missions. The doctors get paid $10,000 a month, and
the country that receives those doctors needs to pay that
salary back to the Cuban regime. And the doctor makes $200 out
of $10,000. That is called human trafficking. And that's one of
my causes right now with Mexico, saying to the President of
Mexico, ``You cannot have on your soil human slaves.''
There are 55 minors who are in jail, kids that are 16, 17
years old. And what was their crime? To scream ``Freedom'' on
the streets of Havana.
The average Cuban makes 12 cents--12 cents--a day. They're
only 90 miles away from the most important economic power in
the world. Cuba had the per capita income of Italy in 1960. So,
we're talking about that we're dealing with a very evil,
pernicious regime, and we should not reward them to take them
off that list.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields.
Any further discussion on the bill?
Mr. Lawler is recognized.
Mr. Lawler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCaul. I'm sorry, if the gentleman will yield,
Ms. Kamlager-Dove.
Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to speak to H.R. 314. I represent a small, but
vibrant Cuban community in my district, and I must strongly
oppose this bill. It reflects a failed performative policy
toward Cuba that does nothing to advance U.S. interests and
actively harms the very Cuban people we've been talking about.
Codifying Cuba as a State sponsor of terrorism--a criteria
satisfied only by the most malign actors--that it, objectively,
does not meet, indicates that U.S. policy toward Cuba isn't
about liberalism or the protection of human rights. It's about
politically driven punishment.
For one, this designation actively thwarts the
liberalization that the United States is seeking, as my
colleague from the Valley so eloquently Stated. It restricts
the financial transactions that would allow everyday Cubans to
open businesses and engage in trade and investment, stifling
the private sector growth that could promote greater freedom in
the country; impeding travel and academic exchanges that would
enable U.S. institutions to support activists, artists,
scholars, and journalists opposed to the regime. And
critically, it is a major barrier for humanitarian and faith-
based organizations to provide much-needed aid for the
compounding crisis the Cuban people are facing.
As it relates to the acts of terrorism, evidence has not
really been provided by us to even support this designation.
And if we are going to put countries on the list that harbor
fugitives or terrorists, we have a very long list of countries
we could add. In fact, many of them have been listed today. You
could add Columbia or Venezuela or Nicaragua. You could add
France for harboring Roman Polanski or even England or Ecuador
for Julian Assange. But we are not doing that.
So, anyone who cares about supporting the Cuban people and
promoting a path to liberalization and normalization in the
country should oppose this measure. And I urge my colleagues to
vote against this bill.
And with that, I yield back.
Mr. Sherman. Will the gentlelady yield? Will the gentlelady
from California yield the remaining part of her time?
Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Yes, I will.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you.
I just want to quickly make the point, we're saying Cuba
should be on the Terrorist List because it cooperates with bad
governments, evil governments, in Nicaragua, China, Venezuela,
and Russia. You know who's not on the Terrorist List? The
governments of Nicaragua, China, Venezuela, and Russia. So, to
say that Cuba should be on the list for hosting a Chinese
listening post, when China isn't on the list for operating that
post, seems a little selective.
And with that, I will yield the time back to the lady, the
gentlelady from California.
Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you so much, and I yield back the
balance of my time. You said it most eloquently.
Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields.
Any further discussion?
Mr. Lawler is recognized.
Mr. Lawler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In response to my colleague, I would just say, then, maybe
we should have that discussion about those other countries.
But my wife comes from Moldova, a former satellite Soviet
State that has been corrupted by Russian influence for years,
since the collapse of the Soviet Union. This body took action
recently, applying sanctions on individuals for financial
corruption and other associated crimes. Because we, as the
leader of the free world, have an obligation to root out
corruption and to take on bad actors.
This body, and my colleague who puts this bill forward, put
a resolution on the floor condemning socialism and the horrors
of it. Eighty-six Democrats voted against that. Fourteen of
them couldn't find their way to the House floor to vote. A
hundred people on the other side of the aisle couldn't be
bothered to condemn socialism.
There are bad actors in the world--Russia, China, Iran,
North Korea, and, yes, Cuba. The Castro regime and the Cuban
government have been oppressing the Cuban people for
generations. They have engaged in ill-advised conduct and been
party, going back to the beginnings of the cold war, to acts of
aggression against the United States. They continue to
cooperate with bad actors and terrorist regimes throughout the
world.
And this bill is simply saying that the President should
not remove them from the list until such time that the Cuban
government has become more democratic. We are a democracy, a
democratic republic. We should act like it. We should embrace
it, and we should not continue to allow bad actors to get away
with whatever they want.
This administration has been pathetically weak when it
comes to taking on bad actors. China can fly a spy balloon
across the entire continental United States without any
repercussion. Russia can shoot down one of our drones without
any repercussion.
And my colleagues on the other side of the aisle twist
themselves into knots trying to explain away socialism,
communism, dictatorships, and it's embarrassingly pathetic.
So, I encourage all of my colleagues to support this bill
and continue to hold Cuba accountable for their bad acts until
such time as they can finally see the light and treat their own
residents, their own citizens, with the dignity and the decency
that they deserve.
I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
Any further discussion?
Mr. Self is recognized.
Mr. Self. I have heard the distinction here between, across
the aisle, the people of Cuba, and on this side, the regime of
Cuba. ``Convincing them to adopt democracy'' was a phrase I
heard from one of my colleagues across the aisle. You do not
convince autocratic regimes to adopt democracy. Evil stalks the
world. It continues to stalk the world, and dictators do not
change simply because we want to convince them to adopt
democracy.
I also heard the phrase ``warming relations with Cuba''
during the Obama Administration. I will remind people that the
Obama Administration also had ``warming relations'' with Iran
through the JCPOA. And I understand it was not just the United
States, but it was led by the United States to return at least
$50 billion to Iran. And Iran is certainly on this list and
should remain on this list, and Cuba should remain on this list
as well because it is a dictatorship and it does support
terrorism. And we're not talking about a terrorist State, which
I also heard; it is a State-sponsoring nation.
So, I am firmly committed to this bill. I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
Any further discussion?
Mr. Mills is recognized.
Mr. Mills. I want to point out a couple of things that we
keep talking about here, and the same countries that continue
to get notified, which is Iran, North Korea, China, Russia--the
geopolitical alignment that we already know has formed and who
is actually one of the biggest advocates of malign activities,
whether that be from a kinetic response, as we're seeing with
Russia in Ukraine; whether that be with China's continual
aggression from an economic and resource perspective. But one
thing is very clear. Chairman Xi has continued to try outreach
to expand his global mechanism to strangle the American people.
And it is a target on the West and our hemisphere. We have
seen this, as my colleague has properly pointed out, with
regard to the expansion of Chavez of Venezuela or Petro in
Columbia, or in Honduras, who just separated their ties with
Taiwan, at China's behest.
We are seeing a continuation of the stronghold to cutoff
the Western Hemisphere supply chain, whether that be through
the Eurasian expansion, Asia, and Africa--or, sorry--Oceania
and Africa takeover for the Road and Belt Initiative, or the
increased taxation and tariffs in control of the Panama Canal.
Or, what about the 500 football-field-sized satellite that is
sitting in our own hemisphere, as my colleague, Ms. Salazar,
has pointed out multiple times, that the State Department and
others do not even recognize?
We keep talking about terrorism as if it has to only be in
a kinetic element, but we have to understand that terrorism can
also be through cyberterrorism. It can also be through the
threats and the terroristic capabilities of trying to cutoff
food supply, as we're seeing, or supply chains to the West--the
economic coercion that is undermining the United States
continually.
And we have seen time and time again, as my colleague from
Texas pointed out with the failed Resolution 2231 or JCPOA,
where we reward people, thinking it's going to take them off of
the State sponsor of terrorism, when, in fact, they were in
continual violations--``they'' being Iran--when it came to
small and midrange ballistic missile capabilities being
shuttled across into Yemen, utilized by the Houthis, and
sponsoring terrorism there.
So, my point in all of this is to say, we are continuing to
see the malign activities building up more and more and more at
the behest of China and Russia, who is a very solid partnership
with Cuba and has been for 50 and 60-plus years.
And for my colleagues to continually ignore this, and try
to say that we need Cuba to act as if it's an individual malign
actor, is nonsense. I stand in strong support of Ms. Salazar's
bill to fight the oppression until the reign of Castro ends. I
support a democratic process for a free Cuba, which is what the
Cuban people have been fighting for and who have been
dissidents as a result of this.
But the reality is this, and I will correct one thing that
one of my colleagues said: America is unique not because we are
a democracy. We are not a democracy. We are a constitutional
republic that protects our people.
And until Cuba can do this and separate itself from the
malign actors, they should remain on this list until anyone can
prove to me otherwise.
With that, I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
Any further discussion?
There being no further discussion of the bill, the
committee will move to consideration of amendments.
Does any member wish to offer an amendment?
The ranking member is recognized.
Mr. Meeks. I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman McCaul. The clerk shall distribute the amendment.
The clerk shall report the amendment.
The Clerk. ``Amendment to H.R. 314 offered by Mr. Meeks of
New York.
Page 2, after line 8, insert the following:
Waiver. The''----
Chairman McCaul. Without objection, further reading of the
amendment is dispensed with.
[The amendment offered by Mr. Meeks follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes
on his amendment.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I have a very simple amendment that I think that all of
my colleagues should be able to support. And that's simply
adding a waiver to this legislation.
As I Stated at our first markup last month, there will not
be bipartisan sanctions legislation in this committee without a
waiver of some sort included within the legislation. And I hold
myself to this same standard.
For example, I want a more aggressive sanctioning of
corrupt leaders of Haiti and the criminal gangs that lead to
anarchy and violence in the streets of Port-au-Prince. And my
legislation on the markup would impose mandatory sanctions on
such individuals.
But I can imagine times where we will need to work with
unsavory characters to make sure Haitians can access food and
basic humanitarian assistance. And that's why in my bill, which
we'll talk about later, there is a waiver. And that's why this
bill needs one also.
My amendment here applies, basically, the same standard
that Chairman McCaul applied to his bill in the DATA Act. So,
it is something that I believe everyone on both sides of the
aisle should be able to say yes to, because in that one we did.
It simply would allow the President to waive the provisions
of this legislation, should doing so be vital--if we waive it
and there's a vital interest to America's national security
interest. And on this, I genuinely hope that my amendment is
something that we can look at and say we care about the Cuban
people. So, we should waive certain things in these crises to
help the Cuban people. So, this is really about the Cuban
people. I would hope that everyone would be able to support
this amendment.
And I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
Any other members seek recognition?
The gentlelady, the author of the bill, Ms. Salazar, is
recognized.
Ms. Salazar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And respectfully, I disagree with Ranking Member Meeks
because this amendment undermines the bill that I am
introducing, because it prevents the law, which is the Libertad
Act, or better known as the Helms-Burton law, from being
followed.
And basically, all that law says is that Cuba has to follow
some of the democratic rules--free speech, basic freedoms,
political activity, release political prisoners, free and fair
elections, independent judiciary, trade unions and associations
to be independent--simple stuff, what we have as a democracy
and as a constitutional democracy, as my colleague mentioned.
So, if we adopt or if we agree with your proposed amendment
to H.R. 314, that will, then, do away with what we're
presenting in this law, H.R. 314.
Mr. Meeks. Will the gentlelady yield?
Ms. Salazar. And it allows the national security interests
to keep a communistic dictatorship 90 miles away from the
United States on the list. So, I think it should be in the
hands of Congress, just like the Helms-Burton is, and not in
the hands of the President, because he could be swayed--not
only this President, but any other, he could be swayed by
political interests.
And unfortunately, it's been 63 years of the Cuban people
are in the hands of the most evil dictator that the Americas
have seen. And so, for that reason, I believe that your
amendment should not be considered.
Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields back.
Any further discussion?
There being no further discussion, the question now occurs
on the amendment offered by Representative Meeks, the ranking
member.
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----
Mr. Meeks. Mr. Chairman, on that, 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. Kamlager-Dove is recognized.
Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman McCaul. The clerk shall distribute the amendment.
The clerk shall report the amendment.
The Clerk. ``Amendment to H.R. 314 offered by Ms. Kamlager-
Dove of California.
Page 2, beginning on line 5''
Chairman McCaul. Without objection, further reading of the
amendment is dispensed with.
[The amendment offered by Ms. Kamlager-Dove follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady is recognized for 5 minutes
on her amendment.
Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As we have discussed, H.R. 13--314 ties the removal of Cuba
State sponsor of terrorism designation to conditions that have
nothing to do with the support for terrorism. This would
evidently weaken any incentive to change alleged terrorism-
related behavior because doing so would not result in the
lifting of the SSOT sanctions. My amendment would simply strike
these counterproductive requirements and make the designation
conditioned solely on meeting SSOT criteria.
Anyone who believes that Cuba would legitimately qualify
for this classification should support my amendment. I have
made it easy. Given that an exhaustive review by the
intelligence community in 2015 concluded that Cuba was not in
fact an actor similar to North Korea, Iran, or Syria. This
amendment highlights the attempted weaponization of the SSOT
for punitive politically driven purposes. I urge all of my
colleagues to support this commonsense amendment and I yield
back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields back.
I oppose this amendment. Any other members seek
recognition?
Ms. Salazar is recognized.
Ms. Salazar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Once again this new amendment undermines the bill that we
just introduced, H.R. 314. Why? Because it eliminates the
reference to the LIBERTAD Act. The LIBERTAD Act is law right
now, which is the one that codifies the United States' embargo
against Cuba. And that law--all it says is that Cuba could join
the international community if it were to behave like a
responsible actor, a Democratic constitutional democracy. Once
again, free speech, basic human rights, political activities,
release political prisoners; 55 of them are less than 18 years
old, allow and accept and assure the right to private property,
make commitments to free and fair elections, establish an
independent judiciary, simple things what we have that we
aspire for Cubans to have and for the rest of the hemisphere to
enjoy as well.
So by this amendment that was just introduced eliminates
that reference to the LIBERTAD Act which enumerates what I just
presented and allows the President to unilaterally remove Cuba
from the list. And once again it should be in the hands of the
legislature, in the hands of the U.S. Congress, not in the
hands of the Executive because he could--he or she in the
future could be motivated by political interests. Thank you. I
yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields back.
Do any other members seek recognition?
The ranking member is recognized.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I support this amendment. A State sponsor of terror
designation should not depend on your status on a well-
respected human rights poll. It should not depend on your World
Bank ease of doing business ranking. It should not depend on
whether your country has good relations with the United States,
but it should depend on whether you are a sponsor of
international terrorism.
Cuba was removed from the State Sponsor of Terrorism list
in 2015 after an exhaustive review by experts at the State
Department and in the intelligence community. It was the Trump
administration. And they did not cite any new facts to justify
its decision to relist Cuba in the waning days of his
administration.
By the way, it was during the same time this country's
attention was still glued to the events of January the 6th. By
the way, it is the same president that had in Mar-a-Lago Orban
from Hungary. It is the same president that had a bromance with
someone who is on the State Terrorist list, Kim Jong-un. It is
the same president who had and said that Russia's intelligence
was better than ours and accepted Russia's Statements against
the United States. Same guy. But he said nothing different in
regards talking about Cuba.
It sounds simple because it is simple. A State sponsor of
terror designation should be about a State sponsoring what?
Terrorism.
I support this amendment. All of the States, as Mr. Sherman
talked about earlier, that they say that Cuba supports et
cetera in--on the Western Hemisphere, none of them are on the
State Sponsor of Terrorism list. So I support this amendment
and I urge everyone to do the same.
Mr. Sherman. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Meeks [continuing]. Back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
Any other members seek recognition?
Mr. Self? I am sorry, Mr. Mast recognized.
Mr. Mast. Thank you, Chairman.
I just wonder if the ranking member will define the word
bromance for us? I am happy to yield.
Mr. Meeks. Yes. Bromance is when someone says I talk to him
a lot. I got to know him very well. He was very smart, very
cunning, very streetwise and we spoke a lot. Actually we spoke
a lot and I think we had a really, you know, a great
relationship. I don't know if you remember when we started that
relationship. It was very, very nasty then, but now we get
along. That is a----
Mr. Mast. Are you describing a bromance or is that the
definition of a bromance?
Mr. Meeks. That is a bromance.
Mr. Mast. Could you give me the definition of----
Mr. Meeks. I call that a bromance. That is----
Mr. Mast. Give me the definition of a bromance.
Mr. Meeks [continuing]. President--from the former
president of the United States.
Mr. Mast. Thanks.
Mr. Meeks. That is a bromance.
Mr. Mast. This is definitely not a bromance, but thank you
for your attempt.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
Mr. Mast. I yield.
Chairman McCaul. And thanks for that enlighting definition.
The chair recognizes Mr. Self.
Mr. Self. For once I agree with the ranking member. This is
very simple. The year 2015 tells you everything you need to
know about this amendment. 2015 is also the year that the JCPOA
was instituted. And he said that President Trump introduced no
facts. We didn't need to introduce any new facts because they
were already known. So once I agree with the ranking member,
but everything he argued argues against this amendment. Thank
you very much. I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
Any further discussion?
Let me just say I oppose this amendment. The definition of
a State sponsor of terrorism is a country that has repeatedly
supported acts of terrorism. I believe the Cuban regime
embodies this definition.
With that, there being no further discussion, the question
now occurs on the amendment offered by Ms. Kamlager-Dove.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
All those opposed, signify by saying no.
In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it; the
amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. Meeks. Mr. Chairman, with that I would ask for a roll
call 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?
Mr. Jackson is recognized.
Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chairman McCaul. The clerk shall distribute----
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I have an amendment at the desk.
I have major concern with the----
Chairman McCaul. Mr. Jackson will pause while your
amendment is being circulated and then I will recognize you to
speak on your amendment.
Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCaul. Thank you.
The clerk shall report the amendment.
The. Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 314 offered by Mr. Jackson of
Illinois. At the end of the bill add the following: Section 3--
--
Chairman McCaul. Without objection, further reading of the
amendment is dispensed with. The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes on his amendment.
[The amendment offered by Mr. Jackson of Illinois follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I have major concerns
with the FORCE Act because I do not believe that Cuba meets the
requirements for a State sponsor of terror. I am also concerned
that we are trying to issue--we are tying issues unrelated to
terrorism to a State sponsor of terror designation. This is not
how our foreign policy should work.
I share the sponsor's interest in helping the people of
Cuba, a country that I have traveled to several times, but do
not believe this legislation is the way to bring about change
on the island.
My amendment is simple. It would sunset the legislation
after 2 years. It has been long the policy of my friends across
the aisle to support sunset on legislation. The very
legislative protocol on the majority leader's website
emphasizes the importance of sunsets and sanctions legislations
put forward by Chairman McCaul last markup also had a sunset.
Even if we disagree on the underlying legislation, I feel
that we should all agree that it is important not to lack--to
lock in a permanent policy that would be difficult to change
when circumstances change or alter. I urge all of my colleagues
to support my amendment.
And for a point of record I would like to note that
President Castro, or however you call him, died 7 years ago. So
when we talk about his regime, he has not been dead longer than
the statute of limitations. Thank you.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
Any further discussion on the amendment?
Mr. Lawler is recognized.
Mr. Lawler. Thank you.
I would just note last week Secretary of State Blinken
said, quote/unquote, ``We are not planning to remove Cuba from
the list.'' So for my colleagues who say that they don't meet
the definition, that they are not a State sponsor of terrorism,
that we on this side of the aisle are wrong about this, then
you should pick up the phone and talk to the Secretary of State
because he agrees with us that they clearly meet the
definition, which is why the administration is not making any
efforts to remove them from the list.
So this bill would simply make it clear that the President
and the Secretary of State, who have agreed with us that they
are not removing Cuba from the list, cannot do so until such
time as Cuba complies with the LIBERTAD Act. So I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
Any further discussion?
The ranking member is recognized.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I support this amendment. It would sunset the legislation
after 2 years and would give Congress and the executive branch
more flexibility should circumstances on the ground change in
the years to come. The majority leaders have a legislative
protocol on sunsetting legislation precisely because it allows
Congress the flexibility to do its job. And that is what this
will do. If circumstances change, Congress can move quickly
because we have sunsetted and we had the opportunity to look at
it.
And with that I yield back the balance of my time and ask
everyone to support it.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
Any further discussion on the amendment?
Let me say that I opposed this amendment. I believe it
would be irresponsible to remove Cuba from the State Sponsor of
Terrorist list based on an arbitrary timeline. So we must focus
on their dangerous behavior until it stops.
There being no further discussion, the question now occurs
on the amendment offered by Mr. Jackson.
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.
The ranking member is recognized.
Mr. Meeks. I request the yeas and nays.
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?
Pursuant to notice I now call up H.R. 1684, the Haiti
Criminal Collusion Transparency Act of 2023.
[The Bill H.R. 1684 follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman McCaul. The bill was circulated in advance and the
clerk shall designate the bill.
The. Clerk. H.R. 1684, a bill to require the Secretary of
State to submit an annual report to Congress regarding the ties
between criminal gangs and political and economic elites in
Haiti and impose sanctions on political and economic elites
involved in such criminal activities.
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.
Ranking Member Meeks and Congresswoman Cherfilus-McCormick,
I want to thank you both for introducing this measure to
address the lawlessness and corruption in Haiti.
We had a hearing on this very issue and it is astounding
how organized crime and gangs have taken over, like these
warlords almost similar to Somalia in Haiti. And that is why I
strongly support this measure.
I think the rising levels of gang violence, political
instability, kidnappings of Haitian and American citizens,
poverty remains exceptionally high making Haiti the poorest
country in the region and one of the most dangerous. To make
matters worse Haiti has been experiencing a resurgence of
cholera since last October after no cases were documented for
over 3 years.
I remain deeply troubled by the deteriorating health
conditions as well as the violent warfare being waged by these
warlords making it impossible for Haiti to find any stable form
of governance. As I said, it is very reminiscent of Somalia and
the situation there.
I think these corrupt oligarchs, political elites use these
gangs as brokers to advance their own personal interest and
economic financial at the expense of the people. The absent
government combined with the total lack of law and order is a
primary driver of illegal immigration against the United
States. So this measure is welcome, a welcome step in shining a
light on the criminal activity in Haiti and to look at--to
sanction those who are engaged in it.
Specifically it will require the State Department to
examine and report on times between gangs and the political and
economic elites, establish visa restrictions, targeted
sanctions against gangs, and Haiti's political and economic
elite. While Haiti's challenges are difficult, the United
States must remain committed to stopping this. And I was
actually quite shocked when we had our hearing to hear that our
international law enforcement is virtually absent from Haiti,
and the Caribbean for that matter.
And, Mr. Chairman, I look forward--not only do I support
this measure, but I look forward to working with you on future
legislation to address this rising problem.
And with that, I yield back and I yield to you, Ranking
Member Meeks.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you for those words and thank you for joining
with us.
And I want to thank Congresswoman Cherfilus-McCormick for
her hard word and--on this bill also.
There are as many as 200 gangs in Haiti who now control at
least 60 percent of Port-au-Prince. The number of reported
homicides for 2022 increased by 35.2 percent. Without a doubt
Haiti is in a dire situation. The United Nations Office on
Drugs and Crime report released in 2023 report that
increasingly sophisticated and high-caliber firearms and
ammunition are trafficked to--into Haiti amid an unprecedented
and rapidly deteriorating security situation.
Haiti also remains a trans-shipment country for drugs,
primarily cocaine and cannabis, which mostly enter the country
via boat or plane arriving through public and private and
informal ports, as well as clandestine runways.
Haiti's borders are porous and the challenges of patrolling
1,100 miles of coastline and a 243-mile land border with the
Dominican Republic are overwhelming the capacities of Haiti's
national police, customs, border patrols, and coast guard who
are severely understaffed and under-resourced and increasingly
targeted by gangs.
And while I have seen some forward movement recently with
vital support from the Biden administration on police training
this January and the announcement and roll out of sanctions
last October, heavily armed criminal gangs are targeting ports,
highways, critical infrastructure, custom officers, police
stations, courthouses, prisons, businesses, and neighborhoods.
And we need to continue to apply pressure.
The ongoing political paralysis has led to further de-
stabilization which is being felt by Haitians across the
country and those living in the diaspora. The United States
should not and cannot be in the business of appointing leaders
in sovereign nations. Last Congress I made it clear that the
pathway toward stability must be by coordinated and led--must
be coordinated and led by the Haitian people.
Our job is to listen to the people of Haiti, work with our
regional partners to add a semblance of stability in the
country. This means continuing to investigate those involved in
illegal trafficking of firearms from the United States to
Haitian gangs. It means holding corrupt officials accountable
by ensuring that these actors are not allowed to travel freely
to the United States or own houses and other assets in our
country. It also means assisting Haiti in finding closure and
moving past the horrific assassination of Former President
Moise.
This is why I introduced this bill along with Chairman
McCaul and of course subcommittee Chairwoman Salazar and
Representative Cherfilus-McCormick in a bipartisan effort to
ensure that Congress receives regular reports on the role that
Haitian economic and political elite play in masterminding and
providing support for Haitian gangs. We must ensure that we do
not repeat previous United States mistakes in Haiti.
In order to move away from the political paralysis that has
gripped Haiti over the last few years the Haitian people need
to believe that their voices matter, that their government is
there to help. We know that these conditions are causing the
rise in migration out of Haiti as people seek safety at any
cost.
We have a duty to make sure that we identify and hold
accountable those who relish in the chaos caused by supporting
gang activity using kidnappings and rape to control and silence
communities and use coercion to bring youth in and around the
Port-au-Prince into the disservice of criminal activity. We
cannot allow them to walk around--the gang leaders and those
that are supporting them to walk around with impunity. We must
show the people of Haiti that they have the opportunity to take
this and control themselves and not allow the gangs to rule and
dictate and that the United States will hold accountable those
that try to travel back and forth from Haiti and commit these
committal--these terrible acts and criminal activity.
So I ask--and again thank the chairman. I support this
measure and I ask everyone else to do the same. I yield back
the balance of my time.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
Any further discussion on the bill?
Let me say also the women impacted in Haiti is probably the
most egregious and disturbing out of all of this, but Ms.
Kamlager-Dove is recognized.
Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to express my support for H.R. 1684, the Haiti
Criminal Transparency Collusion Act, and I am so excited that
this is bipartisan.
The deteriorating humanitarian and security crisis in Haiti
is unprecedented in the Western Hemisphere. One of our closest
neighbors is experiencing what the U.N. High Commissioner on
Human Rights describes as a living nightmare with sexual
violence, kidnappings, displacement, and indiscriminate killing
as part of an everyday life for so many there.
The situation in Haiti is not receiving the urgent
spotlight that it deserves. It rarely does. It rarely does. The
Haitian people have a long history of resilience and grit in
the face of relentless manmade and natural disasters. This is a
country born out of the fight for dignity and human rights
against colonialism, systemic racism, and slavery. Haiti can
and it will persevere.
This bill says that we should not write the situation off
as hopeless and insurmountable. We must continue to support the
Haitian people with intentional policies and concerted
international action. I am glad that this bill takes a strong
step in holding accountable those who are perpetuating and
benefiting from the country's chronic insecurity. I hope that
this is the first step and not an only step.
I have to say I was at the U.N. yesterday and we can do
more, we should do more, we need to do more. That was what I
heard at every meeting.
And, Mr. Chair, I am not surprised that the international
community has been absent in Haiti. Haiti has always gotten a
salty side-eye from the international community because of its
history of really fighting and winning against the French long,
long ago. And we have an obligation, we have an obligation to
stay with Haiti, to go to Haiti, and to be supportive of a
country that needs us and that needs us to help in the right
way. We cannot in good conscience stand by as a humanitarian
catastrophe unfolds miles from our shores against folks with
African descent who need to see us. And I urge my colleagues to
support this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields back.
Any further discussion on the bill?
Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman,
for supporting this bill.
And thank you so much, Ranking Member Meeks, for your
leadership, especially when it comes to the Haitian people.
This bill is extremely important to the Haitian community
and America, especially since we see many of these political
elites are living in South Florida, are living throughout the
United States, and are buying homes, shipping weapons every
single day.
It impacts us even more when we have a couple who--33-
years-old living in my district who has been kidnapped. They
were on their way in Haiti doing mission work to try and help
the Haitian people and they got on the bus and they asked for
the Americans and kidnapped them. This is our first attempt in
actually trying to resolve this issue and I hope that we can
work bipartisan-ly to make sure we have more initiatives so we
can help the Haitian people, but also the Haitian Americans who
are suffering from this situation. Thank you so much.
Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields back.
Any further discussion on the bill?
Mr. Lawler is recognized.
Mr. Lawler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank the ranking member for introducing this
legislation.
I have one of the largest Haitian diaspora in my district,
primarily in Spring Valley, New York. And the concerns about
the political and economic crises in Haiti are significant. And
obviously when we look at what occurred with respect to the
assassination of the president and the fallout from that, as
well as the continued gang activity and the links between the
Haitian political class and the economic elites with the
country and the impact that that is having on the residents of
Haiti and on the diaspora, I think this legislation is
critically important.
I think as we discussed with the previous legislation, it
is important for the United States to take a leadership role in
our hemisphere and to be working with our allies, but to also
crack down where there is corruption, where there are
challenges in our region of the world. And I think Haiti is a
perfect example of that. We have a vested interest in it and we
need to be doing more to help root out the political
corruption, the gang activity, and the economic corruption
which has had a devastating impact on the people of hearing.
So I am fully in support of this legislation and I thank
the ranking member for bringing it forward.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
Any further discussion on the bill?
Mr. Jackson is recognized.
Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to also recognize on behalf of the Haitian
community--we have to keep in perspective, if you will, the
United States this is a debtor to Haiti. Haiti has long been an
ally of the United States. Haiti was the first country of
Africans to have thrown off the yoke of colonialism and
enslavement and they were punished. Haiti didn't finish paying
reparations back to its colonial powers until 1940's in the
United States. And since then we have had a no-trade/no
development policy with them.
So Haiti doesn't come here begging. Haiti comes here
looking for assistance. They are a dignified people and,
frankly, we lose credibility in the world and our standing when
we have the poorest country off of our coast because we have
been ambivalent and indifferent toward giving them assistance.
They are also a people of tremendous integrity having
recognized Taiwan. They don't sidestep the need for Taiwanese
recognition. They have had the courage to do so and to peril
themselves by not getting any assistance from us or them. So I
strongly encourage that we support our Haitian colleagues and
comrades.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
Any further discussion on the bill?
Mr. McCormick?
Mr. McCormick. Thank you, sir. This is very pertinent to a
discussion I had just last night from a guy who was actually my
translator during the Haitian earthquake in which lots of
people died. We did fasciotomies. We had a whole mission field
go over there and help them out. And we still see the same
problems since before and after the earthquake a decade later.
Just a quick interaction.
This is a guy who has been back and forth. He does his own
church there. He is literally in fear of his life. When he
comes over here to raise money for his mission--one of the
interesting things just happened just last night when he was
texting me he said I reapply for the visa today. I pray they
renew it. The worst case scenario is if they call me to come to
the embassy for an interview in person. I would hate taking the
risk to go to Port-au-Prince. I pray that everything happens
online. In other words, he fears for his life just to go into
the capital to apply for a visa at an embassy.
Furthermore, when I said that, look, we need to go out, we
need to make sure we have better security in this country
that's right next door to us. He literally said; and this is
the--one of the poorest people I know, ``That would be amazing
thing. That's what we need. We do not need money as much as we
need security and peace.'' In other words, poverty is one thing
you can deal with, but you cannot deal with a scenario where
you may be kidnapped or robbed at any given time, where your
wife who just gave birth can't get food because you are worked
to even go to the store. The fact that we have gone in there
with Marines before and we had the same problem later is
egregious.
I was just talking to my fellow Congressman and freshman
Ronny Jackson last night about how we have a United Nations for
a reason. I am not sure what--the reason other than a lot of
times they speak against the United States and against Israel,
but besides that I have yet to see them step up and actually do
something in this very, very impoverished country that needs to
peace as much as it needs money. And with that I yield.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
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. Perry is recognized.
Mr. Perry. Mr. Chairman, I have got an amendment at the
desk.
Chairman McCaul. The clerk shall distribute the amendment.
Mr. Cicilline. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
Chairman McCaul. Point of order is recognized.
The clerk shall report the amendment.
The. Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1684 offered by Mr. Perry of
Pennsylvania. Page 6, after line 18. Insert the following:
Including a list of each criminal organization assessed to be
trafficking Haitians and other individuals to the United States
border.
Chairman McCaul. Without objection, further reading of the
amendment is dispensed with. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is
recognized for 5 minutes on his amendment.
Mr. Perry. I thank the chairman.
This amendment simply requires reporting, reporting on the
rampant human trafficking coming from these criminal
organizations to our already overwhelmed southern border.
Having a better understanding to what extent these groups
continue to traffic humans to our southern border is crucial to
solving the issues we face at the southern border, and quite
honestly, any one of our borders.
Criminal organizations commit heinous crimes against those
they traffic and they literally have no regard for life, for it
is not humane to operate an open border that encourages all the
violence and dehumanization associated with human trafficking.
And it is why it is crucial that we specifically have reporting
language regarding human trafficking because not only is it
crucial to the region's security, but it is crucial to the
United States' national security.
In closing this amendment simply helps us understand the
scope and severity of how Haitian criminal organizations are
trafficking populations to our borders and informs Congress so
that we can make more informed and better decisions regarding
solutions to those problems.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption and I yield the
balance.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
Let me say I support this amendment.
Any other members seek recognition?
The ranking member is recognized.
Mr. Meeks. Mr. Chairman, the people of Haiti and the entire
region impacted by the crises Haiti faces deserve to know which
organizations and individuals support de-stabilizing criminal
activity including those who take advantage of desperate people
who are already extremely vulnerable and traffic them
throughout the region making financial gains at every stop
along the way.
So I strongly support this amendment and ask my colleagues
to do the same. I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
Any further discussion on the amendment?
There being no further discussion, does the gentleman, Mr.
Cicilline, insist on his point of order?
Mr. Cicilline. I do not, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman withdraws his point of
order.
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 and the
amendment is agreed to.
There being no further amendments, I move that the
committee report H.R. 1684, 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
change.
Committee will recess for about 10 minutes subject to the
call of the chair. The clerk will send out a notice when we
reconvene to vote.
[Recess.]
Chairman McCaul. The committee will come to order.
The committee postponed further proceedings on the recorded
vote on amendment No. 8 offered by Representative Meeks on
which the noes had prevailed by voice vote.
The question occurs on agreeing to the amendment. The clerk
will call the roll.
The Clerk. Representative Smith?
Smith?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Representative Wilson?
Representative Wilson?
Mr. Wilson. No.
The Clerk. Wilson votes no.
Representative Perry?
Mr. Perry. No.
The Clerk. Perry votes no.
Representative Issa?
Mr. Issa. No.
The Clerk. Issa votes no.
Representative Wagner?
Wagner?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Representative Mast?
Mr. Mast. No.
The Clerk. Mast votes no.
Representative Buck?
Buck?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Representative Burchett?
Mr. Burchett. No.
The Clerk. Burchett votes no.
Representative Green?
Mr. Green. No.
The Clerk. Green votes no.
Representative Barr?
Mr. Barr. No.
The Clerk. Barr votes no.
Representative Ronny Jackson?
Jackson?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Representative Young Kim?
Mrs. Kim of California. No.
The Clerk. Kim votes no.
Representative Salazar?
Ms. Salazar. Salazar votes no.
The Clerk. Salazar votes no.
Representative Huizenga?
Mr. Huizenga. No.
The Clerk. Huizenga votes no.
Representative Radewagen?
Mrs. Radewagen. Nay.
The Clerk. Representative Radewagen votes no.
Representative Hill?
Mr. Hill. Hill no.
The Clerk. Hill votes no.
Representative Davidson?
Mr. Davidson. No.
The Clerk. Davidson votes no.
Representative Baird?
Mr. Baird. No.
The Clerk. Baird votes no.
Representative Waltz?
Mr. Waltz. No.
The Clerk. Waltz votes no.
Representative Kean?
Mr. Kean. No.
The Clerk. Kean votes no.
Representative Lawler?
Mr. Lawler. No.
The Clerk. Lawler votes no.
Representative Mills?
Mr. Mills. No.
The Clerk. Mills votes no.
Representative McCormick?
Mr. McCormick. No.
The Clerk. McCormick votes no.
Representative Moran?
Mr. Moran. No.
The Clerk. Moran votes no.
Representative James?
Mr. James. No.
The Clerk. James votes no.
Representative Self?
Mr. Self. No.
The Clerk. Self votes no.
Ranking Member Meeks?
Mr. Meeks. Aye.
The Clerk. Meeks votes aye.
Representative Sherman?
Mr. Sherman. Aye.
The Clerk. Sherman votes aye.
Representative Connolly?
Mr. Connolly. Aye.
The Clerk. Connolly votes aye.
Representative Keating?
Keating?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Representative Cicilline?
Mr. Cicilline. Aye.
The Clerk. Cicilline votes aye.
Representative Bera?
Mr. Bera. Yes.
The Clerk. Bera votes aye.
Representative Castro?
Castro?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Representative Titus?
Ms. Titus. Aye.
The Clerk. Titus votes aye.
Representative Lieu?
Mr. Lieu. Aye.
The Clerk. Lieu votes aye.
Representative Wild?
Ms. Wild. Aye.
The Clerk. Wild votes aye.
Representative Phillips?
Mr. Phillips. Aye.
The Clerk. Phillips votes aye.
Representative Allred?
Mr. Allred. Aye.
The Clerk. Allred votes aye.
Representative Andy Kim?
Kim?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Representative Jacobs?
Ms. Jacobs. Aye.
The Clerk. Jacobs votes aye.
Representative Manning?
Ms. Manning. Aye.
The Clerk. Manning votes aye.
Representative Cherfilus-McCormick?
Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. Aye.
The Clerk. Cherfilus-McCormick votes aye.
Representative Stanton?
Mr. Stanton. Aye.
The Clerk. Stanton votes aye.
Representative Dean?
Ms. Dean. Aye.
The Clerk. Dean votes aye.
Representative Moskowitz?
Mr. Moskowitz. Aye.
The Clerk. Moskowitz votes aye.
Representative Jonathan Jackson?
Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Aye.
The Clerk. Jackson votes aye.
Representative Kamlager-Dove?
Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Si.
The Clerk. Kamlager-Dove votes aye.
Representative Costa?
Costa?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Representative Crow?
Mr. Crow. Aye.
The Clerk. Crow votes aye.
Representative Schneider?
Mr. Schneider. Aye.
The Clerk. Schneider votes aye.
Mr. Chairman?
Chairman McCaul. The chairman votes no.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes no.
Chairman McCaul. Are there any other members in the room
who wish to have their vote recorded?
Are there any other members who wish to change their vote?
The clerk will report the tally.
The Clerk. On this vote the ayes are 20 and the noes are
23.
Chairman McCaul. The noes have it. The amendment is not
agreed to.
The committee postponed further proceedings on the recorded
vote on amendment No. 7 offered by Representative Kamlager-Dove
on which the noes had prevailed by voice vote.
The question now occurs on agreeing to the amendment. The
clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Representative Smith?
Smith?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Representative Wilson?
Mr. Wilson. No.
The Clerk. Wilson votes no.
Representative Perry?
Mr. Perry. No.
The Clerk. Perry votes no.
Representative Issa?
Mr. Issa. No.
The Clerk. Issa votes no.
Representative Wagner?
Wagner?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Representative Mast?
Mr. Mast. No.
The Clerk. Mast votes no.
Representative Buck?
Buck?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Representative Burchett?
Mr. Burchett. No.
The Clerk. Burchett votes no.
Representative Green?
Mr. Green. No.
The Clerk. Green votes no.
Representative Barr?
Mr. Barr. No.
The Clerk. Barr votes no.
Representative Ronny Jackson?
Jackson?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Representative Young Kim?
Mrs. Kim of California. No.
The Clerk. Kim votes no.
Representative Salazar?
Ms. Salazar. Salazar votes no.
The Clerk. Salazar votes no.
Representative Huizenga?
Mr. Huizenga. No.
The Clerk. Huizenga votes no.
Representative Radewagen?
Mrs. Radewagen. Nay.
The Clerk. Representative Radewagen votes no.
Representative Hill?
Mr. Hill. No.
The Clerk. Hill votes no.
Representative Davidson?
Mr. Davidson. No.
The Clerk. Davidson votes no.
Representative Baird?
Mr. Baird. No.
The Clerk. Baird votes no.
Representative Waltz?
Mr. Waltz. No.
The Clerk. Waltz votes no.
Representative Kean?
Mr. Kean. No.
The Clerk. Kean votes no.
Representative Lawler?
Mr. Lawler. No.
The Clerk. Lawler votes no.
Representative Mills?
Mr. Mills. No.
The Clerk. Mills votes no.
Representative McCormick?
Mr. McCormick. No.
The Clerk. McCormick votes no.
Representative Moran?
Mr. Moran. No.
The Clerk. Moran votes no.
Representative James?
Mr. James. No.
The Clerk. James votes no.
Representative Self?
Mr. Self. No.
The Clerk. Self votes no.
Ranking Member Meeks?
Mr. Meeks. Aye.
The Clerk. Meeks votes aye.
Representative Sherman?
Mr. Sherman. Aye.
The Clerk. Sherman votes aye.
Representative Connolly?
Mr. Connolly. Aye.
The Clerk. Connolly votes aye.
Representative Keating?
Keating?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Representative Cicilline?
Mr. Cicilline. Aye.
The Clerk. Cicilline votes aye.
Representative Bera?
Mr. Bera. Yes.
The Clerk. Bera votes aye.
Representative Castro?
Castro?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Representative Titus?
Ms. Titus. Aye.
The Clerk. Titus votes aye.
Representative Lieu?
Mr. Lieu. Aye.
The Clerk. Lieu votes aye.
Representative Wild?
Ms. Wild. Aye.
The Clerk. Wild votes aye.
Representative Phillips?
Mr. Phillips. Aye.
The Clerk. Phillips votes aye.
Representative Allred?
Mr. Allred. Aye.
The Clerk. Allred votes aye.
Representative Andy Kim?
Mr. Kim of New Jersey. Aye.
The Clerk. Kim votes aye.
Representative Jacobs?
Ms. Jacobs. Aye.
The Clerk. Jacobs votes aye.
Representative Manning?
Ms. Manning. Aye.
The Clerk. Manning votes aye.
Representative Cherfilus-McCormick?
Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. Aye.
The Clerk. Cherfilus-McCormick votes aye.
Representative Stanton?
Mr. Stanton. Aye.
The Clerk. Stanton votes aye.
Representative Dean?
Ms. Dean. Aye.
The Clerk. Dean votes aye.
Representative Moskowitz?
Mr. Moskowitz. No.
The Clerk. Moskowitz votes no.
Representative Jonathan Jackson?
Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Aye.
The Clerk. Representative Jackson votes no--aye.
Representative Kamlager-Dove?
Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Si.
The Clerk. Kamlager-Dove votes aye.
Representative Costa?
Costa?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Representative Crow?
Mr. Crow. Aye.
The Clerk. Crow votes aye.
Representative Schneider?
Mr. Schneider. Aye.
The Clerk. Schneider votes aye.
Chairman McCaul. The chair votes no.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes no.
Chairman McCaul. Are there any members in the room who wish
to have their vote recorded?
Any members who wish to change their vote?
The clerk will report the tally.
Mr. Smith is recognized.
The Clerk. Representative Smith?
Mr. Smith. I vote no.
The Clerk. Representative Smith votes no.
Chairman McCaul. Now the clerk will report the tally.
The Clerk. On this vote the ayes are 20 and the noes are
25.
Chairman McCaul. The noes have it. The amendment is not
agreed to.
The committee postponed further proceedings on the recorded
vote on amendment No. 6 offered by Representative Jackson on
which the noes had prevailed by voice.
The question now occurs on agreeing to the amendment. The
clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Representative Smith?
Mr. Smith. No.
The Clerk. Representative Smith votes no.
Representative Wilson?
Mr. Wilson. No.
The Clerk. Wilson votes no.
Representative Perry?
Mr. Perry. No.
The Clerk. Perry votes no.
Representative Issa?
Mr. Issa. No.
The Clerk. Issa votes no.
Representative Wagner?
Wagner?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Representative Mast?
Mr. Mast. No.
The Clerk. Mast votes no.
Representative Buck?
Buck?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Representative Burchett?
Mr. Burchett. No.
The Clerk. Burchett votes no.
Representative Green?
Mr. Green. No.
The Clerk. Green votes no.
Representative Barr?
Mr. Barr. No.
The Clerk. Barr votes no.
Representative Ronny Jackson?
Jackson?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Representative Young Kim?
Mrs. Kim of California. No.
The Clerk. Kim votes no.
Representative Salazar?
Ms. Salazar. No.
The Clerk. Salazar votes no.
Representative Huizenga?
Mr. Huizenga. No.
The Clerk. Huizenga votes no.
Representative Radewagen?
Mrs. Radewagen. Nay. Nay.
The Clerk. Representative Radewagen votes no.
Representative Hill?
Mr. Hill. No.
The Clerk. Hill votes no.
Representative Davidson?
Mr. Davidson. No.
The Clerk. Davidson votes no.
Representative Baird?
Mr. Baird. No.
The Clerk. Baird votes no.
Representative Waltz?
Mr. Waltz. No.
The Clerk. Waltz votes no.
Representative Kean?
Mr. Kean. No.
The Clerk. Kean votes no.
Representative Lawler?
Mr. Lawler. No.
The Clerk. Lawler votes no.
Representative Mills?
Mr. Mills. No.
The Clerk. Mills votes no.
Representative McCormick?
Mr. McCormick. No.
The Clerk. McCormick votes no.
Representative Moran?
Mr. Moran. No.
The Clerk. Moran votes no.
Representative James?
Mr. James. No.
The Clerk. James votes no.
Representative Self?
Mr. Self. No.
The Clerk. Self votes no.
Ranking Member Meeks?
Mr. Meeks. Aye.
The Clerk. Meeks votes aye.
Representative Sherman?
Mr. Sherman. Aye.
The Clerk. Sherman votes aye.
Representative Connolly?
Mr. Connolly. Aye.
The Clerk. Connolly votes aye.
Representative Keating?
Keating?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Representative Cicilline?
Mr. Cicilline. Aye.
The Clerk. Cicilline votes aye.
Representative Bera?
Mr. Bera. Yes.
The Clerk. Bera votes aye.
Representative Castro?
Castro?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Representative Titus?
Ms. Titus. Aye.
The Clerk. Titus votes aye.
Representative Lieu?
Mr. Lieu. Aye.
The Clerk. Lieu votes aye.
Representative Wild?
Ms. Wild. Aye.
The Clerk. Wild votes aye.
Representative Phillips?
Mr. Phillips. Aye.
The Clerk. Phillips votes aye.
Representative Allred?
Mr. Allred. Aye.
The Clerk. Allred votes aye.
Representative Andy Kim?
Mr. Kim of New Jersey. Aye.
The Clerk. Kim votes aye.
Representative Jacobs?
Ms. Jacobs. Aye.
The Clerk. Jacobs votes aye.
Representative Manning?
Ms. Manning. Aye.
The Clerk. Manning votes aye.
Representative Cherfilus-McCormick?
Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. Aye.
The Clerk. Cherfilus-McCormick votes aye.
Representative Stanton?
Mr. Stanton. Aye.
The Clerk. Stanton votes aye.
Representative Dean?
Ms. Dean. Aye.
The Clerk. Dean votes aye.
Representative Moskowitz?
Mr. Moskowitz. Aye.
The Clerk. Moskowitz votes aye.
Representative Jonathan Jackson?
Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Aye.
The Clerk. Jackson votes aye.
Representative Kamlager-Dove?
Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Aye.
The Clerk. Kamlager-Dove votes aye.
Representative Costa?
Costa?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Representative Crow?
Mr. Crow. Aye.
The Clerk. Crow votes aye.
Representative Schneider?
Mr. Schneider. Aye.
The Clerk. Schneider votes aye.
Mr. Chairman?
Chairman McCaul. The chairman votes no.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes no.
Chairman McCaul. Are there any other members in the room
who wish to have their vote recorded?
Any members who wish to change their vote?
The clerk will report the tally.
The Clerk. On this vote the ayes are 21 and the noes are
24.
Chairman McCaul. The noes have it and the amendment is not
agreed to.
There being no further amendments to dispense with, I move
that the committee report H.R. 314 to the House with a
favorable recommendation.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
All those opposed, signify by saying no.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the
motion is agreed to.
Mr. Meeks. Mr. Chairman, I've got ask for a roll call vote.
Chairman McCaul. A recorded vote has been requested. The
clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Representative Smith?
Mr. Smith. Aye.
The Clerk. Smith votes aye.
Representative Wilson?
Mr. Wilson. Aye.
The Clerk. Wilson votes aye.
Representative Perry?
Mr. Perry. Aye.
The Clerk. Perry votes aye.
Representative Issa?
Mr. Issa. Aye.
The Clerk. Issa votes aye.
Representative Wagner?
Wagner?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Representative Mast?
Mr. Mast. Aye.
The Clerk. Mast votes aye.
Representative Buck?
Buck?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Representative Burchett?
Mr. Burchett. Aye.
The Clerk. Burchett votes aye.
Representative Green?
Mr. Green. Aye.
The Clerk. Green votes aye.
Representative Barr?
Mr. Barr. Aye.
The Clerk. Barr votes aye.
Representative Ronny Jackson?
Jackson?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Representative Young Kim?
Mrs. Kim of California. Aye.
The Clerk. Kim votes aye.
Representative Salazar?
Ms. Salazar. Aye.
The Clerk. Salazar votes aye.
Representative Huizenga?
Mr. Huizenga. Aye.
The Clerk. Huizenga votes aye.
Representative Radewagen?
Mrs. Radewagen. Aye.
The Clerk. Representative Radewagen votes aye.
Representative Hill?
Mr. Hill. Aye.
The Clerk. Hill votes aye.
Representative Davidson?
Davidson?
Mr. Davidson. Aye.
The Clerk. Davidson votes aye.
Representative Baird?
Mr. Baird. Aye.
The Clerk. Baird votes aye.
Representative Waltz?
Mr. Waltz. Aye.
The Clerk. Representative Waltz votes aye.
Representative Kean?
Mr. Kean. Yes.
The Clerk. Kean votes aye.
Representative Lawler?
Mr. Lawler. Aye.
The Clerk. Lawler votes aye.
Representative Mills?
Mr. Mills. Aye.
The Clerk. Mills votes aye.
Representative McCormick?
Mr. McCormick. Aye.
The Clerk. McCormick votes aye.
Representative Moran?
Mr. Moran. Aye.
The Clerk. Moran votes aye.
Representative James?
Mr. James. Aye.
The Clerk. James votes aye.
Representative Self?
Mr. Self. Aye.
The Clerk. Self votes aye.
Ranking Member Meeks?
Mr. Meeks. No.
The Clerk. Ranking Member Meeks votes no.
Representative Sherman?
Mr. Sherman. No.
The Clerk. Sherman votes no.
Representative Connolly?
Mr. Connolly. Nay.
The Clerk. Connolly votes no.
Representative Keating?
Keating?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Representative Cicilline?
Mr. Cicilline. No.
The Clerk. Cicilline votes no.
Representative Bera?
Mr. Bera. No.
The Clerk. Bera votes no.
Representative Castro?
Castro?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Representative Titus?
Ms. Titus. No.
The Clerk. Titus votes no.
Representative Lieu?
Mr. Lieu. No.
The Clerk. Lieu votes no.
Representative Wild?
Ms. Wild. No.
The Clerk. Wild votes no.
Representative Phillips?
Mr. Phillips. No.
The Clerk. Phillips votes no.
Representative Allred?
Mr. Allred. No.
The Clerk. Allred votes no.
Representative Kim?
Mr. Kim of New Jersey. No.
The Clerk. Kim votes no.
Representative Jacobs?
Ms. Jacobs. No.
The Clerk. Jacobs votes no.
Representative Manning?
Ms. Manning. No.
The Clerk. Manning votes no.
Representative Cherfilus-McCormick?
Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. No.
The Clerk. Cherfilus-McCormick votes no.
Representative Stanton?
Mr. Stanton. No.
The Clerk. Stanton votes no.
Representative Dean?
Ms. Dean. No.
The Clerk. Dean votes no.
Representative Moskowitz?
Mr. Moskowitz. Yes.
The Clerk. Moskowitz votes aye.
Representative Jonathan Jackson?
Mr. Jackson of Illinois. No.
The Clerk. Jackson votes no.
Representative Kamlager-Dove?
Ms. Kamlager-Dove. No.
The Clerk. Kamlager-Dove votes no.
Representative Costa?
Costa?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Representative Crow?
Mr. Crow. No.
The Clerk. Crow votes no.
Representative Schneider?
Mr. Schneider. No.
The Clerk. Schneider votes no.
Mr. Chairman?
Chairman McCaul. The chairman votes aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes aye.
Chairman McCaul. Have all members voted?
Does any member wish to change their vote?
The clerk will report the tally.
The Clerk. On this vote the ayes are 25 and the noes are
20.
Chairman McCaul. 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 and staff is authorized to make any technical and
conforming changes.
This concludes consideration of the measures noticed by the
committee for today. I want to thank all the members.
There being no further business to transact, the committee
stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:26 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]
</pre></body></html>