[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MARKUP OF H.R. 391, H.R. 1079, H.R. 1145, H.R. 1500, H.R. 1158, H.R.
1083, H.R. 1392, H.R. 1464, H.R. 256, H.R. 2118, H.Res. 245, H.R. 1934
=======================================================================
MARKUP
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
March 25, 2021
__________
Serial No. 117-20
__________
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
43-863 PDF WASHINGTON : 2021
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York, Chairman
BRAD SHERMAN, California MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas, Ranking
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey Member
GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
KAREN BASS, California JOE WILSON, South Carolina
WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island DARRELL ISSA, California
AMI BERA, California ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas LEE ZELDIN, New York
DINA TITUS, Nevada ANN WAGNER, Missouri
TED LIEU, California BRIAN MAST, Florida
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania BRIAN FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota KEN BUCK, Colorado
ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee
COLIN ALLRED, Texas MARK GREEN, Tennessee
ANDY LEVIN, Michigan ANDY BARR, Kentucky
ABIGAIL SPANBERGER, Virginia GREG STEUBE, Florida
CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania DAN MEUSER, Pennsylvania
TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey CLAUDIA TENNEY, New York
ANDY KIM, New Jersey AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas
SARA JACOBS, California PETER MEIJER, Michigan
KATHY MANNING, North Carolina NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, New York
JIM COSTA, California RONNY JACKSON, Texas
JUAN VARGAS, California YOUNG KIM, California
VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR, Florida
BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois
Sophia Lafargue, Staff Director
Brendan Shields, Republican Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
BILLS AND AMENDMENTS EN BLOC
Bill H.R. 391.................................................... 20
Amendment to H.R. 391 offered by Mr. Connolly.................... 38
Amendment to H.R. 391 offered by Mr. McCaul...................... 47
Amendment to H.R. 391 offered by Mr. Chabot...................... 76
Amendment offered by Mr. Perry to the Amendment offered by Mr.
Chabot......................................................... 86
Amendment offered by Mr. Perry to the Amendment offered by Mr.
Chabot......................................................... 89
Amendment offered by Mr. Perry to the Amendment offered by Mr.
Chabot......................................................... 95
Amendment to H.R. 391 offered by Mr. Perry....................... 100
Bill H.R. 2118................................................... 108
Amendment to H.R. 2118 offered by Mr. Perry...................... 116
Bill H.R. 1464................................................... 120
Amendment to H.R. 1464 offered by Mr. Malinowski................. 134
Amendment to H.R. 1464 offered by Mr. Malinowski................. 138
Amendment to H.R. 1464 offered by Ms. Omar....................... 147
Bill H.R. 256.................................................... 156
Amendment to H.R. 256 offered by Mr. Perry....................... 176
Amendment to H.R. 256 offered by Mr. Issa........................ 180
APPENDIX
Hearing Notice................................................... 193
Hearing Minutes.................................................. 194
Hearing Attendance............................................... 195
Bills and Amendments............................................. 196
Votes............................................................ 387
Markup Summary................................................... 390
Information for the Record....................................... 392
MARKUP OF H.R. 391, H.R. 1079, H.R. 1145, H.R. 1500, H.R. 1158, H.R.
1083, H.R. 1392, H.R. 1464, H.R. 256, H.R. 2118, H.Res. 245, H.R. 1934
Thursday, March 25, 2021
House of Representatives,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:15 p.m., via
Webex, Hon. Gregory Meeks (chairman of the committee)
presiding.
Chairman Meeks. The Committee on Foreign Affairs will come
to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare
a recess of the committee at any point.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 4, the chair may postpone
further proceedings on approving any measure or matter or
adopting an amendment. Without objection, all members will have
5 days to submit statements or extraneous materials on today's
business.
To say something into the record, please have your staff
email the previously circulated address or contact full
committee staff.
As a reminder to members, please keep your video function
on at all times, even when you are not recognized by the chair.
Members are responsible for muting and unmuting themselves, and
please remember to mute yourself after you finish speaking.
Consistent with House rules, staff will only mute members
as appropriate and they are not under recognition to eliminate
background noise.
I see we have a quorum. As members were notified yesterday,
we intend to first consider eight measures and their amendments
en bloc. And then we will move to consider four measures and
their amendments separately.
Any roll call votes will be postponed until the end of the
markup.
Pursuant to notice, for purposes of markup, I now call up
the measures and their amendments that were previously
circulated to members' offices which without objection will be
considered en bloc that each measure is considered as read and
the amendments to each are considered as read and are agreed
to.
Without objection, after remarks, the committee will vote
to order the measures favorably reported en bloc, as amended if
amended, and each member or amendments to each bill shall be
reported as a single amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The measures in the en bloc package are H.R. 1145, To
direct the Secretary of State to develop a strategy to regain
observer status for Taiwan in the World Health Organization,
and for other purposes, with the Meeks amendment in the nature
of a substitute.
H.R. 1500, To direct the Administrator of the USAID to
submit to Congress a report on the impact of the COVID-19
pandemic on global basic education programs, with a Houlahan
amendment in the nature of a substitute and a Perry amendment.
H.R. 1158, To provide women and girls safe access to
sanitation facilities in refugee camps.
H.R. 1083, Southeast Asia Strategy Act.
H. Res. 245, Calling for continued and robust international
collaboration and coordination to fight COVID-19 across Africa,
with a Bass amendment in the nature of a substitute.
H.R. 1079, Desert Locust Control Act, with a Smith
amendment and a Perry amendment.
H.R. 1934, Promoting United States International Leadership
in 5G, with a McCaul amendment and with another McCaul
amendment.
H.R. 1392, Protection of Saudi Dissidents Act of 2021, with
a Connolly amendment and a Meeks amendment.
I now recognize myself to speak on the en bloc package. I
support all of these bipartisan measures and I am grateful to
all of our members on both sides for their hard work and
Ranking Member McCaul.
The legislation in our en bloc is reflective of an
overarching theme of this markup: global health. Over the last
year, it has become apparent to the entire world that viruses
do not respect borders and that problems that develop on one
side of the world can devastate people halfway around the
globe.
Since COVID-19 was first detected, trillions of dollars of
global economic output had evaporated and over one billion
children have missed in-person schooling. According to the WHO,
over 2.7 million people around the world have lost their lives
to coronavirus. Of course, the old adage one million deaths is
a statistic, one death is a tragedy is relevant to the COVID-19
pandemic. No figure can truly capture the suffering,
heartbreak, and loss that the virus has caused.
I can vividly remember when we were at the height of the
pandemic in New York City exactly 1 year ago today when so many
people in my community were saying their final goodbyes to
loved ones or thinking about how they were going to pay their
rent and the rent after they were laid off.
Similarly, scenes have been repeated, not just over all of
our great country, but indeed around the entire world. With
Representative Karen Bass' resolution calling for decisive
action to assist African nations is exactly the formula we
should be putting forward in Africa and indeed around the
world.
This resolution demands the U.S. Government to support
efforts to distribute vaccines to Africa to support the GAVI
Alliance and COVAX Facilities and calls for continued and
aggressive efforts to address other unfortunate consequences of
the pandemic.
I would also like to thank Representative Bass for her work
with Representative Smith of the important legislation to
address the locust swarms that are exacerbating food insecurity
in parts of East Africa.
Representative Grace Meng also has an instrumental bill
that will address one of the at-risk populations in the entire
world, women and girls living in refugee camps. Often, these
camps around the world do not provide safe and secure
infrastructure to protect the tens of millions of women and
girls that reside in them. This bill will work to ensure safe
and secure access to sanitation facilities for these women and
girls.
Representative Houlahan's legislation, H.R. 1500, requires
a report on the impact of COVID-19 from USAID basic education
programs. As a global humanitarian leader, we must understand
the effect of the pandemic on education if we are going to
effectively address the consequences. This legislation will
provide us the insights we need to fix the problems of the day
and plan for the problems of tomorrow.
I am also proud to support a trio of bipartisan bills that
will bring renewed attention and call for carefully developed
strategies to a number of important issues, particularly with a
focus on Asia.
Representative Kim's bill calls for a State Department
strategy to get Taiwan observer status again at the WHO.
Representative McCaul's legislation addresses 5G networks
and the importance of American leadership from global telecoms
technology.
Representative Wagner, working with Representative Castro,
also has an important role that calls on Secretaries of State
and Commerce to develop a strategy to engage with ASEAN and
South Asian nations.
And finally, Representative Connolly's bill the Protection
of Saudi Dissidents Act. Saudi Arabia is a long-standing U.S.
partner in a complex region. Nonetheless, for far too long,
Saudi Arabia's routine suppression of free expression and
political dissidents has gone unaddressed. This legislation
imposes reasonable limits on U.S. weapons transfer to Saudi
intelligence agencies shown to be involved in the killing of
Jamal Khashoggi and other political repression until such
repression and abuse of dissidents abates.
To be clear, I want to be clear, the bill does not limit
U.S. arm transfers to Saudi's defensive capabilities and Mr.
Connolly has graciously incorporated my amendment which ensures
that nothing in this legislation will deny the Saudi Government
the ability to defend its territory against attacks, from
external threats, or hinder its ability to defend the United
States military, diplomatic personnel, or facilities in the
kingdom.
I strongly support all the measures that we are considering
today in the en bloc. And I urge all members to join me to do
the same.
I will now recognize our Ranking Member, Mr. McCaul of
Texas, for his remarks.
Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Chairman Meeks. And I want to thank
you for holding this important markup and moving several
important bills. I want to thank you for carrying on the
traditions of this committee, working in a bipartisan manner
and I want to thank the staff on both sides of the aisle for
their hard work leading up to this markup.
I want to point out three bills from my Republican
colleagues, one, Representative Smith's Desert Locust Control
Act; Representative Wagner, Southeast Asia Strategy Act; and
Representative Kim's bill directing the Secretary of State to
develop a strategy to regain observer status for Taiwan in the
World Health Organization. It is important to note, Mr.
Chairman, that Taiwan actually warned the Chinese Communist
Party and the WHO that COVID was transmittable to the human and
that warning went unheeded sadly and now we are in the
situation we are in.
I also want to thank Representatives Connolly, Chabot, and
you, Mr. Chairman, for working with me on what I think are
strong amendments to help improve the Global Health Security
Act. It is critical that we apply the painful lessons learned
from this pandemic so that we are better prepared in the
future. I appreciate all of you for approaching such an
important issue in a bipartisan manner.
I also want to thank Mr. Connolly for working with us on a
compromised text that we got to within a matter of days for his
Protection of Saudi Dissidents Act, and Mr. Chairman, thank you
for your amendments because that is what got us to yes on this
bill. It does not prohibit in any way Saudi's ability to obtain
weapons to defend itself.
The killing of Jamal Khashoggi, a prominent Saudi
journalist was an outrageously gruesome crime. It was also a
major setback for our relationship with Saudi Arabia. This
amendment will help us better use our leverage to push
improvements in the kingdom's human rights practices. It will
also help preserve our strategic interest in the Middle East
including, as I mentioned, Saudi's ability to defend itself
against an attack from Iran.
I am also pleased that we are considering my bill to
promoting U.S. international leadership in the 5G Act. The
Chinese Communist Party poses a generational threat to our
country that we can no longer ignore. They are erasing ethnic
groups in Xinjiang right now with the Muslim Uyghurs. They
stole American national security data in the OPM hack including
mine and are believed to be responsible for the Microsoft hack
earlier this month. Now the Chinese Communist Party has designs
to become the world's technology powers especially on 5G with
their Huawei surveillance telecom program.
To achieve their goal, the CCP is launching cyber-attacks
stealing intellectual property and spying on our companies and
research institutions. That is precisely why in Houston, in my
State, the consulate was shut down because they were stealing
from the Texas Medical Center biomedical research, including
research on the vaccine, and from NASA. They used that to
increase their participation at standard setting bodies like
the International Telecommunications Union, or ITU, to embed
their technology around the world. And with the full backing of
the CCP, military companies like Huawei have gained significant
global market share in 5G and are positioning themselves to
gain even more.
My bill will help the United States counter China's
aggressive 5G expansion around the world by maintaining and in
some cases increasing U.S. leadership and participation at
critical international standard setting bodies for 5G.
Specifically, it will allow our Government to better understand
the security risks posed by the CCP's participation in 5G
standard setting bodies. Setting 5G standards and increasing
cooperation between the United States and our allies and
partners puts us in the driver's seat for the future, not the
CCP.
So Mr. Chairman, with that, I look forward to a healthy
debate on all the measures and I want to say I think we all
agree that we need to exercise our Article 1 authorities. We'll
be debating AUMF. We just have a little different position on
that, but as we always do, we'll debate in very civil and an
educational way. Thank you so much for holding this markup. I
yield back.
Chairman Meeks. I thank you for that, Representative
McCaul, and yes, we will be very civil as we markup as we
always do. Thank you for that.
I will recognize members by committee seniority alternating
between Democrats and Republicans for the purpose of speaking
on the en bloc package. Please use the raise your hand function
on Webex and I will recognize members by committee seniority
alternating between Democrats and Republicans. If you miss your
turn, please let our staff know, and we will come back to you.
Does anyone wish to speak on the en bloc?
Mr. Sherman. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Meeks. Yes. I recognize, Representative Brad
Sherman of California for 5 minutes.
Mr. Sherman. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for taking
up H.R. 1145 to direct the Secretary of State to develop a
strategy to regain observer status for Taiwan. I think it
should be full status, but we will start with observer status
for Taiwan at the World Health Organization. I am glad to join
with Representative Young Kim, who is the lead Democrat on this
important bill.
Just in the short amount of time that I have been in
Congress, Taiwan has spent more than $6 billion providing
international medical and humanitarian needs to more than 80
countries. Furthermore, Taiwan has used its public health
expertise to respond to this pandemic effectively within its
borders while donating tens of millions of masks and PPE
equipment to other nations in need.
Due to the Chinese Communist Party, Taiwan was excluded
from the WHO in 2017. This is outrageous as it shuts out Taiwan
from important WHO information and makes it more difficult for
Taiwan to share the information it has on its successful
handling on the virus. And as Mr. McCaul points out, it was one
of the first countries to ring the bell and to show us that
indeed this disease is transmissible.
Following Tuesday's important hearings on Reclaiming
Congress's War Powers Act, it is fitting that we will move on
to H.R. 256, which I am pleased to cosponsor, To repeal the
Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq in 2002,
AUMF. I have long supported this and voted for the repeal of
this AUMF. The AUMF was there to protect us from Saddam
Hussein's what we thought were weapons of mass destruction. It
has clearly outlived its usefulness.
But we also need to make sure that the War Powers Act is
fully enforceable against any administration. We had excellent
witnesses in our hearing on Tuesday. We need a provision that
gives Congress, Members of Congress, standing to go to court
and as I have championed since 2011, we had a major floor vote
on this in 2011. It has now been part of every appropriations
bill. We must use our power of the first to say no money shall
be spent in contravention of the War Powers Act. We need now to
make this part of permanent law. I have introduced a bill with
30 cosponsors, H.R. 2108, that will do just that and whether it
is in that legislative vehicle or another legislative vehicle,
we need to make the War Powers Act enforceable against
presidents.
Mr. Connolly has put forward a good bill, H.R. 1392,
Protection of the Saudi Dissidents Act and others have spoken
about how important that is. And Mr. Malinowski has another
bill that I believe that is important, 1464, the Khashoggi
Accountability Act, demanding visa sanctions on anyone being
responsible for Khashoggi's killing. And of course, that bill
has important waivers in there for diplomatic visas.
Finally, I want to thank Chairman Bass for her resolution
calling for a new, decisive, and robust international
cooperation on the fight against COVID-19 across Africa. I was
just on the phone with Dr. Marx, the Director of the FDA's
Center for Biologics about how we are wasting vaccine here in
the United States and how we can improve our own program, thus
saving vaccine which can be used by the United States, but then
around the world, particularly in Africa.
I want to commend Mr. Bera for his bill, Securing America
from Epidemics Act. And finally, although it is not in this
package, I do have almost a minute left, I want to comment on
Mr. Perry's amendment dealing with the Wuhan lab. I will point
out that Congress has already mandated in the omnibus that we
get a report. That report is due in just a few days. That
report should be on the origins of this virus. If that report
is going to be adequate, it will answer a question a lot of us
have and that is what did escape from the Wuhan virology
laboratory. If that report fails to address that issue, then it
will be defined for Congress to go back and mandate that that
particular issue be the subject of a serious intelligence
community report to Congress. I yield back.
Chairman Meeks. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Meeks. Yes. The chair recognizes Representative
Chris Smith of New Jersey who is the Ranking Member on the
Subcommittee of Africa, Global Health, and Global Human Rights
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
thank you and Ranking Member McCaul for including H.R. 1079,
the Desert Locust Control Act in today's markup. H.R. 1079,
which I introduced, joined by Africa Subcommittee Chair Karen
Bass, will establish an inter-agency working group to develop a
comprehensive, strategic plan to control locust outbreaks in
the East Africa region and address future outbreaks in order to
avert mass scale food insecurity and potential political
destabilization.
According to USAID, Mr. Chairman, the desert locust is one
of the most destructive migratory pests in the world, rapidly
consuming most vegetation in its path including crops and
pasture land, critical to maintaining the food security and
livelihood of populations in East Africa. Locust swarms are
highly mobile. And carried on the wind, swarms can travel up to
100 miles per day. And even a relatively small four-tenths of 1
percent square mile size swarm can consume an amount of food
sufficient for approximately 35,000 people in 1 day.
The World Bank notes that and I quote, ``A new generation
of locusts emerge every 8 weeks. Each generation on average
seeks a twentyfold increase in the population. The growing
swarms spread to new areas, disrupting the food supply,
upending livelihoods, and requiring substantial resources to
address.''
At the end of the year, Mr. Chairman, as you know, some 42
million people in East Africa alone were suffering acute food
insecurity and this does not include the Gulf States such as
Yemen or India or Pakistan which are also highly impacted.
Acute food insecurity is defined as the sudden lack of food or
the ability to produce or access minimum requirements of food.
The theme for the legislation came about with the
realization last year that various agencies in the Federal
Government which shared partial responsibility for addressing
the compounding locust, food, and COVID crises were not
adequately coordinating their efforts and thus not achieving
the best possible outcome. This including not only the State
Department, USAID, but also the NSD, the Department of Defense,
and the Department of Agriculture. It is in large part, thanks
to the herculean efforts of our Ambassador to the U.N. Food
Agencies in Rome, Kip Tom; the Executive Director of the World
Food Program, former Governor David Beasley, that awareness of
this crisis and steps to mitigate it have been at least a
partial success. They prodded countries, all of which were
under a COVID lockdown, in the FAO into action, without which
we would have had an even greater food security crisis.
The crisis persists, Mr. Chairman, and the upsurge in
locusts continues. The bill will help coordinate our
Government's response and it will do it at a de minimis cost.
And what is the cost of not acting? In testimony last week
before the Africa Subcommittee in a hearing chaired by my
friend and colleague and Congresswoman Bass, Ambassador Tip Tom
noted that today some $240 million has been spent to address
the crisis. Of this, USAID provided some $26 million in
assistance, as of February 1st of this year for Fiscal Years
2020 and for 1921.
The German Government has provided the largest amount of
assistance to combat the locusts. But if this blows up into a
full-scale famine, abetted by on-going hostilities in Ethiopia,
Ambassador Tom estimates that the humanitarian cost will
balloon to $3 to $3.5 billion. And that would mean millions of
lives, lives potentially lost to a horrific death by
starvation, and implicate U.S.'s disaster assistance funding.
So again, I am glad that you are putting this up on the markup
today and I hope my colleagues will cosponsor and support the
bill.
I also want to voice my support to my good friend and
colleague, Karen Bass's Resolution 245, calling for a continued
and robust international collaboration and coordination to
fight COVID-19 across Africa.
Mr. Chairman, in 2020, Africa had fewer COVID deaths, about
3.5 percent of the world cases, according to the African
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and fewer deaths
than other parts of the world. However--and that is
attributable in part to robust containment and a younger
population which were factors. But the emergence of variants
that are more transmissible and deadly has now resulted in a
fatality rate in 2021 that is above the global average.
And finally, I want to thank Congresswoman Young Kim for
her bill, as well as all the bills today, but I just want to
make sure I point this one out because we need a strategy with
Taiwan to gain observer status at the WHO and I wanted again to
remind my colleagues, I know you all know this, Taiwan has been
a model citizen in how it engages the world with regards to
health crises and its exclusion from the WHO at the behest of
the Chinese Communist Party is a scandal.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I ask unanimous consent to
revise and add some additional remarks.
Chairman Meeks. Thank you. I now recognize Representative
Albio Sires of New Jersey, who is the chair of the Subcommittee
on the Western Hemisphere, Civilian Security, Migration, and
International Economic Policy, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Sires. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want say from the
beginning that I support all these bills, but I want to speak
briefly about H.R. 1145, important legislation to help Taiwan
regain the status as an observer in the World Health
Organization. Taiwan has long been a leader in global health as
shown most recently throughout the ongoing pandemic. Not only
did Taiwan manage the pandemic at home, it worked to share
equipment and expertise with other nations including the United
States.
I am particularly grateful for Taiwan's strong friendship
in the early days of this crisis when my home State of New
Jersey was extremely hard hit and personal protective equipment
was scarce. Taiwan was sending regular shipments of masks to
the United States. By regaining observer status in the WHO,
Taiwan has helped other nations who are struggling with this
pandemic. It is in the best global interest to have Taiwan
regain observer status in the World Health Organization so that
other nations can learn from Taiwan's success in battling
COVID-19 and can be kept up to date on this international
health emergency.
As the co-chair of the congressional Taiwan Caucus I am
proud to co-sponsor H.R. 1145. I would like to thank my
colleagues, Representatives Young Kim and Brad Sherman, for
introducing this important legislation and I urge my colleagues
to support it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Meeks. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize
Representative Steve Chabot of Ohio, who is the Ranking Member
of the Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, Central Asia, and
Nonproliferation for 5 minutes.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to voice my
strong support, first, for H.R. 391, the Global Health Security
Act, bipartisan legislation that my good friend Gerry Connolly
and I first introduced in 2018 to strengthen U.S. and global
preparedness for and capacity to respond to pandemics like
COVID-19.
And I want to thank Chairman Meeks and Ranking Member
McCaul for working with us to improve this Congress' version of
the legislation as it heads toward enactment.
After a year of lockdowns and masks and social distancing,
working from home, school closures, and, worst of all, a
mounting death toll both here at home and around the world,
COVID-19 has taught us like nothing else has the true cost of a
pandemic.
COVID-19 has also shown just how vulnerable the U.S. is to
a disease outbreak on the other side of the world. As we all
know now, diseases do not respect borders, and a corrupt and
nontransparent health system in another country, in this case
China, can cause millions of deaths here in America.
China's politically motivated censorship of coronavirus
information early on caused the world untold suffering. But a
disease like COVID-19 could start anywhere. It could start in
the Middle East, in South America, Africa, or even here.
That's why we must help less-prepared countries identify
and contain future emergency deadly diseases when they
originate, and mitigate their impact before they have a chance
to grow to pandemic scale.
If I may say, our legislation was prescient in this regard.
When we first introduced it back in 2018, COVID-19 did not
exist.
However, we realized that Congress needed to support,
direct, and provide oversight for the global health security
work that had been done by the Obama Administration and carried
forward by the Trump administration.
We also realized that the proper personnel needed to be in
place to coordinate our response to emerging disease threats.
Our legislation supports each of these goals and so I
strongly support it and would urge my colleagues to do so as
well. I'd like to comment briefly on two other pieces of
legislation that we have before us today.
I want to these--the first one I'd like to mention as a
founder and a current co-chair of the congressional Taiwan
Caucus, as a couple of the members have already mentioned, also
as the ranking member of the Asian Pacific Subcommittee, I'd
like to voice my support for H.R. 1145.
I'm an original co-sponsor of this legislation, which was
introduced by a vice ranking member in one of our new and, I
think, one of our best committee members will be for sure,
Young Kim, as well as Congressman Brad Sherman, who is pretty
good, too, to strengthen the State Department's efforts to get
Taiwan included by the World Health Organization, and I long
supported Taiwan's participation in international
organizations.
The 23 million people of Taiwan deserve to have their
voices heard. So I strongly support this, would urge my
colleagues to support this as well.
And then, finally, I'd like to mention briefly H.R. 1500,
of the Global Learning Loss Assessment Act, which was
introduced by Ms. Houlahan and Mr. Fitzpatrick.
In 2017, I introduced the Girls Access to Education Act,
along with my Democratic colleague, Congresswoman Robin Kelly,
here in the House, and then Senator Rubio introduced it over in
the Senate.
This legislation, which ultimately did become law,
prioritized education in our humanitarian assistance to
displaced individuals.
Unfortunately, COVID-19 has set that work back
significantly. The pandemic has taken a serious toll on
education as countries around the globe have closed down their
school systems.
Worse, millions of children, especially girls, have dropped
out of school as a result of the pandemic and may never return
to the classroom in some of those countries across the globe.
H.R. 1500 is a critical step in understanding this problem
and getting a grasp of who is being impacted and how so that we
can craft an effective response as the pandemic comes to an
end.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this markup, and I
want to thank Mr. McCaul, our ranking member, on this as well.
It's good to see us working in a bipartisan manner. And I yield
back.
Chairman Meeks. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize Representative Gerry Connolly of Virginia,
who's the president of the NATO Parliamentarian Assembly, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much
for holding this markup. It's great to see the committee
actively moving on its legislation under your leadership and
that of Mr. McCaul.
I want to join Mr. Chabot, as the co-chair of the Taiwan
Caucus, in expressing specific support for H.R. 745. I think
it's vitally important that we include Taiwan in the family,
international family, especially when it comes to international
health issues during a pandemic. It's absurd not to include the
Taiwanese expertise and experience. And I congratulate both
Brad Sherman and Young Kim for bringing that bill before us.
And I'm pleased to support it.
I also want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and you, Mr.
McCaul, for your bipartisan leadership in putting together an
en bloc package of legislation, and I particularly want to
thank you for including the Saudi Dissidents Act.
You know, we had a lot of hurdles to overcome. We have
managed with your help and your input to improve the bill and
to make it something that is a strong bipartisan bill. I think
that's very important.
Jamal Khashoggi was my constituent. His brutal murder must
not be forgotten and there has to be justice. This bill will be
a vehicle for moving us toward eventful justice, and I might
add that it isn't just about Jamal Khashoggi, bad as that was.
It's also about protecting dissidents. I've met--this bill
grew out of a series of meetings I had with Saudi dissidents
and Saudi American families who have folks back home who are
being imprisoned and detained simply because they have a
different political point of view and not a radical one, just
one like Jamal Khashoggi's, to try to improve things in the
kingdom, and there is no tolerance for that dissent.
And people are being killed. They're being detained.
They're being tortured. They're being brutalized. We, as
Americans, we, as the House Foreign Affairs Committee, cannot
stand idle during that time. And just in the last 48 hours, if
we needed a reminder of how important this subject is, we
learned that the author of the U.N. report on the murder of
Jamal Khashoggi, Agnes Callamard, has been threatened by Saudi
officials.
Her safety has been threatened if she continues to persist
in her findings. That is impunity of the of the highest order
of magnitude, and that, I think, underscores why we cannot be
silent, why we must take this measure today.
And I'm very proud of the fact we are, I hope, going to do
this in a very broad bipartisan way, in a measured but
assertive way.
And finally, Mr. Chairman, all of the bills are worthy and
are certainly going to have my support in the en bloc package.
But I want to also thank you and Mr. McCaul for your support,
and Mr. Chabot for his support. He's been unwavering for 3
years. And, you know, we look back on it and maybe we
anticipated something in terms of the need for early monitoring
of global health developments that could lead to pandemic.
Well, it happened. And on a bipartisan basis, we have never
picked one administration over another. We believe that we have
got to restore that capacity by code, by law, whoever is the
president, and Mr. Chabot has been a wonderful Republican
partner in that effort. And it has not always been easy. It's
passed the House, I believe, four times, and we hope it will
come out of our committee today on a big bipartisan vote.
And, again, I want to thank Mr. McCaul and you, Mr.
Chairman, for thoughtful additions to this bill that make it
stronger, and I would hope the committee upon reflection will
maybe not yield to the temptation to burden it down with other
issues that could make this very difficult to pass.
It's passed four times. It's passed the test in the House.
I believe we're very close to getting support in the Senate
that would allow it to become law, and let's try to do that
during the middle of a pandemic on a bipartisan basis.
But, again, I thank you and Mr. McCaul for making that
work. I yield back.
Chairman Meeks. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize Representative Joe Wilson of South
Carolina, who's the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the
Middle East, North Africa, and Global Counterterrorism, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Chairman Gregory Meeks and Ranking
Member Michael McCaul, for bringing these bipartisan measures
before us today.
I support each of the eight bills. I am grateful for the
wisdom and the initiative by our new colleague, Representative
Young Kim, with H.R. 1145. Taiwan has contributed tremendously
to global health but has not participated in the World Health
Assembly as an observer country since 2017.
Following the election of President Tsai Ing-wen, efforts
to curtail Taiwan's increasing international participation has
been persistent. International challenges such as the ongoing
pandemic require international cooperation.
I'm deeply concerned by the amount of undue influence
Beijing wields over international organizations, especially
given their repeated concealment of information during the
pandemic.
I'm grateful for Taiwan's voluntary generosity during the
pandemic. At the height of the supply chain strain, Taiwan
generously donated 100,000 items of PPE to the citizens of
South Carolina for front line workers, which my office helped
to facilitate.
Congratulations to Representative Young Kim, Congressman
Brad Sherman, Congressman Albio Sires, Congressman Steve
Chabot, and Congressman Gerry Connolly for their work on this
measure.
It is so meaningful to me to see the bipartisan support for
the courageous people of Taiwan.
I yield back.
Chairman Meeks. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize Representative Ted Deutch of Florida, who
is the chair of the Subcommittee on the Middle East, North
Africa, and Global Counterterrorism for, 5 minutes.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for your
continued leadership and ensuring that we accomplish meaningful
work, while also asserting our authorities.
Thanks to Ranking Member McCaul for continuing to work in
good faith and in the spirit of bipartisanship.
I'm proud to support the measures before us today, the en
bloc. I also would like to comment briefly on some of the other
bills in today's agenda.
I want to thank my friends, Mr. Connolly and Mr. Chabot,
for their leadership on the Global Health Security Act, which
I'm proud to co-sponsor, with respect to our fight against
COVID-19.
We are not out of the woods yet. We cannot claim victory
over this global pandemic until we stop its spread everywhere.
Not just in the United States, but everywhere. This will
require years of sustained vigilant U.S. leadership, harnessing
the expertise of our government agencies, and working with our
partners overseas.
Moreover, COVID-19 will not be the last infectious disease
that threatens to become a global pandemic, and a Global Health
Security Act will ensure we are prepared for years to come.
Although it's unfortunate we could not pass this into law
before the emergence of COVID-19, it isn't too late for this
legislation to make an important difference for all of us and
for the world.
I'd also like to thank Mr. Connolly and Mr. Malinowski for
their work on the two bills pertaining to Saudi Arabia and the
murder of Jamal Khashoggi, which I--bills which I support.
Just last week, I chaired a hearing on human rights in
Saudi Arabia, where our witnesses described how the kingdom
continues to brutally repress speech and dissent. As I said
then, we cannot be afraid to speak truth to our partners,
important partners, and we can never sacrifice American values.
Saudi leadership must address American concerns about the
treatment of our citizens and residents, and stop its targeting
of Saudi dissidents and political activists.
Two and a half years after the murder of Jamal Khashoggi
and after the release of the intelligence report, Congress
should reinforce the message that the United States will not
tolerate gross human rights abuses, including the targeting of
dissidents abroad.
I believe this is part of the challenging but necessary
recalibration of U.S.-Saudi relations that the Biden
administration has spoken of. So I'm hopeful that we once again
have a partner in the executive branch as we pursue this goal.
Finally, I want to address H.R. 256, which repeals the 2002
AUMF. Frankly, it is long past time for Congress to take up
meaningful debate and action on war powers authorities and this
bill is an important first step.
Congress, America, and the world have changed significantly
since 2002, and as we heard repeatedly at Tuesday's hearing,
the 2002 AUMF is now completely unnecessary for addressing any
of the security challenges that we face today.
Some of our colleagues have argued that while they might
agree in principle, they take issue with the process of
repealing the 2002 AUMF without also taking up the replacement
of the 2001 AUMF.
I absolutely agree that we should work urgently along with
the Biden administration to reconsider and modernize the 2001
AUMF.
But there is no reason that that needs to happen
simultaneously with repealing the 2002 AUMF. We need to get it
right. We can take these steps in succession and I very much,
very much hope that we will.
And so I'll just close by thanking and commending the
chairman and the ranking member again. Thanks for elevating
these important issues. Thanks for ensuring this committee
plays an active role in discussions and actions over war
powers.
And I yield back.
Chairman Meeks. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize Representative Ann Wagner of Missouri, who
is the vice ranking member of the full committee, for 5
minutes.
Mrs. Wagner. I thank you, Chairman Meeks, and I'd also like
to thank Ranking Member McCaul for including my bill, H.R.
1083, the Southeast Asia Strategy Act, in today's en banc
markup.
I'd also like to thank Congressman Castro, with whom I
founded the ASEAN Caucus, for working with me on this
legislation and for his great support of U.S.-ASEAN relations.
Member States of the Association of Southeast Asian
Nations, or ASEAN, are vital to the prosperity of the U.S.
economy, generating hundreds of thousands of American jobs.
H.R. 1083, the Southeast Asia Strategy Act, will deepen
U.S. engagement in the region by requiring the United States to
develop a coherent regional strategy that addresses all aspects
of the relationship from trade and humanitarian goals to
diplomatic and security arrangements.
U.S.-Southeast Asia relations are at a critical, critical
juncture. People's Republic of China is working aggressively to
expand its influence in this strategically important region,
using predatory investment, threatening new military
installments, and outright bullying to achieve its goals.
But Southeast Asian countries do not believe that China and
its--China's interests are well intentioned. Our partners seek
assurances that the United States will continue to demonstrate
strength in the region, and we must support our partners and
allies as they stand up to China's erratic and aggressive
behavior.
The U.S. should be proactively crafting and implementing
its Southeast Asia strategy, and this bill would require the
administration to do just that.
My legislation will ensure that the United States seizes
its opportunity to engage meaningfully and productively with
this dynamic and growing region.
It will position the U.S. and its partners to safeguard
freedom of navigation, promote mutually beneficial economic
development, and strengthen the democratic norms that China
seeks to undermine.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again for your great work
on the U.S.-Southeast Asian relations, and I urge my colleagues
to support H.R. 1083, the Southeast Asia Strategy Act.
And I yield back.
Chairman Meeks. The gentlelady yields back.
I now recognize Representative Karen Bass of California,
who is the chair of the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health,
and Global Human Rights, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Bass. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me thank
the ranking member for this markup today. I also want to thank
the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Africa as I join him
in co-sponsoring H.R. 1079, the Desert Locust Control Act. I
want to thank Ranking Member Smith.
COVID-19 has forced us to acknowledge that the world's
fates are intertwined and that the world cannot be safe from
this pandemic until everyone is.
That is why I introduced H. Res. 245, calling for continued
and robust international collaboration and coordination to
fight COVID-19 across Africa.
I'm pleased that this resolution is bipartisan and hope
that we can move forward together to continue to work in a
bipartisan manner to fight COVID-19.
Again, I want to thank the Ranking Member McCaul and the
Africa Subcommittee Member Smith for supporting the resolution
and showing that Congress can work together for the good of the
American people and those around the world.
This resolution reaffirms that decreasing the spread of
COVID-19 and preventing future COVID-19 variants globally and
in Africa is in the national interest of the United States.
It also calls for continued and robust international
collaboration and coordination to fight COVID-19 across Africa.
Resources are increasingly limited in the United States and
abroad. World economies are impacted due to the pandemic.
I recently had a hearing on the effect of COVID-19 in
Africa, and one of the witnesses was the director of the Africa
CDC. He stated how he was worried about a vaccine war on the
continent because of shipment delays. This will significantly
impact the ability to fight the virus on the continent and
weaken solid economies and destroy weaker ones.
Botswana, for example, a pillar of democracy on the
candidate--on the continent has had to shift its focus from
development to defense. Its citizens are worried that the
pandemic will destroy its tourism economy and the government is
worried about maintaining its borders from outside countries
with more severe COVID-19 cases.
This week, I spoke with the Ambassador from Botswana about
the effects COVID-19 has had on his country, and he reiterated
that several African countries allocated money for COVAX and
Botswana paid for 20 percent of its population to be
vaccinated.
But at this point, it doesn't look like this mark will be
reached due to the supply. In another conversation I had with
the U.S.--the Ambassador from India to the U.S. about his
country recently made a grant in aid delivery of 30,000 COVID-
19 vaccines to Botswana on March 9th. The country has also made
vaccines available to 30 other countries in Africa.
Although there are reports that the Serum Institute of
India is suspending major exports of the AstraZeneca COVID-19
vaccine to the continent, they have shown a good faith and
humanity.
It is time the United States do the same and I'm asking my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to help ramp up our
efforts to the continent. This is why we must also leverage
resources and utilize multilateral tools available in an
equitable and efficient manner.
And this is why the United States must remain actively
engaged and lead a sustained and robust COVID-19 recovery
effort.
In Africa, that means working with the African Union and
the Africa CDC to collaboratively tackle the continent's health
system challenges by equipping them to deliver science-based
and quality health care.
This resolution calls for the U.S. and international
partners to work collaboratively to address the impacts of
COVID-19 in Africa, the other impacts, including food
insecurity, education challenges posed by the pandemic, global
supply chain disruptions, equitable access to secure internet
and digital connectivity, and good governance.
We must seize this renewed sense of urgency to help build a
true partnership with Africa by looking beyond a short-term
recovery to mitigate the growing number of complex
interconnected risks.
I hope you will join me and my colleagues across the aisle
and vote to support this resolution. Reaffirming decreasing the
spread of COVID-19 and preventing future variants is in the
national interests of the United States.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Meeks. The gentlelady yields back.
I now recognize Representative Young Kim of California,
who's the vice ranking member of the Subcommittee on Asia, the
Pacific, Central Asia, and Nonproliferation, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Kim of California. Thank you, Chairman Meeks and
Ranking Member McCaul. I am honored to speak in support of the
bills included in this en bloc package before us today.
That includes my bill on directing the State Department to
implement a strategy to help Taiwan regain its observer status
at the World Health Organization and its decisionmaking body,
the World Health Assembly.
In 2017, Taiwan was unjustly kicked out of the WHO by its
leadership, under pressure by the Chinese Communist Party,
which prevented it from sharing and receiving vital information
before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Taiwan has long been a leader in global health security,
collaborating with countries around the world in combating
deadly disease outbreaks.
Since 1996, Taiwan has invested more than $6 billion in
international medical and humanitarian aid efforts in more than
80 countries. During the 2014 Ebola crisis, Taiwan donated over
a million dollars and provided 100,000 sets of personal
protective equipment.
Additionally, Taiwan was one of the first countries to
raise the alarm during the initial spread of COVID-19 using its
public health expertise to respond to the pandemic very
effectively within its borders while donating tens of millions
of masks and PPE equipment to other nations in need.
Taiwan's actions have proven that not only do they deserve
a seat at the table, but having Taiwan as an observer at the
WHO also brings tangible healthy security benefits to the
United States and the rest of the world.
I want to thank Chairman Meeks, Ranking Member McCaul, Asia
Subcommittee Chairman Bera, and Ranking Member Chabot, all of
whom are original co-sponsors of the bill for including this
initiative in today's markup and passing the first Taiwan-
related initiative of the 117th Congress out of this committee.
And I also want to thank my good friend, Congressman Brad
Sherman, for co-leading this bill and ensuring that it received
broad bipartisan support. Taiwan is a bipartisan issue, and I'm
very encouraged by our committee's action today.
Thank you, and I yield the balance of my time.
Chairman Meeks. The gentlelady yields back.
I now recognize Representative Ted Lieu of California for 5
minutes.
Mr. Lieu. Thank you, Chairman Meeks, for holding this
markup, and I want to, first of all, talk about the legislation
related to Taiwan in directing the Secretary of State to have a
strategy for putting Taiwan back into observer status at the
World Health Organization.
I note that, unlike the Chinese government, which lied
about the coronavirus at the beginning of the pandemic, Taiwan
did everything right. They told the truth about the virus,
which is that it could be transmitted by humans, and Taiwan
relied on the science.
They used mask protocols. They engaged in social
distancing. They put in effective virus suppression measures.
And because of what they did, Taiwan reopened their economy
much sooner than the United States.
The United States and the world has a lot to learn from
Taiwan, and I fully support that legislation.
I also rise in support of the two bills regarding Saudi
Arabia. I just want to remind everyone that the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia lied to United States for 17 straight days. They
lied to us, they lied to the world, about the murder of a U.S.
legal permanent resident who was also an opinions columnist for
the Washington Post.
And what we know is that Saudi Arabia has not suffered a
lot of consequences that other normal countries would have
suffered for lying about murdering a legal U.S. resident. So I
support both of those two bills related to Saudi Arabia.
And then finally, I want to talk briefly about the AUMF. We
shouldn't have forever wars, which means we shouldn't have
AUMFs without sunsets that allow for these forever wars, and
it's time that we repeal the 2002 AUMF and I want to commend
Representative Barbara Lee and all the others who have worked
on this issue.
And thank you again, Chairman, for holding this important
markup, and I yield back.
Chairman Meeks. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize Representative Abigail Spanberger of
Virginia, who is the vice chair of the Subcommittee on Europe,
Energy, and the Environment and Cyber, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Spanberger. Thank you very much, Chairman Meeks, and
thank you to Ranking Member McCaul for your legislation, the
Promoting U.S. International Leadership in 5G Act. It is
difficult to overState the long-term effects of the global
transition to 5G and it's also important that we take seriously
the risks involved in this transition, especially those posed
by the Chinese government and Chinese government-backed
companies.
According to a 2018 NATO report, Huawei's growing influence
as a leading supplier of 5G technology could be exploited by
China to engage in espionage, monitor foreign corporations and
governments, and support Chinese military operations.
As China works hard to take advantage of this moment, the
United States must redouble our efforts to support U.S.
competitiveness and innovation in the telecom space and protect
against threats to Americans and U.S. interests that are posed
by foreign-backed 5G technologies and networks, and work with
our allies and partners to pursue similar strategies to do
this.
My bipartisan legislation that required a national strategy
on 5G, one that would protect U.S. consumers and assist U.S.
allies in maximizing the security of their 5G telecommunication
systems, was signed into law by President Trump, and I
appreciated Ranking Member McCaul's support for my legislation.
And today, I am happy to support your legislation, Mr.
Ranking Member McCaul. It is critical that the United States
develop strategies to better engage in international standard-
setting bodies to ensure that U.S. interests are integrated as
the international community deliberates on the standards that
will shape the future of the international telecom industry.
By engaging diplomatically in these multilateral forums,
the United States can enhance U.S. competitiveness and national
security.
Thank you for your leadership on this, Ranking Member
McCaul, and I look forward to continuing to work with you to
ensure that the United States is leading the 5G transition and
that we do our part to protect American security and economic
considerations.
I yield back.
Chairman Meeks. The gentlelady yields back.
I now recognize Representative Chrissy Houlahan of
Pennsylvania for 5 minutes.
Ms. Houlahan. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to
everyone on the committee for your support of my critical piece
of legislation, H.R. 1500, the Global Learning Loss Assessment
Act. And I'd also like to thank my colleagues, Representatives
Fitzpatrick, also from our home Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
and Representative Quigley, for their work on this bill.
Together, through this legislation, we are requiring the U.S.
Agency for International Development, or USAID, to submit a
report to Congress on the impacts of COVID-19 on USAID-based
education programs and global learning.
Over the past year, COVID has disrupted the education of
over 90 percent of the world's children. The Research Triangle
Institute predicts that most students will return to school
looking more like students in the middle or close to the end of
their previous grade, and this disruption has compounded the
global learning crisis that preceded the pandemic. Already,
students were behind on literacy comprehension and much more,
which makes the next few months incredibly important.
My colleagues and I on this bill are clear-minded about
what needs to happen. To shore up the increasing gaps in
learning and preserve the massive gains that the United States
has made in global education rates, we need to understand the
extent of the damage that this pandemic has caused. This bill
will arm us with data that we need to move quickly, to invest
effectively across our USAID programs, and to make our
international basic education programs more resilient to crises
like these.
We cannot afford to ignore the devastating effects of
COVID-19 on students around the world. Education loss will
continue without intentional steps on our behalf, and inaction
will most certainly lead to further loss.
We must also recognize the disproportionate impact that
this pandemic has had on vulnerable populations, particularly
young girls. Education is key to the success and well-being of
women and girls. It often provides economic opportunity that
would otherwise not have been available.
And I am particularly concerned about the harrowing
consequences that school-age girls are facing in the light of
their school closures, including an increased likelihood of
gender-based violence and unplanned pregnancies. Since the
outbreak of COVID-19, emerging data and reports from those on
the front lines have shown that all types of violence against
women and girls has intensified during this time.
The United States has been an historic leader on global
education, investing in USAID and partner programs to pave the
way for a more educated global society. And I believe our
leadership here is even more important and should continue. Our
work in this space helps us to build mutually beneficial
relationships with countries around the world, and investments
in education extend far, far beyond the classroom.
Educating children helps lead to more prosperous and
economically stable societies that are less likely to be
gripped by conflict and extremism. We have the opportunity to
empower young people across the globe, and I believe our Global
Learning Loss Assessment Act is a necessary step in seizing on
that opportunity.
With that, thank you, and I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Meeks. The gentlelady yields back her time.
Does anyone else wish to speak on the en bloc?
Hearing no further request for recognition, the committee
will proceed to consider the notice of items en bloc.
Pursuant to the previous order, the question occurs on the
measures of en bloc, as amended, if amended.
We're going to take a vote by voice. All members, please
unmute your microphone.
All those in favor, say aye.
Those opposed, say no.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the
motion to reconsider is laid on the table.
The measures considered en bloc are agreed to, and the
motion to reconsider is laid on the table. And pursuant to the
previous order of the committee, each measure is offered
favorably reported, as amended, if amended. And each amendment
or amendment to each bill shall be reported as a single
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Without objection, staff is authorized to make any
technical and conforming changes.
Now it's time to move on to the next item of business. We
will be considering separately the following measures and their
amendments: H.R. 391, the Global Health Security Act of 2021;
H.R. 2118, Securing America from Epidemics Act; H.R. 1464, the
Khashoggi Accountability Act, and H.R. 256, to repeal the
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution
of 2002.
Now we will move on to consider H.R. 391, the Global Health
Security Act of 2021.
Pursuant to notice, for purposes of markup, I now call up
H.R. 391. The clerk will report the bill.
Ms. Stiles. H.R. 391, a bill to authorize a comprehensive
strategic approach for United States foreign assistance to
developing countries to strengthen global health security, and
for other purposes.
Chairman Meeks. Without objection, the first reading of the
bill is dispensed with.
Without objection, the bill shall be considered as read and
open to amendment at any point.
[The bill H.R. 391 follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Meeks. Two bipartisan amendments to this bill were
distributed to members in advance, and I understand members are
prepared to accept them.
So, without objection, the two bipartisan amendments,
Connolly Amendment No. 40 and McCaul Amendment No. 20, are
supported by myself and Mr. McCaul and Mr. Connolly, and are
agreed to en bloc.
[The amendments en bloc follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Meeks. At this time, I recognize myself to speak
on the measure.
The past year has taught all of us the importance of global
health security. Never has it been so clear that the pathogens
around the world can dramatically affect American life here at
home.
Representative Connolly has been a persistent leader on
this issue in the past, and I so appreciate his work this
Congress to further update this legislation.
As the saying goes, one ounce of prevention is worth a
pound of cure. And that is undoubtedly true in global health.
Pandemics do not respect borders. They do not care about
nationalities, and we have spent the last year seeing that play
out with horrific results in the COVID-19 pandemic.
Having a coordinated, whole-of-government approach to both
preparing for and responding to these threats is critical, even
more so, as we face a growing coronavirus outbreak.
This measure today would institutionalize the best
practices the United States has learned in global health
security. The bill establishes an Interagency Review Council to
advance global health security and mandates a U.S. Global
Health Security Coordinator to manage the U.S. response in
these emergencies and to speak with one voice.
It also requires a strategy and reporting to Congress,
which has communicated throughout this latest coronavirus
outbreak its conviction that global health security is in our
national interest, not just in playing catchup, but in getting
ahead of the curve.
I support this important legislation and encourage everyone
to do the same.
I realize that members wish to speak on the bill, and that
some members have amendments to offer. Please use the ``raise
your hand'' function on Webex, and I will recognize members by
committee seniority, alternating between Democrats and
Republicans, for the purpose of speaking on the bill first. If
you miss your turn, please let our staff know. We will circle
back to you. Then, we will move on to amendments.
I now recognize Representative Steve Chabot of Ohio, who is
the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific,
Central Asia, and Nonproliferation, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for yielding.
I'm not going to take the full 5 minutes because I spoke on
this at the beginning.
But I want to again commend Mr. Connolly for his leadership
on this. We've been working on this now for 3 years. And as I
mentioned before, this really was prescient because we had
never heard of COVID-19 when we put this legislation together
and introduced it. We were concerned that we were vulnerable,
and the rest of the world was vulnerable, to something like
this. And so, we thought that we ought to be prepared for it
here, and that, most importantly, we ought to be working with
other countries across the globe who may not be as prepared as
we are. And it turned out that Mr. Connolly and I were right,
and obviously, this has been devastating to so many people. The
worse, of course, is losing over half a million lives, but it
has devastated small business; it's devastated families, and
you name it. So, it's been a terrible pandemic, and this will
prepare us for the next one.
And so, I just want to, again, commend him and all the
other members who have worked with us to get this to this
point. I am hoping that we can actually pass this into
legislation if we can get the Senate to act on it. So, I want
to thank all the members for working on this with us.
And I yield back.
Chairman Meeks. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize Representative Gerry Connolly of Virginia,
the President of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
McCaul. And thank you to my good friend and partner in this
enterprise, Mr. Chabot of Ohio.
This is an important bill. Tragically, we did not know how
prescient or desperately needed this was when we first
introduced it in December 2018. The global COVID-19 pandemic
underscored not only the need for a robust Federal response to
such a crisis, but also the importance of investing in global
health security and pandemic preparedness around the world,
because diseases do not respect borders.
I welcome the fact that the House Foreign Affairs Committee
has coalesced around a bipartisan solution that addresses
deficiencies in the current pandemic response effort, as well
as demonstrating a commitment to a comprehensive and
sustainable approach to global health security going forward.
We must rise to this occasion. We are in a pandemic that
has cost over a million lives worldwide, but 600,000 lives here
in our home country and tens of millions of Americans have
suffered from COVID infection, many still with lingering,
prolonged symptoms.
This bill would establish a Global Health Security Agenda
Interagency Review Council, overseen by the National Security
Advisor, and whose membership would include the heads of
agencies relevant to carrying out the Global Health Security
Agenda. It would establish a U.S. Coordinator for Global Health
Security responsible for coordinating the interagency response
to a global health security emergency. It would require the
President to develop a Global Health Security Strategy with
specific and measurable goals, benchmarks, and performance
metrics that will improve U.S. leadership in global pandemic
preparedness, and it would establish, finally, an International
Fund for Global Health Security and Pandemic Preparedness.
I want to again thank you, Chairman Meeks and Ranking
Member McCaul, for working with Mr. Chabot and me to strengthen
this legislation. I also want to thank our respective committee
staffs and our personal staffs for their commitment to this
enterprise.
I really believe the result of our collaboration is a
better bill that will have an even greater impact on our
ability to emerge from this pandemic with a plan, with
infrastructure and resources in place to prevent another
catastrophic global health crisis.
Improvements to the bill include elevating the participants
of the Interagency Council in a manner commensurate with the
scope of the work that Council will need to carry out in the
aftermath of the pandemic; strengthening the scope of the
Global Health Security Strategy with lessons learned from
COVID-19, and the addition of a multilateral fund. These
improvements happen to consistent with the Biden
administration's now Security Memorandum on the Global United
States Leadership to Strengthen the International COVID-19
Response and to advance global health security and biological
preparedness.
Our statutory framework is careful not to be overly
prescriptive and to prejudge the outcome of the current
Response Framework offered by the administration. To that end,
I want to thank Ranking Member McCaul for his willingness to be
flexible on our vision for the U.S. Coordinator's role. Our
approach does not mandate how or where the position should
reside ultimately, and we think that approach gives us an
opportunity to continue to have a dialog on this point and
pursue a coordinated model that's informed by the best
practices and lessons learned from this pandemic.
Republican and Democratic Presidents alike have recognized
the critical importance of global health security, President
Obama's role on launching the Global Health Security Agenda to
President Trump's National Security Strategy and the National
Biodefense Strategy.
Whether it's the current COVID-19 pandemic or the next
crisis, it's clear these threats are ongoing and increasing,
saving lives when the next global pandemic starts with
investing and preparedness before is strikes. And we have seen
time and again diseases do not respect borders and global
health crises have immense security, economic, and humanitarian
consequences.
Our Global Health Security Act recognizes the critical role
of U.S. leadership in international health security, enshrines
U.S. global health security policy in statute, and ensures that
there is a permanent designated official responsible for
coordinating these efforts and accountable for response
outcomes.
I am proud that our Global Health Security Act has passed
the House four times, and I think we are even better positioned
now to pursue this effort and get it into law.
In closing, I want to thank all of my colleagues--Steve
Chabot, Rick Larsen, Brian Fitzpatrick, Ami Bera, Ann Wagner--
for serving as original co-sponsors of this bipartisan bill.
And again, I cannot thank the chairman and ranking member
enough for their involvement and their active support.
I yield back.
Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired.
Seeing no further requests to speak, let's move on to
amendments.
For what purpose does the Representative from Ohio, Mr.
Chabot, seek recognition?
Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at
the desk.
Chairman Meeks. The clerk shall distribute the amendment to
your staff virtually.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you.
Chairman Meeks. I'm pausing briefly to give all members
enough time to review the amendment.
Has everyone received a copy of the amendment?
The clerk will please report the amendment.
Ms. Stiles. Chabot Amendment No. 12. Strike Section 7 and
insert the following: Section 7, Strategy and Reports.
Chairman Meeks. Without objection, further reading of the
amendment will be dispensed with.
[The Amendment No. 12 of Mr. Chabot follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Meeks. The Representative from Ohio, Mr. Chabot,
is recognized for 5 minutes in support of Amendment No. 12.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will not need to
take that much time.
Throughout my time in Congress, I've always sought to
ensure that taxpayer money is spent effectively. One way to do
it is to include strategy and reporting requirements in
legislation we pass to enhance our ability to do effective
oversight.
If adopted, this amendment would strengthen both the
strategy and the reports required by the Global Health Security
Act to enhance better oversight over U.S. efforts to advance
pandemic preparedness and response capabilities around the
globe.
This amendment is a consensus product of bipartisan
negotiations between myself, Mr. Connolly, Ranking Member
McCaul, and Chairman Meeks. And I would urge that my colleagues
support the amendment, and I yield back.
Mr. Connolly. Would my friend, Mr. Chabot, yield to me, Mr.
Connolly?
Mr. Chabot. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from
the Commonwealth of Virginia, Mr. Connolly.
Mr. Connolly. I thank you, Mr. Chabot.
I just want to briefly say I support the amendment, and I
think it's a very thoughtful and substantive addition that
strengthens the bill and strengthens our effort going forward.
And I urge its adoption.
Thank you for yielding.
Mr. Chabot. I'm happy to yield, and I yield back.
Chairman Meeks. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
I support Mr. Chabot's amendment. Mr. Chabot's amendment,
along with the McCaul and Connolly amendments to the GHSA,
represent a bipartisan group of changes to the bill which I,
the ranking member, Mr. Connolly, and Mr. Chabot support.
Mr. Chabot's amendment includes greater detail in the
Global Health Security Strategy required by the bill, adding
pieces like commitments to transparency, avoiding overlap and
duplication, and supporting public-private partnerships. The
strategy also calls for working closely with allies and
partners, a crucial component to maintain global health
security.
I encourage all of my colleagues to support this important
amendment, and I yield back.
Is there any further debate on Chabot Amendment No. 12?
[No response.]
Chairman Meeks. I understand that there are a couple of
amendments to the Chabot amendment.
For what purpose does the Representative from Pennsylvania,
Mr. Perry, seek recognition?
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have what I think is
a friendly amendment at the desk.
Chairman Meeks. The clerk shall distribute the amendment to
your staff virtually.
Let's pause briefly to give members enough time to review
the amendment.
Has everyone received a copy of the amendment?
The clerk will please report the amendment.
Ms. Stiles. Perry Amendment No. 51. At the end of Section
7(b), add the following----
Chairman Meeks. Without objection, further reading of the
amendment will be dispensed with.
[The Amendment No. 51 of Mr. Perry follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Meeks. A point of order is reserved.
The Representative from Pennsylvania, Mr. Perry, is
recognized for 5 minutes in support of the amendment.
Mr. Perry. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This is the first of three I have on this piece of
legislation.
I certainly thank the gentlemen and ladies on both sides of
the aisle that have worked diligently for years to bring this
to fruition. I just want to bring it up-to-date, especially
based on what has happened in the last year and some-odd
months.
A discussion on this legislation cannot go without
mentioning the lack of global health security as a result of
the action of the Chinese Communist Party. Now this amendment
does not for anything except accountability. We simply must
acknowledge that the main reason we're discussing global health
security today is because of China.
Understandably, there have been epidemics and/or pandemics
in the past, including the outbreak of H1N1 in this country and
the outbreak of Ebola in Africa. However, the fact that the CCP
controls or has outsized influence in so many international
institutions is a very real threat to the success of any
interagency or multilateral effort to combat the spread of
diseases around the world.
Now this amendment would address serious concerns that have
been raised in numerous outlets regarding gain-of-function
research being conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. To
be clear, gain-of-function research is the deliberate
manipulation of a virus to make it more transmissible and
fatal.
In a letter I led to the HHS OIG last month, I noted that
the Wuhan Institute was somehow eligible for NIH grant funding.
This is entirely unacceptable. And a few hours after my
colleagues and I delivered that letter to the OIG's office, the
Biden administration pledged to not provide funds to the Wuhan
Institute, thank goodness, because I was pretty sure they were
prepared to continue to fund the Institute again.
This is a good start, but we need to continue to hold China
accountable. We know that the NIH has previously provided funds
to the Wuhan Institute, and we know that the NIH grantees,
including the EcoHealth Alliance, have provided funds to the
Wuhan Institute as well.
Aside from preventing funds from going to the WIV, or any
institution in the People's Republic of China engaging in gain-
of-function research, we need to assess the extent and scope of
such research in preparing for future virus outbreaks. And we
need to be fully in the know, which leads to my last point.
China has been far from a helpful partner during this
pandemic. We know for a fact that they lied to us and made the
virus far more impactful than it had to be.
The second part of this amendment includes a strategy for
ensuring maximum readiness against future pandemics, in light
of the PRC's historic refusal to cooperate on issues of global
health security. Put plainly, they're not going to want to
cooperate with us. So, we need to begin to assess how we might
otherwise avoid putting ourselves in a position that doesn't
again leave millions of Americans out of jobs and hundreds of
thousands of American families without a loved one today.
This amendment is less about how we can work with China--
they have shown time and time again they have very little
interest in working with us on issues of global health
security--but it is more about how we can best monitor China's
roguish behavior.
With that, I urge adoption of this amendment, and I yield
back the remainder of the time, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Meeks. The gentleman yields back. But I want the
gentleman to know that we called up the Perry Amendment No. 51.
I think that you were articulating about the Perry Amendment
No. 48, if that's not correct. We called up 51, the proposed
amendment which requires the President, in collaboration with
ODNI, to make a determination on the likelihood that COVID
originated in a Chinese lab. That's No. 51.
Mr. Perry. Mr. Chairman, I apologize for being out of order
here. Somehow, they had it up that way on my sheet, and I do
not have them listed in the numbers that you have them listed
in.
Chairman Meeks. So, let me just let the record reflect that
now I'll call up, since you debated Perry No. 48----
Mr. Perry. Okay.
Chairman Meeks [continuing]. I will respond to No. 48, and
we will recall 51 after we debate 48.
So, I have to make sure now that everyone has received a
copy of the Amendment No. 48 for their review.
Okay. Has everybody received 48?
Seeing that everyone has Perry Amendment No. 48, I now
recognize myself for 5--oh, no, let me let the clerk read 48.
Ms. Stiles. Perry Amendment No. 48. At the end of Section
7(c), add the following: Determination. The report required
under paragraph (1) shall include: (A) A determination of the
President, acting through the United States Coordinator for
Global Health Security, which may be submitted----
Chairman Meeks. Without objection, further reading of the
amendment will be dispensed with.
[The Amendment No. 48 of Mr. Perry follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Meeks. And now, since I had yielded such time to
Mr. Perry, I will recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Gain-of-function research is an ongoing issue, including in
the United States, and should be looked at globally, not just
in a single country. The strategy required under Section 7
already seeks to prevent, detect, and respond to future
outbreaks. Additionally, the current strategy in the bill
includes prioritizing working with countries who have
demonstrated commitment to transparency and the international
health regulations, the language that was included at the
request of the minority.
We need to remain vigilant regarding China when it comes to
public health, but the next pandemic could start anywhere in
the world. An effective strategy must be holistic and global in
nature, and thereby, I oppose this amendment and yield back the
balance of my time.
Is there any further debate on the amendment?
Hearing none----
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Meeks. Yes?
Mr. Connolly. This is Mr. Connolly.
Chairman Meeks. Yes, Mr. Connolly is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
your clarification.
The whole issue of gain-of-function research is a global
issue, not limited to one country. And I might add, I made a
counteroffer to Mr. Perry with broader language that would have
incorporated I think what he is trying to get at without
fingering a specific lab in a specific country. That
counteroffer was rejected.
Second, as you point out, we added Republican language to
the bill that incorporated a goal of working with countries
dedicated to transparency and international health regulations.
I believe that these two amendments, if I can speak to both
of them, specifically imply that the virus outbreak came from a
laboratory with Wuhan in the Republic of China. That is not a
proven assertion. And for this committee to go on record as
doing that will fracture bipartisan support for this bill, and
there's something else.
We just witnessed eight people mowed down in a violent gun
attack in Atlanta, Georgia. Six of those eight people were
Asian-Americans. All across America, our fellow Americans,
Asian-Americans, Asian-American descent, are expressing fear
and anger about a pattern of harassment and hate in correlation
with a pandemic for which they bear no responsibility, but all
too many fellow Americans blame them.
The FBI has reported an increase to 3800 hate crimes aimed
at Asian-Americans during the pandemic. When key figures refer
to the ``China flu'' or the ``Wuhan virus,'' they apparently do
not understand that some who hear them, then, act on that and
blame Asian-Americans for something they are blameless for.
How can we, while this Nation is grieving of the loss of
these lives in a violent act of hatred, how can we add to that
agony and that pain by fingering a particular lab in a
particular country that will have racial ramifications in
America, and will say to the world we've learned nothing?
The House Foreign Affairs Committee cannot do this, even
though, privately and personally. Many people may very well
feel or believe China is believe, this bill is not the place in
which to encumber ourselves with enshrining this through this
amendment in law. It would be a mistake, it would be
retrograde, and it would be a slap in the face of grieving our
Asian-Americans all over our country.
I urge the committee on a bipartisan basis to reject these
two amendments. They serve no purpose other than ventilation,
and they will do real harm.
I yield back.
Chairman Meeks. The gentleman yields back.
Is there any further debate on Amendment No. 48?
Mr. Chabot. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Meeks. Yes, who seeks recognition?
Mr. Chabot. Mr. Chabot.
Chairman Meeks. Mr. Chabot, you're recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Chabot. Yes, I hadn't necessarily intended to speak on
this, but since we've had a bit of a discussion, I think I
should, just to clarify where I stand and where I think some of
my colleagues may stand on this. I do not know for sure.
But this has been a very bipartisan process. We worked very
closely with Mr. Connolly and Mr. Meeks, and others. Mr. Perry
has offered amendments. I think it's perfectly legitimate to
call out Beijing and the Wuhan region where this happened, and
whether it actually came out of the lab, I do not think we know
for sure, but it may well have. And I do not think there are
any racial overtones to this whatsoever. However, obviously,
members can agree or disagree on those types of things.
But I personally think that Mr. Perry's amendments make a
good bill better. So, I intend to support them. If they do not
pass, I certainly intend to support the legislation without
that particular amendment.
The other amendments were worked on in a partisan manner.
This part couldn't be, and that's why we are where we are. But
I will support this whether this amendment passes or not.
And I yield back.
Chairman Meeks. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman
yields back.
Is there any further debate on Amendment No. 48?
Mr. Mast. Representative Mast seeks recognition.
Chairman Meeks. Representative Mast is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Mast. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly will not
need 5 minutes.
It's just I think our colleague, Mr. Connolly, my friend
Mr. Connolly, has sparked some debate among us, and I would
only offer this comment: that should every white person in the
United States of America take offense and feel at risk because
somebody is calling out white supremacy within our country? I
do not think that we would jump to that conclusion, nor should
we jump to, because we are pointing to the origins of a
pandemic, that every person of an Asian descent should feel as
though we're somehow pointing a finger at them when we're
talking about a specific origin. It would be hyperbolic in both
instances, in my opinion, to do so.
And in that, I yield my time back.
Mr. Green. Mr. Chairman, this is Congressman Green. I'd
also like to make a quick comment about this, if I could.
Chairman Meeks. Mr. Green----
Ms. Bass. And, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, this is
Congressman Bass. I would like to as well.
Chairman Meeks. I now recognize Congresswoman Bass for 5
minutes.
Ms. Bass. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I was just a little concerned at my colleagues' comments. I
think what is actual fact is that, since the virus--since the
President, since President Trump started calling it ``the China
virus,'' there has been a massive increase in hate crimes
directed toward Asians, over a 200 percent increase. And many
times when those crimes take place, the person that is
attacking the individual specifically links it to that. So,
that is the concern. There is no such correlation between
denouncing white supremacy and, then, white Americans being
concerned. There is no relationship to that at all. And I am
very concerned that, after a year of vitriol from the
administration, that it is not shocking to me that we had what
happened last week.
So, with that, I yield back.
Chairman Meeks. The gentlelady yields back.
I now recognize Representative Green from Tennessee for 5
minutes.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, I want to say that the Chinese scientists who were
silenced by China because they took the same position that this
amendment takes, that China has suppressed the truth about the
virus, were Asian. They were Chinese. So, this isn't about any
demographic. This about the leadership of a country who even
suppressed and disappeared their own Chinese Asian people's
scientists from telling the truth about the origins of this
virus and the truth about its spread, and the truth about what
was going on in the Wuhan Lab and the Wuhan region of China.
So, making this somehow a racial thing, sure, it may serve some
political agenda, but it has no purpose in this committee.
And in regards to Atlanta, the FBI has clearly not released
an intent for that murderer, just as in Colorado he is of
Muslim descent, but there is no intent yet that has been stated
from those shooters. So, to assume that there is some kind of
racial motivation because most of the people were of a certain
demographic is unfair at this point. Now it may very well prove
to be true, but at this point that's unfair. So, we're
conflating things that we shouldn't.
This virus came from that area. Their own scientists were
accusing their government of making huge mistakes, and those
scientists were silenced. It has nothing to do with race or
ethnicity, or anything like that.
And with that, I yield.
Chairman Meeks. Is there further debate on Amendment No.
47--48?
Ms. Wild. Mr. Meeks?
Chairman Meeks. Yes?
Ms. Wild. Susan Wild here.
Chairman Meeks. Ms. Wild is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Wild. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do not need 5 minutes.
I wish to associate myself with the remarks of
Representative Bass and, also, to comment upon my colleague's
statement about whether all whites should be threatened by the
media's and public's denouncing of white supremacy, to which my
answer would be, only those whites who are themselves white
supremacists.
And with that, I yield back.
Chairman Meeks. The gentlelady yields back.
Who seeks recognition?
Mr. McCaul. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Meeks. Yes, I recognize Ranking Member McCaul for
5 minutes.
Mr. McCaul. Well, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to see the tone of this debate really more
fact-based and not go down the way it's going. I just want to
offer, factually, when I chaired the China Task Force, what we
were able to uncover is really evidence. We do know it came out
of Wuhan. There's some uncertainty whether it came from the wet
market or the laboratory.
And I think Mr. Perry's amendment is proper in terms of
reporting, so we know about the origins of COVID-19, so we can
stop this from ever happening again. Millions of people have
died. Millions of jobs have been destroyed. We're entitled, as
Congress, to know the truth.
The fact is that they were researching coronaviruses from
bats, how they could extrapolate to humans, at the lab and to
develop a vaccine. We also know from Department of State cables
that were declassified that there were many safety concerns
about the protocols being used at the lab. As we saw in 2004,
researchers walked out contaminated with the SARS virus. It's
not a huge stretch, but we just do not know what all the
evidence would be with respect to it leaking from this
laboratory.
But I think Congress is entitled to have a full both
classified and unclassified briefing on this. It's a very
important issue, and I think the extent to which the Chinese
Communist Party went to cover this up, it needs to be talked
about here. They silenced the doctors that were on WeChat
talking about a SARS-like virus. They destroyed lab samples.
They would not take the Taiwanese or the WHO's own expert's in
Wuhan advice that it was human to human. And instead, the
Director General Tedros and the WHO did not issue that alert,
the international pandemic alert, but, rather, chose to sit on
it.
And meanwhile, the big festival in January took place, and
5 million people exited Wuhan, traveled through mainland China,
and then, traveled internationally. That's precisely, Mr.
Chairman, when this went from a contained, local epidemic, or
not contained, but local epidemic, to a global pandemic. And
those are just facts.
I do not think this discussion has anything to do with
someone's race or anything. I think it's just it's fact-based,
and I think Congress is entitled to know the facts about what
happened, what did or did not happen at that laboratory.
And so, I thank you. I think I would like to return to more
civility in our discussion, and I thank the chairman for the
time. And I yield back.
Chairman Meeks. The gentleman yields back. Is there any
further debate on Amendment No. 48, Perry No. 48?
Hearing no further requests to speak, the question is on
Perry Amendment No. 48.
We're going to take a vote by voice. All members, please
unmute your microphones.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, say no.
In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it, and the
amendment is not agreed to.
And without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid
upon the table.
For what purpose does the Representative from Pennsylvania
seek recognition?
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at
the desk. I believe it's No. 51 on this occasion.
Chairman Meeks. The clerk shall distribute the amendment to
our staff virtually.
Let's pause briefly to give all members enough time to
review the amendment.
Has everyone received a copy of the amendment?
The clerk will please report the amendment.
Ms. Stiles. Perry Amendment No. 51. At the end of Section
7(b), add the following: (3) Determination.
Chairman Meeks. Without objection, further reading of the
amendment will be dispensed with.
[The Amendment No. 51 of Mr. Perry follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Meeks. A point of order is reserved.
The Representative from Pennsylvania, Mr. Perry, is now
recognized for 5 minutes in support of the amendment.
Mr. Perry. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The greatest mystery surrounding the coronavirus pandemic
will almost certainly never be solved--how it began. Whether it
originated in a wet market in Wuhan or leaked from a laboratory
as a result of gain-of-function research promoted by Chinese
health authorities, we'll likely never know because the CCP
will do absolutely everything they can to avoid cooperating on
the subject and having the world find out the truth.
The lab theory was dismissed early on as a right-wing
conspiracy less than 1 year ago. However, just last month, The
Washington Post, not exactly an outlet known for advocacy of
conservative viewpoints, published an article on the lab
hypothesis in an op-ed. More and more questions continue to
surround this hypothesis, especially in light of circumstances
immediately preceding the pandemic.
For example, in 2018, the State Department offered a
briefing regarding the potential pandemic risk of research
conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology indicating that
our government knew about the potential of coronavirus experts
at the WIV as well as biosafety concerns at the facility in
general.
The National Institutes of Health until recently,
apparently, made research grants available to the WIV and,
also, made grants available to benefactors of the WIV,
including the EcoHealth Alliance. It would seem unlikely that
the NIH was unaware of the scope of the gain-in-function
experiments occurring in Wuhan. More than a month ago, after
sending a letter to the HHS OIG office requesting specific
information on the NIH's relationship with the WIV, I have not
received answers to any of my questions.
Now this has been a very long year for the American people,
and after a devastating pandemic that has left more than half a
million dead and millions out of work, the very least they
deserve are answers to the questions they continue to have.
This amendment would offer that option by directing the
President to offer an assessment on the likelihood that the
coronavirus was leaked from a laboratory within the People's
Republic of China. It allows for a classified annex to be
applied to this requirement if the President judges it to be in
the national security interest of the United States.
It is true that a simple reporting requirement cannot
establish with certainty that this virus may have escaped from
a lab. However, conducting as thorough an analysis as possible
may allow for a greater clarity as to the potential origins of
the virus, and they could go a long way to informing us on how
to avoid future pandemics. Knowing as much as possible about
the virus' origins is crucial to the future of global health
security.
And before I close, I just want to say, quite honestly, how
disappointed I am in the tenor of this discussion that it has
taken, and I hope we can remain on the subject at hand, which
has nothing to do with race and has everything to do with the
Communist Chinese Party who revels--who revels and delights--in
the fact that we would not even reference them, that we're
cowed, that we are suppressed at referencing their involvement
in whatever happened, wherever it happened, regarding China and
around the globe. And the fact that we would conflate the
horrific acts that were conducted around the country and
somehow link them to our business of trying to get to the truth
for this thing that has plagued not only the world, but the
United States of America is just very, very disappointing to
me, to say the least. So, again, we're just trying to get to
the facts.
I associate myself with the comments of the members on my
side of the aisle in the last portion of the debate, and I
appreciate the opportunity to try and make our country, and the
world, a safer place and acknowledge--and acknowledge--who has
not been helpful, who has not been forthcoming and transparent.
And that is the Communist Chinese Party. That's who it is, not
Chinese-Americans and not the vast majority of Chinese people.
But if we cannot discuss it, well, China's going to win, and
I'm not going to aid or abet that.
And with that, I'm going to calm down, Mr. Chairman, and I
yield back the balance of my time, and urge passage of this
amendment as well.
Chairman Meeks. The gentleman yields back the balance of
his time.
As Mr. Sherman has noted in his opening, this is an
unnecessary amendment, given that the Fiscal Year omnibus bill
contains a reporting requirement on the origins of the virus.
We expect to receive this report from the administration in the
next few days.
Separately, it is critical that any approach to
understanding the virus origins be unbiased and based on facts
and appropriately scoped. And that is not the case with this
amendment.
Mr. Connolly's bill looks forward, seeking to increase
pandemic preparedness, improve interagency coordination, and
leverage support from others to address global health security,
period. Thereby, I oppose this amendment, and yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. Connolly. Would the chairman yield to me, Mr. Connolly?
Chairman Meeks. Yes, I yield to Mr. Connolly.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, rather than seeking simple
recognition.
I would just point out, first of all, references to the
tragedy in Atlanta are about context. They're not accusing
anybody on our committee of anything untoward, and certainly
not Mr. Perry in terms of his motivation, which I'm sure is
sincere.
I am recalling for my colleagues, though, we act in a
context, and the context right now is one of great fear in the
Asian-American community throughout our country. That's a fact,
and you can talk to your own Asian-American communities to
confirm it. And therefore, doing something specific that points
to China, when we do not have to do it, I think in this context
is harmful.
Second, I offered a compromise, Mr. Chairman, in terms of
language today. Here's the language: in lieu of both of Mr.
Perry's amendments, we offered to say, add an amendment that
said, ``The President, in coordination with the United States
Coordinator, shall include''--shall include--``in the initial
report,'' required under paragraph 1, ``an evaluation as
practical and appropriate, concerns regarding gain-of-function
research and the potential origins of pandemics, including the
ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.''
That language would have absolutely encompassed what I
thought Mr. Perry was seeking. But, obviously, my friends, some
of my friends on the other side of the aisle want to be much
more specific in pointing the finger at China. I believe in the
current context in America that's a mistake. I think it would
hurt the bill, and I think it's unnecessary. And that's why I
posed this amendment as well.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding.
Chairman Meeks. Reclaiming my time, I now yield back the
balance of my time.
Is there any further debate on the amendment?
Hearing no further requests to speak, the question is on
the Perry Amendment No. 51.
We are going to take a vote by voice. All members, please
unmute your microphone.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, say no.
In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it, and the
amendment is not agreed to.
And without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid
upon the table.
For what purpose does the gentleman, the Representative
from Pennsylvania, seek recognition?
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at
the desk. I believe it's designated Amendment No. 54.
Chairman Meeks. Hold 1 second.
I believe that there should be the Chabot amendment first.
Mr. Perry. All right, Mr. Chairman, I'll yield.
Chairman Meeks. Mr. Chabot?
Hearing no further requests to speak, the question is on
the Chabot Amendment No. 12.
And with that, I'll take a vote by voice. All members,
please unmute your microphone.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, say no.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the
amendment is agreed to.
And without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid
upon the table.
Now are there other amendments?
For what purpose does the gentleman from Pennsylvania seek
recognition?
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe I have an
amendment at the desk. I believe it's No. 54, unless I stand
corrected.
Chairman Meeks. All right. You're right.
The clerk shall distribute the amendment to your staff
virtually.
Let's pause briefly to give all members enough time to
review the amendment.
Have everybody received a copy of the amendment?
The clerk will please report the amendment.
Ms. Stiles. Perry Amendment No. 54. Amendment to H.R. 391.
At the end of the bill, add the following----
Chairman Meeks. Without objection, further reading of the
amendment will be dispensed with.
[The Amendment No. 54 of Mr. Perry follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Meeks. A point of order is reserved.
And the Representative from Pennsylvania, Mr. Perry, is
recognized for 5 minutes in support of the amendment.
Mr. Perry. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm certainly
grateful for the opportunity to speak on this amendment today,
a proposal that would mandate the fulfillment of the
recommendations listed in the 2020 China Task Force Report.
Mr. Chairman, we believe that global health security is an
important goal and we must also hold both our adversaries and
our partners accountable when they undermine global health
objectives and U.S. security interests. Specifically, this
amendment would ensure that none of the funds made available to
carry out this Act, the Global Health Security Act, may be used
to make contributions to the World Health Organization until
the WHO undertakes organization-specific reforms. These reforms
include:
First, and very specifically, the resignation of Dr.
Tedros. Dr. Tedros refused to declare a public health emergency
of international concern on January 23d, 2020; in fact, was the
deciding vote against doing so, stymying international
cooperation to contain the spread of this pandemic. He know
that the PRC was withholding information and willfully
promulgated the lies the Communist regime in Beijing was
spewing. On every possible metric, Dr. Tedros has demonstrated
stunning incompetence and bears responsibility for making this
pandemic as bad as it is.
Next year, Dr. Tedros is up for reelection. However, I fear
that the CCP, who promoted Dr. Tedros to this current role, may
use their influence to maintain him in that position. We should
take up the recommendations for reforms of the WHO by removing
by Dr. Tedros from his post before he has an opportunity to
marginalize global health security even further.
Second, we must make sure that Taiwan regains observer
status in the WHO. On this topic, I do not think there is much
opposition among committee members. Taiwan has more than proven
themselves to be a reliable partner on issues of global health
security, and at the very least, merits readmittance to the
World Health Assembly as an observer. But note this will never
happen with Dr. Tedros in power. Both of these reforms go hand-
in-hand.
Third, we must continue to insist on an independent
international investigation with like-minded partners,
including Taiwan, into the CCP's lies during the early going of
the pandemic and the WHO's actions in concealing the missteps
taken by the PRC.
Finally, we must ensure the World Health Organization
undertakes international health regulation reform. It is clear
that, while many countries have still failed to ensure
compliance by the 2005 IHRs, China routinely ignores the IHRs,
despite unquestionably having the capacity to fulfill its
obligations. In doing so, the PRC has clearly highlighted the
need for IHR reform. You've got Article 6, Article 9, Article
10, and Article 12, all that need compliance and adherence to
by the CCP.
It's irresponsible--it is irresponsible--to simply re-
engage with the World Health Organization with no strings
attached. We should be holding them to account and ensure that
they fulfill these recommendations listed in the China Task
Force Report to ensure accountability in international
organizations when they fall short.
I encourage adoption of this amendment, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Chairman Meeks. The gentleman yields back the balance of
his time.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Even prior to the current pandemic, Congress recognized the
need to address global health security and to help ensure that
the different actors in the Federal Government helping inform
its response must act collaboratively and with one voice.
The bill does not include any funding for the WHO. Rather,
it is intended to enhance coordination and proposes a mechanism
to actually encourage other donors to invest in global health
security.
While the WHO is not perfect, its technical capabilities
and capacities, and relationships around the world, make it
uniquely placed to help confront the global health challenges
addressed by this Act. The United States is best positioned to
effect positive changes by maintaining our seat at the table.
Attaching artificial limits to our funding forfeits our voice
and erodes our ability to seek reforms.
We're in the midst of a pandemic. The Trump administration
did enough damage to the global public health response by
disengaging with the WHO. The best way to implement change is
to do what the Biden administration is doing, reasserting U.S.
leadership and strengthening our ties with our partners to work
collaboratively--collaboratively--to reform the WHO.
And I yield back the balance of my time.
Who seeks recognition?
Mr. McCaul. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Meeks. Mr. McCaul, you're recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. McCaul. I thank you, Mr. Chair.
And let me say I support this amendment, but let me just
say, Mr. Chairman, whether or not this amendment passes or
fails, I do think you and I and the committee should be
looking, as we're doing with my 5G bill, at the rise of the
Chinese Communist Party within the United Nations. They almost
got the Intellectual Property Organization leadership, which
would be laughable, given their theft of IP. Just like we're
doing with my 5G bill, I think we need to have a thorough
examination of the leadership at the WHO.
We know that Director General Tedros is very close to
President Xi, and he utterly failed the world in the most
important role that he has, to notify the world about the
threat of a global pandemic. When the issue was presented to
him, and when his own expert in Wuhan was telling him it was
transmittable human to human, he cast the tie-breaking vote to
not warn the world of an international global pandemic, or the
risk of it, or that it was human to human. I think he utterly
failed in his most important mission in that job, and I
personally would like to see him replaced.
But I think, moving forward, when we have hearings in this
committee, and particularly, on the Asian-Pacific, we need to
really be examining the leadership of the WHO, because I think
it's factual and it's correct, and it's important for the
United States and the world to have a WHO that does its job
without the influence of the Chinese Communist Party, but,
rather, with the entire world, you know, the best interests of
the entire world, and to protect them from a pandemic in the
future.
So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with
you on this important issue, and I yield back.
Chairman Meeks. The gentleman yields back.
Is there any further debate on the amendment?
Hearing no further requests to speak----
Mr. Barr. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Meeks. Who seeks recognition?
Mr. Barr. Barr, Kentucky.
Chairman Meeks. Recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will not take the
full 5 minutes. I just want to make the point that, in our
hearing with the Secretary of State, I mentioned this issue and
expressed my concern with the administration's decision to
rejoin the World Health Organization and re-engage without a
plan to reform the institution.
We know now, after the WHO's recent report, that the World
Health Organization was aware that there were individuals in
the Wuhan Institute of Virology who were sick in the fall of
2019. And they were aware of human-to-human transmission, and
yet, collaborated and conspired with the Chinese Communist
Party to facilitate this disinformation that enabled the spread
of a global pandemic.
I think the issue of corruption at the World Health
Organization, the legitimate issues of capture of Mr. Tedros
and others at the World Health Organization that have close
ties to the CCP, in facilitating and enabling the spread of
this virus, points to, at minimum, a need to have major
reforms.
And what Mr. Perry's amendment seeks to do is to simply
say, look, if we are going to take the Biden administration's
approach--and there is an argument for re-engaging in the WHO,
and I take the Secretary of State's word that he earnestly
believes that that is the best way forward--if that is the
case, and if you take that position, if we, as Members of
Congress, agree with the administration's approach, at least we
should want the administration to give us a plan for how they
intend to reform the WHO through that engagement and re-
engagement in the WHO.
So, I fully support Mr. Perry's amendment because it just
simply says that, if we're going to rejoin the WHO, we do so on
the condition that there be reforms that make sure that this
kind of misconduct at the WHO never happens again.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Meeks. Who seeks recognition? Who seeks
recognition?
Mr. Smith. Chris Smith, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Meeks. Yes. Hold on. Let me go to the Democrat
first.
Representative Gerry Connolly of Virginia----
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. Like Mr. Chabot, I'm
the Co-Chair of the Taiwan Caucus. There's been no more
relentless critic of the Communist Party in China and its
leadership than myself. And I would gladly join in a bipartisan
effort to look at, as Mr. McCaul suggests, the nature of the
communist government in China and its malign activities around
the world.
This bill is not about that. This bill is not about WHO.
The fact that Mr. Tedros may have overly praised Chinese
reaction in the early stages of the pandemic is regrettable,
but he was not alone. Perhaps we conveniently forget President
Trump publicly praised President Xi Jinping of China for his
robust and strong crackdown in Wuhan in response to the virus.
It was only later he changed his mind about it.
And so, maybe we need a new leader at WHO. The best way to
decide that is to re-engage in WHO as a member. The decision by
President Trump to withdraw from WHO actually only strengthened
China's influence in the organization because we weren't there.
So, if there are going to be internal reforms, I favor
them, and let's be engaged. But this bill is not the vehicle in
which this committee should be addressing that. This bill is
about how our government organizes itself, so that we're
prepared, so that we have plans, so that we are not caught
short again, as we were a year ago. And I think we need to
stick to that focus. And therefore, I join in your comments,
Mr. Chairman, and I would oppose this amendment on this bill.
I yield back.
Chairman Meeks. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize the Representative from New Jersey, Mr.
Smith, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And I appreciate that you said that there needs to be
reforms, and I think the more we are specific as to what those
reforms are at WHO, the better. I mean, the lack of
transparency on the part of, first, China and Xi Jinping, who
to this day says that no genocide is occurring against the
Uyghurs in Xinjiang, who has broken his word with impunity vis-
a-vis Hong Kong. I mean, it's a matter of treaty obligation.
And what has the Chinese Community Party done in Hong Kong?
They have put some of the best and the bravest and the
brightest into prison, including Joshua Wong and Martin Lee,
who is undergoing a trial.
So, you've got to realize that when an organization like
WHO, then, poll parrots the disinformation, we have a very
serious problem because it now affects the health of people in
my district, your district, and, of course, the entire world.
With over half a million people dead in the United States
alone, we absolutely deserve absolute transparency, not a group
that goes over there and finds that the Chinese interlocutors
that they're investigating with are not being forthcoming.
So, this has been, I think, very serious, and we should
never ever, ever allow this to be replicated again. And so,
those reforms have to be very real and we've got to get the
transparency.
So, there's been a cover-up here. Xi Jinping is a notorious
liar. He does it in human rights abuse across the board. I have
chaired 75 congressional hearings on human rights abuse in
China. It has never been worse than under Xi Jinping.
And Tedros got his job courtesy of the Chinese Communist
Party. I knew when he was in Ethiopia as a minister, argued
with him many times. There were allegations that he covered up
certain sicknesses that occurred in Ethiopia over time. You
know, he was a very affable guy, very good to talk to, and very
civil. But when you poll parrot misinformation that so
disastrously affects the world and kills so many people,
there's time for accountability.
I have introduced a bill--maybe members of the committee
would like to join in--to provide justice for victims of State
misrepresentations to the World Health Organization, and it's
patterned after JASTA, you might recall, in which we focused on
Saudi Arabia and their complicity in 9/11, to waive the
Sovereign Immunities Act, so that we can try to get some kind
of discovery in a court of law in the United States. Nobody
thought it would happen with JASTA. It was the only bill, to my
recollection, over 8 years where Barack Obama was overridden by
way of veto, because he did veto that bill. And it was
bipartisan because we wanted the truth. We're still not there
in getting the truth about 9/11 and the Saudi Arabian
complicity in that, but we have to have it here.
There's just the loss of life, the morbidity, the economic
losses are incalculable around the world, including in my
district and yours. So, transparency, Mr. Chairman, and we
ought to really be dogged in demanding--do not poll parrot what
this man says, Xi Jinping and his cronies in Beijing. Be
independent. We wouldn't settle for this in a democracy. We
absolutely cannot settle for it in a Chinese Communist Party
dictatorship.
And I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Meeks. The gentleman yields back.
Is there any further debate on the amendment?
Mr. Vargas. Vargas from California.
Chairman Meeks. Is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Vargas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I also believe in truth and transparency, and I believe
that we shouldn't parrot misinformation, as was stated. So, I'd
like to read some remarks that are direct quotes.
This direct quote: ``I just spoke to President Xi last
night, and, you know, we're working on the problem, the virus.
It's a very tough situation, but I think he's going to handle
it. I think he's handled it really well. We're helping wherever
we can.''
February 7th: ``Just had a long and very good conversation
by phone with President Xi of China. He is strong, sharp, and
powerful, focused on leading the counterattack to the
coronavirus. He feels they are doing very well, even building
hospitals in a matter of only days. Great discipline taking
place in China, as President Xi strongly leads what will be a
very successful operation. We are working closely with China to
help.''
Remarks again on February 7th: ``Last night, I had a very
good talk with President Xi, and we talked about, mostly about
the coronavirus. They're working really hard, and I think
they're doing a very good, professional job. They're in touch
with the world, the World Organization, CDC also. We're working
together. But the World Health is working with them. CDC is
working with them. Had a great conversation last night with
President Xi. It's a tough situation. I think we're doing a
very good job.''
February 10th: ``I think China is very, you know,
professionally run in the sense that they have everything under
control,'' Trump said. ``I really believe they are going to
have it under control fairly soon. You know, in April,
supposedly, it dies with hotter weather, and that's a beautiful
date to look forward to. But China, I can tell you, is working
very hard.''
``I spoke with President Xi.'' This is February 10th. ``I
spoke with President Xi, and they're working very, very hard,
and I think it's all going to work out fine.''
February 13th: ``I think they've handled it professionally,
and I think they're extremely capable, and I think President Xi
is extremely capable. And I hope that it's going to be
resolved.''
I will not go on and on, but I could because there's many,
many more quotes here. So, I do think that it's important to
stop misinformation and not to parrot, and that's why I wanted
to read exact quotes.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Smith. Will my good friend yield for a second?
Mr. Vargas. Sure. Of course.
Mr. Smith. Yes, I appreciate that.
Mr. Vargas. Of course. Of course.
Mr. Smith. And, of course, in those early days, the WHO,
and weeks before, which had access to the information, or
should have, put the gloss of they're doing everything
possible. So, why wouldn't we, all of us, believe at that point
that it wasn't as bad as we might have thought it would be just
a month later, or 2 months later?
So, my point is, the source of the information, the WHO,
which their source was Xi Jinping and his government, you know,
they're the ones who had the primary access to the information.
And, of course, in retrospect, those quotes were misinformed,
no doubt about it, but the people who should have known better
were the top brass, including Tedros, at the WHO.
And I thank my good friend for yielding.
Mr. Vargas. Of course. I reclaim my time.
Mr. Connolly. Will my friend yield, Mr. Vargas?
Mr. Vargas. Why shouldn't we have trusted them?
Yes, of course, I yield to my good friend, Mr. Connolly.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Vargas. This is Mr. Connolly.
I just want to point out what Mr. Smith failed to point out
was, what you quoted were direct conversations between
President Trump and President Xi. They weren't filtered through
the WHO. So, if Tedros made the same mistake, so did Mr. Trump.
Mr. Vargas. Thank you. I reclaim my time.
I was about to State that these quotes were actually not
through the WHO, but I think Mr. Connolly has pointed that out
well. This was a conversation, conversations held between
President Trump and President Xi.
I yield back. Thank you.
Chairman Meeks. The gentleman yields back.
Is there any further debate on the amendment?
Hearing no further requests to speak, the question is on
the Perry Amendment No. 54.
We're going to take a vote by voice. All members, please
unmute your microphones.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, say no.
In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it, and the
amendment is not agreed upon, is not agreed to.
And without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid
upon the table.
Seeing no further amendments, then, without objection, the
committee will postpone further consideration of H.R. 391.
The committee will be taking a short recess, and we'll,
then, take up the SAFE Act, the Khashoggi Accountability Act,
and H.R. 256.
We stand in recess for 30 minutes.
[Recess.]
Chairman Meeks. I now reconvene this markup.
The question is to report H.R. 391, the Global Health
Security Act of 2021 to the House with the recommendation that
the bill do pass, as amended, and amendments to the bill shall
be reported as a single amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
We're going to take a vote by voice. All members, please
unmute your microphones.
All those in favor, say aye.
All opposed, no.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
And without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid
upon the table.
Now we go to consider H.R. 2118, Securing America From
Epidemics Act.
Pursuant to notice, for purposes of markup, I now call up
H.R. 2118. The clerk will report the bill.
Ms. Stiles. H.R. 2118, to authorize the United States
participation in the Coalition for Epidemic----
Chairman Meeks. Without objection, the first reading of the
bill is dispensed with.
Without objection, the bill shall be considered as read and
open to amendment at any point.
[The bill H.R. 2118 follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Meeks. At this time, I recognize myself to speak
on the measure.
The COVID-19 crisis has shown just how interconnected our
world is, and how important vaccines are to ending one of the
greatest catastrophes of the 21st century. This bill addresses
these vital issues. The scientists, researchers, and health
care workers have stepped up in a big way and created a vaccine
in record time. But vaccines by themselves do not end
pandemics. Shots in the arms do. This means we need to have the
means to mass produce vaccines rapidly, as well as the
resources, the logistical knowhow, and political will to get
them out, not just here in the United States, but around the
world.
We must also ensure people around the world have proper
confidence in the vaccine. The collective resources of the
private sector, of multilateral organizations, national
governments, civil society, and health experts are all very
important.
This bill would authorize the United States to participate
in the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, a
private-public partnership that helps accelerate the
development of vaccines against emergent infectious disease,
including Ebola and COVID-19. This has never been more
important, I know, in my lifetime--and I'm getting old. By
supporting CEPI, we demonstrate the value of leveraging the
individual strengths toward collective action, helping develop
vaccines to stop future pandemics.
Now I encourage all of my colleagues to vote for this
important legislation.
I realize that there are members who wish to speak on the
bill and that some members have amendments to offer. Please use
the ``raise your hand'' function on Webex, and I will recognize
members by committee seniority, alternating between Democrats
and Republicans, for the purpose of speaking on the bill first.
If you miss your turn, please let our staff know, and we will
circle back to you. Then, we will move on to amendments.
Do any members wish to speak on the measure?
Mr. Bera. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to speak. This is
Congressman Bera.
Chairman Meeks. You're recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank both
the chairman and Ranking Member McCaul for including my
legislation, H.R. 2118, the Securing America From Epidemics, or
SAFE, Act.
This legislation, as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, would
authorize our participation in the Coalition for Epidemic
Preparedness Innovations, or CEPI. Last Congress, this
committee, our committee, passed this. The bill went through
the committee and passed on the House floor on suspension, and
it was also part of the second HEROES Act. In this Congress,
let's get this legislation to the President's desk.
CEPI was an organization that was created in the aftermath
of the 2015 West African Ebola crisis, and its sole function
was to help us get ready for the next pandemic. One of CEPI's
earliest successes, it was one of the early investors in the
Moderna vaccine, which is one of our most effective and safest
vaccines as we combat COVID-19.
By authorizing participation in CEPI, the bill will enable
the United States to firmly claim a seat at the CEPI table,
shape its priorities and governance, and allow Congress to
provide contributions to the organizations. It will also help
us be ready to respond even faster to the next pandemic and
prevent another large-scale event like what we're living
through right now.
Thank you again to Chairman Meeks for your hard work. Thank
you to my colleague, Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick, for being
the co-sponsor of this and the co-lead on this.
And again, I will yield back. Thank you.
Chairman Meeks. The gentleman yields back.
Any other members who wish to speak on the measure?
Hearing no further requests, let's move on to amendments.
For what purpose does the Representative from Pennsylvania,
Mr. Perry, seek recognition?
Mr. Perry. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman Meeks. The clerk shall distribute the amendment to
your staff virtually.
Let's pause briefly to give all members enough time to
review the amendment.
Has everyone received a copy of the amendment?
The clerk will please report the amendment.
Ms. Stiles. Perry Amendment No. 53. Add at the end, the
following: The authorization provided under section 3----
Chairman Meeks. Without objection, further reading of the
amendment will be dispensed with.
[The Amendment No. 53 of Mr. Perry follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Meeks. A point of order is reserved.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Perry, is recognized
for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
Mr. Perry. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I'm proud to introduce this amendment before this committee
today. It is a testament to the great friendship between Taiwan
and the United States and a manifestation of what we've learned
in the past year. Taiwan is a necessary U.S. partner in issues
related to global health security.
From December 31st, 2019, Taiwan has proven that its voice
is one worth having in international institutions. Today, we're
also marking up a bill to 1 day secure Taiwan's position as an
observer in the World Health Organization. This amendment to
the Securing America From Epidemics Act continues the effort to
ensure Taiwan's increased participation in international
organizations.
I recall last year, when the SAFE Act was first taken up,
that one argument in favor of U.S. participation in the
Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations was that the
People's Republic of China did not contribute or participate in
that organization, and it was an opportunity for the United
States to exercise its sorely needed leadership in pursuit of a
coronavirus vaccine. By allowing Taiwan to join our
international partner on CEPI's Scientific Advisory Committee,
we would be extending a genuine offer of cooperation to a like-
minded partner in pursuit of advancements in global health.
Lest anyone think otherwise, this is in no way a
politically motivated amendment. This is not an amendment aimed
at disparaging the People's Republic of China. It does not
address the fact that an active member of China's Center for
Disease Control sits on the Scientific Advisory Committee.
However, concerning that fact, it actually is.
However, this amendment is solely focused on Taiwan and our
interest in including a partner with a strong track record on
global health issues and working toward the common good.
Specifically, the language of this amendment conditions U.S.
participation in CEPI on the organization's simply extending an
invitation to the agency executive of the Taiwan Center for
Disease Control to join CEPI's Scientific Advisory Committee as
a full voting member.
Certainly, my hope is that this committee, in recognition
of Taiwan's great contributions to the international community,
adopts this amendment in a bipartisan fashion.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Chairman Meeks. The gentleman yields back the balance of
his time.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
This authorization supports efforts to develop and
distribute vaccines, including for COVID, and has strong
bipartisan support. We've seen through this COVID crisis how
important it is for the United States to lead an efforts to
combat the outbreak, engaging in institutions to positively
influence their actions.
Conditioning our participation in CEPI would not cede the
playing field, not advance the efforts of vaccine development.
CEPI is an association with engagement and support from a
variety of entities from philanthropic foundations to
countries, to individuals, to NGO's. It is not a U.N. body with
member States. The U.S. Government does not determine the
Scientific Advisory's Committee's composition. The Advisory
Committee solicits public nominations. It's free to be
nominated and considered.
While we welcome greater participation by Taiwan in more
international fora, conditioning Taiwan's participating on the
Scientific Advisory Committee, a process we do not control,
could hold up much-needed progress and advancement at this
critical time. Further, CEPI's Scientific Advisory Committee is
a group of experts who support CEPI's work, but explicitly it
does not have final decisionmaking authority over CEPI's
activities, and it is not representative of CEPI's
participants.
Therefore, I oppose this amendment. And I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. Bera. Mr. Chairman, may I make a comment?
Chairman Meeks. Yes.
Mr. Bera. This is Congressman Bera.
I appreciate my good friend Pennsylvania's sentiment here,
but I echo the comments of the chairman that anything that
would delay U.S. participation in CEPI is not a good thing,
particularly in the middle of this pandemic. And we have to be
sitting at the table.
I look forward to working with my colleague from
Pennsylvania on ways we can strengthen our relationship with
Taiwan, get Taiwan into multilateral and international
organizations, where they belong, and again, continue to send a
strong message of our friendship and partnership with Taiwan.
So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
Chairman Meeks. Yes. I gave you time. So, I now will
reclaim my time and yield back the balance of my time.
Is there any further request for debate on the amendment?
Hearing no further requests to speak, the question is on
the amendment.
We're going to take a vote by voice. All members, please
unmute your microphones.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, no.
In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it, and the
amendment is not agreed to.
And the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.
Mr. Gonzalez. Mr. Chairman, I request a recorded vote.
Chairman Meeks. A roll call vote is requested.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 4(a)(2), further proceedings on
the amendment shall be postponed.
Are there any other amendments?
Seeing no further amendment, then, without objection, the
committee will postpone further consideration of H.R. 2118 and
move to consider H.R. 1464.
We now move on to consider H.R. 1464, the Khashoggi
Accountability Act. Pursuant to notice, for purposes of markup,
I now call up H.R. 1464. The clerk will report the bill.
Ms. Stiles. H.R. 1464, to impose sanctions with respect to
foreign persons listed in the Office of the Director of----
Chairman Meeks. Without objection, the first reading of the
bill is dispensed with.
And without objection, the bill shall be considered as read
and open to amendment at any point.
[The bill H.R. 1464 follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Meeks. Three amendments to this bill will be
distributed to members in advance, and I understand members are
prepared to voice vote them.
Without objection, the three amendments, the Malinowski No.
1 amendment, Malinowski No. 2 amendment, and Omar No. 26 are
agreed to en bloc.
[The Amendment No. 1 of Mr. Malinowski, Amendment No. 2 of
Mr. Malinowski, and Amendment No. 26 of Ms. Omar en bloc
follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Meeks. We're going to take a vote by voice. All
members, please unmute your microphones.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, say no.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the
motion to reconsider is laid on the table.
At this time, I recognize myself to speak on the measure.
The brutal murder of Jamal Khashoggi, a Washington Post
columnist and U.S. permanent resident, shocked Americans,
including myself. The Biden administration's release of the DNI
report on the killing was a good step toward accountability,
but further steps need to be taken.
Together with Mr. Connolly's bill, Mr. Malinowski's
Khashoggi Accountability Act ensures a thorough and sufficient
response to Saudi Arabia's repressive actions of the killing of
Mr. Khashoggi. Rep. Malinowski's bill mandates visa sanctions
on anyone, including Saudi officials, deemed responsible for
the killing. It absolutely will result in an expanded universe
of sanctions on Saudi officials who have not yet been punished.
This will be a strong imposition of Congress' authority and an
important step in defending not only American values, but
American residents and American citizens.
The legislation does include national security waiver
authority, but such waivers must be exercised each time such a
Saudi official seeks U.S. entry and a justification must be
sent to Congress for each entry.
I want to thank Mr. Malinowski for his work on this
legislation and, indeed, for his tireless work on behalf of
human rights around the entire world.
I encourage all of my colleagues to vote for this important
legislation.
I now recognize the ranking member, Mr. McCaul, for his
remarks.
I realize that I do not see Mr. McCaul.
So, I realize members wish to speak on the bill and that
some members have amendments to offer. Please use the ``raise
your hand'' function of Webex, and I will recognize members by
committee seniority, alternating between Democrats and
Republicans, for the purpose of speaking on the bill first. If
you miss your turn, please let our staff know and we will
circle back to you. Then, we will move on to amendments.
I now recognize Representative David Cicilline of Rhode
Island for the purpose of speaking on the bill for 5 minutes.
[No response.]
Chairman Meeks. Are there any other members who wish to
speak on this measure?
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Malinowski. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Meeks. Yes, Mr. Malinowski, you're recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. Malinowski. Thank you. I heard Mr. Connolly also ask to
speak. I would be happy to let him go first, if he would like
to.
Mr. Connolly. I sought to speak simply to thank you, Mr.
Malinowski, for your leadership on human rights in general and
your deep interest in the grisly murder of Jamal Khashoggi. I
know that insisting on justice in this case is something
vitally important to the Saudi community here, but to his
family and to especially his fiancee who needs closure. And we
need not only closure on this terrible tragedy, but we need to
bring people to justice. Your persistence in this matter is
something that I very much salute, and I want to congratulate
you and thank you for this piece of legislation.
With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Meeks. The gentleman yields back.
Is there anyone else who would like to speak on the
measure?
I recognize Mr. Malinowski for 5 minutes.
Mr. Malinowski. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you so much, Mr. Connolly. I think our measures are a
good one-two punch here today, serving the same interest. I
know that Mr. Khashoggi was your constituent and you have a
particularly personal in making sure that his family sees the
accountability that they deserve.
Look, we've spoken a lot in this committee about important
issues inside Saudi Arabia--about the treatment of dissidents
and women's rights activities. We've talked about the suffering
imposed on the people of Yemen and that country's brutal civil
war. And those are all very important issues that are part of
the relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia.
But the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, as I've often argued, is
a very different matter. This is not something that the Saudi
government did to somebody inside Saudi Arabia. This is a
deliberate decision by the de facto ruler of the country to
reach inside the United States to threaten and, then, kill a
resident of our country because that person living in our
country was criticizing the Saudi leadership.
And it's not the only example of this kind of behavior. The
former Saudi intelligence chief, Saad Al Jabry, a very close
ally of the United States, has made, I think, very credible
allegations that the Saudi government sent a hit squad to kill
him. He's living in Canada. And they operated inside the United
States.
Yesterday, just yesterday, the United Nations confirmed a
story that a Saudi government official had threatened Agnes
Callamard, who was the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial
Executions, threatened that she would be ``taken care of,''
quote-unquote, if she continued her advocacy on the Khashoggi
case.
Now the Biden administration, very, very commendably,
released the report identifying the Crown Prince MBS as being
the author of this crime. And in addition, the administration
laid out a much-needed policy of zero tolerance for this kind
of extraterritorial repression--Saudi Arabia and other
countries reaching into the United States to go after their
enemies.
This bill makes good on that pledge. It's very measured. It
basically gives effect to existing U.S. laws, no more. For
example, Section 7031 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
current law, says that, if the Secretary of State has credible
evidence that a foreign government official is responsible for
a gross human rights abuse, that official shall be denied entry
into the United States, unless the Secretary of State issues a
waiver. This bill simply gives effect and clarity to that
provision of law. It is identical to legislation we passed in
the House in 2019 overwhelmingly.
A second key provision in existing law--it's been in place
for over 30 years--says that, and this is under the Arms Export
Control Act, says that, if a foreign government is engaged in a
consistent pattern of trying to threaten, intimidate, or harass
persons in the United States, then we cannot sell arms to that
country.
This legislation simply asks the State Department to make a
determination to us in 6 months as to whether Saudi Arabia is
still at that point engaged in such a consistent pattern.
Again, this is about threatening and killing people inside the
United States of America, not really talking about human rights
inside Saudi Arabia.
I do not want to blow up our relationship with Saudi
Arabia. We have interest in maintaining that relationship,
including helping them defend themselves and defending our
troops. But Saudi Arabia also has an interest in preserving its
relationship with the United States. In fact, they need us a
lot more than we need them.
This legislation, just as Mr. Connolly's, is about shifting
the burden of preserving this relationship where it belongs,
onto Saudi Arabia, so that we are not constantly asked to
overlook Saudi Arabia's sins against us for the sake of our
relationship with them. That is the definition of an unhealthy
and unbalanced relationship. We are trying to restore that
balance.
I thank the chairman for his support.
I see my colleague Andy Kim as well, who is co-sponsor of
this bill. Thank you, Andy.
I'm also very pleased to have been able to work with
Ranking Member McCaul to bring the legislation to fruition.
Thank you all. I yield back.
Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired.
I now recognize Ranking Member McCaul for 5 minutes.
Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank
Mr. Malinowski and you for working with us.
I want to thank the staff that worked tirelessly around the
clock to continue the bipartisan spirit of this committee and
to reach a compromise agreement on Mr. Malinowski's bill.
It's an attempt to really balance our concerns about the
gruesome murder of Khashoggi versus geopolitical interests in
the region and the threat from Iran. I think our relationship
with the Saudis covers many strategic interests, including the
very real and deadly threat of Iran. Iran attacked Saudi Arabia
in September 2019, and Iran-backed Houthis are attacking Saudi
almost every day.
As Congressman Malinowski mentioned, I think we can
strongly advocate for human rights in the Kingdom and Saudi
nationals abroad without leaving Saudi Arabia and Americans
living in Saudi Arabia vulnerable to these threats. With these
changes--and again, I want to thank the gentleman from New
Jersey for working really almost to the last minute to get a
good result, so we can call this bipartisan--with these
changes, I believe this measure now allows us to help the
Saudis defend themselves against these threats. And that was my
biggest concern.
This sound measure recognizes the importance of human
rights while preserving our strategic relationship with the
Kingdom. And I'm grateful for the teamwork here.
And I think, as Congressman Malinowski stated, the events
of what happened to Khashoggi were horrible, but I also think
we need to look at, again, the alliance of Israel with Saudi,
our partnership with the Saudis. We know from the Ayatollah
that they're on a path to a nuclear bomb; that they're about 60
percent enriched now; that they could be at 90 percent in a
matter of months. And they have short-range missile capability
that I do not believe the Saudis are capable of defending
themselves, unless we help them. And so, this bill condemns the
human rights violations while at the same time preserves the
security of Saudi to defend itself as a Nation.
And so, I want to thank the two of you for working hard
with me to get to the point where we are today.
And with that, I yield back.
Chairman Meeks. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize Representative Susan Wild of Pennsylvania
for 5 minutes.
Ms. Wild. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Two years ago, Jamal Khashoggi's fiancee, Hatice Cengiz,
testified before this committee, and in heartbreaking detail,
she recounted his disappearance inside the Saudi consulate in
Istanbul, where he was brutally assassinated under direct
orders from the Saudi Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman, or
MBS.
And after her testimony, I spoke with Ms. Cengiz and
assured her that the United States would ultimately work to
deliver justice and accountability in the wake of her fiance's
assassination. We must keep that promise. That means rendering
MBS and every individual implicated in this case ineligible for
admission into the United States, as this legislation would do,
regardless of the position, power, or wealth that they possess.
The report by the Office of the Director of National
Intelligence that the Biden administration recently
declassified could not be clearer. It stated, ``We assess that
Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman approved an
operation in Istanbul, Turkey to capture or kill Mr.
Khashoggi.''
This isn't only about exposing a major breach of
international law and an attack meant to silence journalists
and dissidents everywhere. It is also about sending an
unequivocal message: we will not allow these kinds of acts to
be committed with impunity.
Reporting just this week underscores why this legislation
is so crucial. According to these reports, officials at the
highest level of the Saudi regime made death threats against
the United Nations Special Rapporteur who led the U.N.'s
investigation into Mr. Khashoggi's assassination. Even in the
midst of global outrage, the Saudi regime continued to engage
in gangster-like tactics against anyone working to expose the
truth about the regime's actions. We cannot allow it to
continue to operate like this. It is beyond time to make clear
that Members of Congress and this committee, and beyond, are
prepared to stand up against the abuses of the Saudi regime.
I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this legislation
by a resounding bipartisan margin.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Meeks. The gentlelady yields back.
I now recognize Representative Scott Perry of Pennsylvania
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Perry. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And I just want to just add to the conversation, while I
think that, certainly, accountability and responsibility in
this matter, which is, indeed, horrific and did, indeed, shock
me and the rest of the world, this accountability, this
responsibility is absolutely in order.
And I would also say that accountability and responsibility
regarding members of the Muslim Brotherhood, even though they
do not occupy a nation State, so to speak, as a government, but
they exist within governments, and they exist to terminate the
U.S. Government as we know it and Western civilization as we
know it, and Americans, and they have done so in the past. And
I hope that in the future that the members of this committee
will join me and endeavor to call them out and assign
responsibility and accountability for the actions that they
have conducted and the actions they seek to conduct, not only
in the United States, but in the Western civilized world, and
hold them accountable as well.
And so, whether it's this journalist or whether it's United
States journalists as well, I'm concerned about the silencing,
not only by authoritarian regimes, but we see it right here in
the United States of America. We see this cancel culture
happening, and I'm not wishing to draw the exact parallel for
what happened to Mr. Khashoggi, but it doesn't start with the
untimely death of journalists. That's not where it starts.
That's where it ends. It starts with this intimidation that is
happening in our country as well by certain portions that
dislike certain narratives that they do not want to hear about
or want to discredit.
And so, I think we need be mindful of that. We need to be
mindful of the Muslim Brotherhood as well. And I look forward
to working with the committee members on bills in the future
that hold them accountable for their malign activities and
wishes as well.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance.
Chairman Meeks. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize Representative Andy Kim of New Jersey for 5
minutes.
Mr. Kim of New Jersey. Thank you, Chairman, for yielding to
me here.
I want to thank my colleague from New Jersey, Mr.
Malinowski, for his leadership here. I've been very proud to be
able to work alongside him to be able to move this forward,
because I really want to make sure that we understand that this
is not a choice between accountability and justice on one side
and our national security and our interests on the other. I am
doing this, I am voting in favor of this because of our
interests, because of the need for us to be able to demonstrate
what a successful and healthy alliance and relationship and
partnership is all about.
This is not an element where this would potentially derail
our partnership or our engagement and our relationship with
Saudi Arabia. The Crown Prince has already done the damage. The
damage has been done to our partnership, and this is an effort
to try to heal that, to try to put forward steps for us to be
able to heal and see whether or not we can repair this in the
way that is necessary for us to be able to move forward.
This is potentially a person who will be leader of his
nation for half a century, and it is very important for us at
this point to make sure that we very clearly articulate what
terms that will be on. And I'd rather it be on our terms rather
than their terms, and this is our way of trying to assert
American leadership and determination of how we define our role
with our partners, as well as globally.
So, I would just very strongly support this effort. I'm
appreciative of Mr. Malinowski and others for moving this
forward and being able to get the wide support that we need to,
and look forward to its passage.
Chairman Meeks. The gentleman yields back.
Are there any other members who wish to speak on the
measure?
Hearing no further requests, let's move on to amendments.
Are there any amendments?
Hearing no amendments----
Mr. Malinowski. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Meeks. Yes? Who's seeking----
Mr. Malinowski. I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman Meeks. You have an amendment at the desk? I'm
trying to find it. I think we passed your amendment.
Mr. Malinowski. Oh, did we pass it?
Chairman Meeks. Yes, sir.
Mr. Malinowski. You're right. Sorry, I was following the
old script. I apologize.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Meeks. Not a problem. So, we're going to now move
to final passage. The question is to report H.R. 1464, the
Khashoggi Accountability Act, to the House with the
recommendation that the bill do pass, as amended, and
amendments to the bill shall be reported as a single amendment
in the nature of a substitute.
We're going to take a vote by voice. All members, please
unmute your microphones.
All those in favor, say aye.
All opposed, no.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the
motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. The measure is
favorably reported, as amended, and without objection,
amendments to the bill shall be reported as a single amendment
in the nature of a substitute.
Without objection, staff is authorized to make any
technical and conforming changes.
Now we move on to consider H.R. 256, to repeal the
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution
of 2002.
Pursuant to notice, for purpose of markup, I now call up
H.R. 256, and the clerk will report the bill.
Ms. Stiles. H.R. 256, a bill to repeal the Authorization
for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.
Chairman Meeks. Without objection, the first reading of the
bill is dispensed with.
Without objection, the bill shall be considered as read and
open to amendment at any point.
[The bill H.R. 256 follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Meeks. At this time, I recognize myself to speak
on the measure.
Early this week, we heard from a bipartisan panel of former
executive branch attorneys who are among the foremost experts
on authorizations to use military force. All of them, whether
Republican or Democrat, testified that this committee should
repeal the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force against
Iraq and not replace it.
The conversation about a 2002 AUMF did not begin this week,
however, or this year, or even in the last decade. This
committee has held numerous hearings on this issue. The text we
are considering today has already been passed by the House as
an amendment to the NDAA.
I am always the first to emphasize the importance of
dialog, conversation, and negotiation, but we must also be able
to distinguish between issues that need more discussion and
issues that are ready for action. The 2002 AUMF is ready for
action.
It was passed to authorize a war against Saddam Hussein
almost 20 years ago, when I had first arrived at the Congress.
The text of the resolution makes the purpose clear. It
authorizes the President to, one, defend the national security
of the United States against the continuing threat posed by
Iraq, and, two, enforce all relevant United Nations Security
Council resolutions regarding Iraq. These resolutions are long
since expired. Iraq is a security partner of the United States.
Saddam Hussein is long gone. No current operations depend on a
2002 AUMF. Those operations would continue under the 2001 AUMF,
which is the AUMF we passed to deal with terrorists.
Some members may look to the ``whereas'' clauses of the
2002 AUMF, which mention debunked links between Saddam
Hussein's regime and terrorist groups. But, again, the text is
what makes the purpose clear. Each clause builds a case against
Saddam Hussein's regime. None of them authorize force against
terrorist groups.
This AUMF also does not authorize force against Iran. It
doesn't mention Iran at all. America's resolve to stand up to
Iran and its proxies is not in question here. So, this
resolution simply is not about Iran.
America does face serious challenges in Iraq. There are
continuing threats from Iranian-backed militants. There are
threats from ISIS and Al Qaeda. That said, the 2002 AUMF
doesn't help us deal with any of these threats. Our forces
would stay in Iraq under the 2001 AUMF, and the President can
always defend America and our forces under Article II. All of
our witnesses made that clear.
Now some of our witnesses also said we should take out the
2001 AUMF along with the 2002 AUMF. And I understand that view.
Many of us have been calling for action on the 2001 AUMF for
years, and I committed to replacing the 2001 AUMF with a more
focused authority. But much more work is needed on that effort.
So, in the meantime, there is absolutely no reason to delay
the 2002 AUMF simply because we do not have an agreement yet on
the 2001 AUMF, which is the 2001 is entirely a different
authority for entirely a different war. The authority provided
in the 2001 AUMF is still needed. The authority for the 2002
AUMF simply is not. Repeal the one that's not needed. Keep the
one that is. That's simple.
Some might ask, what harm could come from leaving the 2002
AUMF on the books, even though it's not needed? Keeping it in
place leaves the door wide open for future administrations to
claim Congress already authorized action we clearly never
envisioned when the 2002 AUMF was written. It's happened many
times before. That's the whole point of this effort.
If you agree the President should come to Congress before
taking action beyond his Article II power, we cannot leave
unneeded AUMFs on the books. I assure all of my colleagues that
we will continue to discuss the solemn issues surrounding
Congress' war power, including the 2001 AUMF and the War Powers
Resolution. Those laws will need to be carefully reformed, but
the 2002 AUMF, it's different. It doesn't need to be reformed.
It simply needs to be repealed.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this important
bipartisan legislation and to repeal the 2002 AUMF in this
historic committee vote.
I now recognize Ranking Member McCaul for his remarks.
Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate the
excellent hearing and discussion we held on Tuesday to begin
exploring serious war powers reform. I think we all agree we
would abdicate our Article I responsibility. And we need to
look at updating these very old authorized uses of military
force.
I think we have kind of the same goal in mind. I think we
just have a different way of getting there. For that reason, I
oppose rushing this standalone repeal just 2 days after having
this conversation without the due diligence I think is
required. And as insightful and as helpful as the witnesses
were, I think, in fact Professor Goldsmith agreed that if we
repeal 2002, we need to concurrently have an updated authorized
use of military force, but I also think we need to consult with
more than just three professors who have not had access to
intelligence or targeting decisions for years.
Doing this the right way I think involves consulting with
the Department of State and the Department of Defense, the
White House, the intelligence community, the Government of
Iraq, and our coalition partners and allies to fully understand
the impact of just an outright standalone repeal.
And I understand the desire--and I think the chairman makes
some good points--I understand the desire to repeat 2002 AUMF,
as well as the 2001. But I believe we must do this as part of a
comprehensive, updated replacement to provide clear authorities
against the terrorists who still plot to kill Americans at home
and abroad. And we were reminded of that with the recent proxy
Shia militia attacks against our servicemen and women.
I believe the threat is not gone, it has just evolved. The
2002 AUMF clearly addresses terrorist threats arising in Iraq.
And while people can disagree about whether it should still be
used, it has been used for that purpose by every prior
administration since 9/11, both Republican and Democrat.
The Obama and Trump administrations even used identical
language to describe the scope of the 2002. ``The statute, in
accordance with its expressed goals, has always been understood
to authorize use of force for the related dual purposes of
helping to establish a stable, democratic Iraq, and of
addressing, most importantly, terrorist threats emanating from
Iraq.''
I think this could be updated to terrorist threats
emanating out of Iran.
There are terrorist groups that are very active today, as
we heard in our classified hearing. And I appreciate the
chairman putting that together. Inside Iraq they threaten our
diplomats, our soldiers, and our partners who cannot be
targeted under the 2001 AUMF because they are not associated
with the forces of Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or ISIS. A rushed,
standalone repeal of our Iraq force authority sends a message
of U.S. disengagement that could destabilize Iraq, embolden
Iran, and strengthen Al-Qaeda, and ISIS.
I think it sends the wrong message. It could cost life.
That danger could be eliminated if we, if we took up the task
of repeal and replacement together, as was discussed at our
hearing. Real AUMF reform requires Congress and the
Administration, working together on actual texts, to replace
the aging 2001, 2002 AUMFs to provide authorities needed to
keep the American people, and most importantly, our deployed
troops, safe from terrorists.
I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman. I think
you will see, honestly, there is a lot of bipartisan support.
And we, we have had our discussions. I think this committee
should continue to discuss updating the old AUMFs after all.
Some of our troops over there serving weren't even born,
they were born after 9/11. And I do think it is time. And I am
willing to go down a discussion of repealing the 2001 and 2002
AUMFs, but only if we can update it with a AUMF that really
addresses the modern day threats and, with the 2002 one,
particularly the threats emanating out of Iran that we have
seen recently.
And I was actually supportive of President Biden's decision
to proportionately strike back because that is the only way you
are going to deter them. And I think President Biden--you may
not hear me say this all the time--I think he did the right
thing here.
And I know that that got some on the other side of the
aisle upset, but I think it was the right message to the
terrorists who attacked our Green Zone and servicemen and
women, including in Erbil.
And so, let me close with I look forward to having this
great debate. Nothing is more serious on this committee than
issues of war and peace. And this is right to the heart of it.
I am all for re-exercising our authorities. I just want to do
it the way I think is the right way to proceed.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Meeks. The gentleman yields back.
I realize members wish to speak on the bill, and that some
members have amendments to offer. Please use the raised hand
function on Webex and I will recognize members by committee
seniority, alternating between Democrats and Republicans, for
the purpose of speaking on the bill first.
If you miss your turn, let our staff know and we will
circle back to you. Then we will move on to amendments.
I now recognize Representative David Cicilline of Rhode
Island for 5 minutes to speak on the bill.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Chairman Meeks. And thank you for
including H.R. 256 in today's markup. And thank you to my
friend Barbara Lee for her longtime advocacy on this very
important issue. Her leadership on the fundamental question of
the role of Congress in matters of war in Congress has been
unwavering, and we owe her a debt of gratitude for her
commitment to bring this issue to the forefront.
Nearly two decades ago, Congress passed a resolution
authorizing military force against the Iraqi regime of Saddam
Hussein. That resolution, aided in its passage by deeply flawed
intelligence that we now know had no basis in fact, authorized
the use of force for two express purposes: to defend the
national security of the U.S. against the continuing threat
posed by Iraq, and to enforce all relevant U.N. Security
Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
It has been 18 years since Saddam Hussein was deposed. It
has been a decade since the United States declared a formal end
of operations in Iraq. The Iraqi Government is a regional
partner and the U.N. Security Council resolution referenced
above has been fulfilled. In short, there is no reason to allow
the 2002 AUMF to continue to stand.
Congress must not forfeit its constitutional responsibility
to directly authorize the use of force. Any administration
should receive direct authorization from the Congress to engage
in global conflict.
Just 2 days ago, this committee had a productive hearing
where each of the three expert witnesses testified that this
AUMF is not necessary. It does not enhance our national
security. It does not make Americans any safer. It does not
make the mission of our men and women in uniform any easier.
To repeat this resolution would not tie the hands of the
current Administration, or any future administration in their
responsibility to preserve the national security of the United
States. It would, instead, ensure that it could not be
manipulated to take us into a war that Congress did not
authorize.
We must act to let Congress again assert its ability and
responsibility to authorize war. We must pass H.R. 256 and show
the American people and our men and women in uniform that this
country only goes to war when absolutely necessary, and all
other options are exhausted, and when specifically authorized
by Congress.
I again thank Representative Lee for her leadership on this
issue. And I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting
H.R. 256. And with that, I yield back.
Chairman Meeks. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize Representative Joe Wilson of South Carolina
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Chairman,
Ranking Member McCaul, and colleagues, I oppose H.R. 256 to
standalone repeal of the 2002 authorization for use of military
force against Iraq. I support the Perry Amendment No. 57.
As the grateful dad of two servicemembers who have served
in Iraq, I know firsthand the success of liberating the people
of Iraq from an authoritarian dictatorship for an opportunity
for freedom. While modernization of this authorization is
prudent, any repeal should be done concurrently with
replacement after full consideration and consultation with
relevant partners. Our primary focus should be updating the
2002 AUMF to provide our national security apparatus the
necessary authorization to mitigate and defeat transnational
terrorist threats abroad to protect American families at home.
By bypassing key stakeholders, the White House, Department
of Defense, Department of State, the Iraqi Government, and our
allies, the consideration to repeal the 2002 AUMF, with no
replacement, is counterproductive. This amounts to a largely
symbolic measure designed to address shortsighted ideological
demands, and will embolden enemies in the region who are
targeting American families.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the standalone repeal and
urge colleagues to avoid weakening our ability to conduct
counterterrorism operations and, instead, to address repeal and
replacement simultaneously, as proposed by the Perry Amendment
No. 52.
I yield back my time.
Chairman Meeks. The gentleman yields back his time.
I now recognize Representative Ted Lieu of California for 5
minutes.
I now recognize Representative Susan Wild of Pennsylvania
for 5 minutes.
Ms. Wild. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
H.R. 256, repealing the authorization of military force
against Iraq is an important step in a much broader effort,
clearly reasserting Congress' constitutional authority to
authorize and limit our country's military operations. We in
the House are the elected representatives of the American
people. We are closest to the people of our communities and to
the men and women from our communities that serve on the front
lines of our armed forces.
For far too long, presidents of both parties have
overreached beyond their roles as defined in the Constitution,
using existing AUMF to prolong or extend conflicts beyond what
Congress had authorized. It is past time that we reclaim the
authority that the framers clearly established in our hands.
There are no more consequential decisions than those which
placed our servicemembers in harm's way. After putting their
lives on the line for their country, the very least they should
be able to expect is that every decision affecting them will be
taken with the greatest care and consideration, and always
according to our Constitution.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Meeks. The gentlelady yields back.
I now recognize Representative Brian Mast of Florida for 5
minutes.
Mr. Mast. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me start by saying I
agree with almost everything that you said in your opening
remarks about this piece of legislation. You
[inaudible]. Our previous colleague just spoke about giving
our servicemembers, of which I am a veteran, the assurance that
we take the greatest care and consideration in our decisions.
That has not been done. I would challenge anybody to prove
me wrong. We have heard from a professor from Harvard, Yale,
and NYU. Can any of the ten freshman that just joined Congress,
that have been a part of no other hearing, I would yield my
time to any of the ten freshman right now who can tell me that
they spoke to a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, one of our
military secretaries. Happy to yield to any one of our ten
freshman that heard from one of them on AUMF.
Mr. Meijer. Representative Mast, are you including those
who spoke at the briefing we had on the CBC?
Mr. Mast. Can you go ahead one more time?
Mr. Meijer. Are you including the CBC briefing? I am not
sure if we are able to reference that, given the setting that
it was provided in.
Mr. Mast. I think you can reference all you want. But this
is what I am saying. Speak up. If your--you know, have our ten
freshman heard--have our ten freshman spoken to our joint
chiefs, our military secretaries?
Mr. Jacobs. Mr. Mast, this is Representative Jacobs. I am a
freshman. And I have talked to many members and leaders in our
military about this issue. And I also have a master's degree in
international security policy.
Mr. Mast. Congratulations. I am glad to know that you spoke
to them.
Any of our other freshmen? It shows some diligence, that is
great, which is what our committee has not done here.
Chairman Meeks. Mr. Mast, would you yield?
Mr. Mast. I do not know who asked, but----
Chairman Meeks. It is the chairman.
Mr. Mast. I will in a moment to you, Mr. Chairman. I do
want to give a little bit more time to some of our freshman.
But I will bear in mind that you asked for time. So, yes, Mr.
Chairman. Hold on a minute.
Any of our other freshmen want to say that they heard on
this? This is a big deal. We are aligned on this, but my point
is simply in my opinion we make a joke out of this committee,
which is very important to me. We spend a lot of time on this
committee dealing with very serious issues to not hear from the
correct people on such an important matter, especially an issue
where there is common ground among us. But to not give it that
due diligence is a very serious issue to me.
Mr. Chairman, I see that I have 2 minutes here. I will
certainly, you know, yield you a little bit of time. I am
probably going to reclaim at some point, but go ahead, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Meeks. Yes. Mr. Mast, I just wanted to remind you
that the witnesses that were before us were not just simply
professors. They held high senior positions in the White House,
in DoD, and DOJ. So, I just wanted to remind you of the
credentials of the witnesses that were before us. They were not
simple professors.
I yield back to the gentleman.
Mr. Mast. Yes, happy to yield to you, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate your comments. But, I would remind you of this: it
was literally given to us in answer by the witnesses that they
do not have the same access to information as us. Some of those
witnesses literally said that to us as they were answering our
questions: Representative, I do not have the same access to
information as you do, but let me give you my opinion.
That is a problem. That is a problem in diligence that we,
as our colleague, your Democrat colleague just mentioned. We
owe that to our men and women. This is common ground that we
have here. Like I said, we agree on almost everything here. But
let's give this the diligence that it deserves and call before
the Foreign Affairs Committee, show the rest of Congress that
this committee will be taking that seriously. Call before us
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of
Defense. Take your pick of secretaries out there that we will
have that conversation with them. Because it is owed to our
servicemembers.
And anybody again I would challenge you, tell me that
having a conversation with one of them isn't at a substantially
higher level than having a conversation with the individuals
from Yale, Harvard, and NYU. Because it is, it deserves that
diligence.
I think I have made my point, Mr. Chairman. And I am making
this point as somebody that loves our committee, that loves our
military, that has lost over 67 friends in combat, killed in
action, personal friends of mine. I take this with the utmost
seriousness, and that is why I ask that this be taken with the
utmost seriousness by our committee.
I yield back.
Chairman Meeks. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize Representative Andy Levin of Michigan for 5
minutes. I ask Mr. Levin if he would give me just 10 seconds,
the opening 10 seconds.
Mr. Levin. I yield to you such time as you may consume, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Meeks. Yes. I just want to remind everyone on the
committee, and Mr. Mast, that we had a classified briefing on
the use of force in Iraq that no one would have been able to
talk about in the forum that we had our hearing. So, we had
additional information about Iraq in a classified session.
So, it was not taken lightly as to what we are doing today
and why we are doing it. We had expert and classified materials
to do it.
I yield back to the gentleman.
Mr. Levin. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. And thanks for your
leadership on this issue.
I strongly support this move. It is long overdue. I think
Congress needs to reclaim our responsibility and, frankly, the
courage to authorize force when it needs to be authorized. We
ought to, as one of our witnesses said, we ought to put a
sunset on every authorization.
In my view, every person in our country who served for 2
years in this House ought to have to vote on whether we ought
to continue authorizing force for a given reason. Here we are
not talking about eliminating all AUMFs in this moment, we are
talking about repealing the 2002 AUMF, which was for a very
specific purpose. And it is not, it has been stretched beyond
belief, it is not needed anymore. And it is not appropriate for
us to just fail to do our duty, frankly.
And, so, I appreciate the ranking member's comments very
much. And I think he has a case to make about, you know, if
perhaps in discussions of the 2001 AUMF he might say, well, we
ought to negotiate something in its place. I think the
Administration is interested in talking to us about, you know,
what new authorization might be necessary. But this, that
doesn't apply to this one.
So, I think it is incumbent on us to do this. And we ought
to have done it a long time ago. It doesn't need any further
study. Everyone knows what it says. And this is a matter of
basic our, really, our form of government that we are the
branch that declares war, we are the branch that raises the
funds for war, and then the President is the commander-in-chief
to carry it out.
And let's step up to the plate, clean this mess up, and
decide precisely what offensive war powers the President needs
and do that, and not leave these things hanging out there which
are, as you said, Mr. Chairman, vulnerable to misuse.
So, let's get this done. I appreciate your leadership on
this and our colleague Barbara Lee's leadership on this, who I
believe, Mr. Chairman, was a member of this committee long
before I was here. And I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Meeks. The gentleman yields back the balance of
time.
I now recognize Representative Scott Perry of Pennsylvania
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Perry. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And I want to begin by associating myself with the comments
from my very good friend Mr. Mast, who has sacrificed on behalf
of this country things that any single, every single one of us
can scarcely imagine.
That having been said, I have listened very diligently to
the conversation from beginning to end to this point. Democrat,
Republican, conservative, liberal, anything in between, quite
honestly I almost agree with every single bit of it. So, you
know there is a ``but'' coming.
This has been used by presidents of both parties. And
whether they should have or shouldn't have is part of the
discussion here. But I think that there has been for an issue
so weighty--and the chairman knows that I am a fan, we are
friends, and I appreciate him--but this is a weighty, weighty
issue that I think deserves much more careful contemplation.
And it is not about me just trying to slow down the train or
anything like this. I have had an AUMF written, a replacement
written for 6 years, Mr. Chairman. So, I agree that we should
enforce and take back, claw back our Article I authority, just
like every single one here. That is the purview of Congress.
And so, we are in complete agreement there.
I agree that it is outdated, which is why I wrote a
replacement. So, we are in agreement there.
I think where the disagreement for me comes is in process.
I think that we need much more careful deliberation because in
my mind, while we have servicemembers down range right now when
we sit in the comfort or our office, or our kitchen, or our
living rooms, or wherever we are, we are back at Fort Living
Room, they are out on the wire. They are out over the wire.
They are in contact.
And we are going to send a message to the world today that
we are just going to throw down our arms. All of us people in
our nice shirts and, you know, sitting in comfort, we are just
going to walk away and embolden the enemy that while the next
time somebody attacks us, or something like that, we are going
to have to discuss it.
Ladies and gentlemen, when you are out there on the edge
the people back in Washington, DC. are far, far away, and you
have to deal with what is right in front of you right then at
that moment. You have to make decisions. And anything that
helps the enemy have a leg up on you is unacceptable. It is
unacceptable to me.
So, I would just say to me, while I agree that it needs to
be repealed, but it also, it also at the same time must be
replaced. And we haven't discussed that at all as far as what
the tenets of that are. So, we are walking away.
You know, it is like sitting on one side of the firing
line, you at your cannon, the enemy's at theirs, and you
decide, well, look, we are not being real effective here so I
am just going to walk away and let them first rounds in on my
side.
I do not know who would do that. I do not know why we would
do that. I do not know why we would do that. We are for repeal,
but repeal must be followed immediately, or concomitantly,
concurrently, with replacement so that we have the--there is a
reason it was used. There is a reason it was used by presidents
on both sides of the aisle.
Now, we might disagree with that, but there is a rationale
for that. And we haven't gotten to that. We haven't had that
discussion.
And so, I understand we want to work together with the
majority here, and there is a lot that we agree on. But
unilateral disarmament is provocative, it is dangerous in my
opinion, it is irresponsible, and it is a disservice, in my
opinion, having been very honored to wear the Nation's uniform
and serve, and serve literally in Iraq as well, to those
members, those United States citizens who are out there on the
line, you know, for an idea, for an ideal which is represented
in our flag and this piece of paper called the Constitution.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I know I am going to get to
speak on my amendment, but I just, I just felt like I, I had to
say that.
And one just final thing to correct the record. It was in
this very committee under my questioning that John Kerry
admitted, as Secretary of State, that there were weapons of
mass destruction in Iraq. He knows it. I know it. I was there.
Anybody that was there knows it. I know it is the narrative, I
know it is the rhetoric, but I get tired of hearing that. Might
not have been what you thought it was, but for people that were
there, they know what it was.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance.
Chairman Meeks. The gentleman yields back the balance of
his time.
I now recognize Representative Sara Jacobs of California
for 5 minutes.
Ms. Jacobs. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to first
thank you for making this repeal a priority and for bringing
this legislation forward so early in this session. The
legislation you have prioritized for this committee over the
past 2 months will undoubtedly improve the lives of millions of
Americans, our diplomats, and servicemembers, and people around
the world.
And I also want to recognize and thank Congresswoman
Barbara Lee for authorizing this--for authoring this bill, and
for her enduring commitment to a responsible and just American
foreign policy, and reasserting Congress' role in it.
I was in middle school when this authorization for the use
of military force was approved. And today, as a Member of
Congress, I will vote to repeal it.
I emphasize this because my generation has grown up in the
shadow of America's protracted wars. And San Diego, the
community I am proud to represent, is home to servicemembers,
veterans, and military families who understand better than most
the human impact of our foreign policy and our decisions to go
to war. To my constituents the issues of war and peace, of
whether we send their loved ones into harm's way are kitchen
table issues. And Congress has abrogated that responsibility
for too long.
I often wonder whether the Members of Congress who voted in
favor of the 2002 AUMF had any idea of the impact that vote
would have on a generation of Americans. But the reality is I
may never know because many of them have long since retired.
This AUMF outlasted even them.
In fact, on this distinguished committee only six of our 51
members were in office in 2002. And as just one young American
whose life was shaped by the decisions made by this body 19
years ago, I want to especially thank you, Mr. Chair, for being
the last remaining member of this committee to have voted no.
Today we have a chance to at last turn the page. This
repeal is an important first step in reasserting Congress'
rightful and primary role in authorizing war.
And to my colleague Mr. Mast's concerns, I want to thank
you for your service to this country. But it is not the
military generals, nor the President, nor any professor's job
to tell us what to do. The principle of civilian control of the
military places ultimate authority over the U.S. armed services
in the hands of civilian leadership. This decision is ours, and
ours alone. And as we have heard from so many others, there is
not a single operation that would be impacted by this decision.
With that, I am proud to vote for this repeal. And I want
to thank my colleagues and staff who have worked toward this
day for years. Let this vote mark a new chapter in American
foreign policy and in Congress' role in it.
And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back the remainder of my
time.
Chairman Meeks. The gentlelady yields back the remainder of
her time.
I now recognize Representative Darrell Issa of California
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sorry for forgetting to
unmute.
I want to associate myself, surprisingly, with several of
the earlier speakers. And as Congresswoman Jacobs said, there
aren't too many of us who were here for that vote. And, Mr.
Chairman, you and I were.
I stand with those who want to see an end to open-ended use
of military force. And I would like to see a sunset clause put
in any future use of military force.
Later today I will be offering an amendment that would
modify this legislation to simply put a ending date not later
than January 2023, with a requirement that the President extend
by specific request for no more than 90 days at a time. I
believe it is the middle ground that could cause all of us to
realize that this, and every other outdated use of military
force, should in fact be given a terminal date. And if a
President wants to, and I believe this President wants a new
use of military force authorized, then he can negotiate in good
faith with both sides of the aisle between now and January of
year after next.
If we do that, I believe we can come to common ground.
Having said that, I am not in a position to vote for an
immediate elimination of this before the Administration has
been able to weigh in on whether they would use this the way
the previous Administration and the Obama Administration did.
But, I look forward to each of these amendments. Hopefully, you
will consider my amendment as an extremely friendly one, one
that Congresswoman Lee and I could cause as a--could consider
as a base for future use of military force so that we never
again have a no sunset use of military force.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, thank you, I will not use my
whole 5 minutes, and I yield back.
Chairman Meeks. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize Representative Spanberger of Virginia for 5
minutes.
Ms. Spanberger. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
for bringing up Representative Barbara Lee's legislation to
repeal the 2002 Iraq War AUMF. I appreciate Representative
Lee's strong leadership on this issue.
Last Congress I, like so many on the committee, voted with
the bipartisan majority of the House to repeal the 2002 AUMF.
In this Congress I am an original co-sponsor of this bipartisan
legislation, and I am hopeful that it will pass out of
committee today.
Since coming to Congress I have been very clear on this
topic: Congress, please, must take the steps to reassert
congressional authority in decisions of war and peace. It is
required by the Constitution, and it is fundamental to our
ability to represent our constituents, particularly
servicemembers we represent.
I join with members of my own party and members across the
aisle and across the political spectrum to introduce
legislation and make the case to the American people, in
interviews and joint op-eds, that there is not only an interest
in Congress reclaiming our constitutional authority, but we
have a recognition that we must finally take steps to do so.
Repealing the outdated, inactive 2002 AUMF is a first step.
And we heard that clearly from the witnesses who testified
at our hearing this week. They affirmed that repealing the 2002
AUMF is a priority, a principal first step and, importantly, a
step that would not impact ongoing military and
counterterrorism operations which are authorized under the 2001
AUMF.
But, repealing the 2002 would prevent our country from
entering into another potentially protracted engagement without
Congress having a voice. And for too long we have seen men and
women fighting and dying under authorities voted on decades
ago, a generation ago. And the American people, especially the
American men and women in uniform, deserve to see us take a
vote on these issues.
Repealing the 2002 AUMF is not only a step that we need to
take, but we must address Congress' ongoing challenges with the
2001 AUMF. We must replace and update the 2001 AUMF in the
future. It is an authorization that has been stretched beyond
its original intent to contend with threats that were certainly
not present at the time that it got a vote a generation ago.
But, addressing the 2001 AUMF is not the question before us
today. Repealing the 2002 outdated and unused AUMF is. And for
those who say we should keep old authorizations on the books
just in case we need them, I would remind them that that is not
how it is supposed to work.
If there is a new threat, then those decisions to initiate
new actions should be deliberated and should involve Congress.
And the President has authorities provided by the Constitution
and by the War Powers Resolution. But no President should be
able to reach for irrelevant authorities that are just left on
the books to engage in military action.
For those who are saying that we are moving too fast, I
would like to remind them that this bill is bipartisan and has
passed the House multiple times. And it is severely overdue.
And let's remember that the 2002 AUMF was enacted by Congress
prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq that toppled the government
of Saddam Hussein. And U.S. military deployments for related
purposes ended back in 2011.
I would also like to speak not only in support of
Representative Lee's bill but in opposition to Mr. Perry's
amendment that would tie the 2002 AUMF repeal to a replacement
of the 2001. My colleague from Pennsylvania and I joined with
our colleagues at the time, Justin Amash, Ken Buck, Jared
Golden, Dean Phillips, and Chip Roy, in writing an op-ed on the
16th of January 2020. And we wrote, ``To start, it is time to
have a serious debate and vote on the repeal of the 2002 AUMF
which authorized the use of force against Saddam Hussein's
Government in Iraq. This authorization has fully outlived its
purpose, given the death of Hussein, regime change, and the
withdrawal of U.S. forces in 2011, regardless of how one views
the merit of that withdrawal.''
``The 2002 authorization, as well as the lingering 1991
authorization, should be removed from the books,'' we wrote,
``lest either be used to justify further military engagement
beyond what Congress intended.''
And we continued and noted separately, and I quote, ``We
must also foster an informed debate on a strategic alternative
to the 2001 authorization.''
Yes, we need to keep working on reform to other AUMFs. We
have to repeal the 1957 and the 1991 AUMFs that are still on
the books. But Mr. Perry's amendment would hamper our ability
to take a first step by requiring that progress and the repeal
of the 2002 be tied to our ability to address the 2001 AUMF all
at once.
Moving Representative Lee's common sense, bipartisan piece
of legislation is a first step, and it is one that we should
take. I look forward to taking this action today. And if
Congress is actually ready to engage, ready to reassert
ourselves in these hard conversations, these decisions where
for too long certainly many of our predecessors have shirked
those responsibilities, then we can move forward in the future
with replacing the 2001.
But, today's vote is not about that. Today's vote is not
about a particular president, a particular party, or the
Administration, it is about reasserting the role of Congress in
decisions of war and peace. And I urge my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle to join me in voting to repeal the 2002
AUMF. And I look forward to future conversations about
replacing the 2001 AUMF.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Meeks. The gentlelady's time has expired.
I now recognize Representative Mark Green for 5 minutes.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I wasn't planning
on speaking on this today, but I have heard a lot of passion in
the discussion, and I thought I would just share a little bit
from my personal experience.
Many people today have talked about this being a multi-
generational war, folks in grade school, or wherever it was
when the thing was written. I was actually in combat on this
AUMF in Iraq.
It is a multi-generational war because then my son just
last year deployed to Syria under this AUMF. And the reason
that I would implore my colleagues to let's replace, repeal and
replace together, those forces that are there that may possibly
need either somebody, some group changes its name or changes it
location where it hides out, where it bases itself from, our
enemy so to speak. We need the flexibility.
And as I thought of my son being there in Syria during that
time, I was glad to know that those authorizations were there.
So, I am for replacing it. I am not for repealing without a
replacement. And that comes not, you know, from anything other
than just having been there myself, having taken on these
terrorists, having looked them in the eye, and knowing that my
son has done the very same thing as a young Army Ranger.
So, that is my impassioned plea to the committee.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield.
Chairman Meeks. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize Representative Gerry Connolly of Virginia
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
having this markup and including maybe the most consequential
issue any Congress ever faces, the issue of war and peace.
Since World War II, Congress has, frankly, abrogated its
responsibility under Article I of the Constitution. We have
yielded to encroachment after encroachment, assertion of power
and accretion of power to the executive branch that the
Constitution never foresaw. And lives were lost because of
that.
It is time that Congress reasserted its Article I powers,
explicit and imputed.
The commander-in-chief role has expanded far beyond the
imagination of any of the writers of the Constitution. When
they wrote the Constitution, granted it was a different period
of time, but they were deeply suspicious of too much power
being vested in an executive. They had just, after all,
successfully revolted against an absolute monarch, George III.
They were not about to repeat that experience by imputing or
even devolving powers for an all-powerful chief executive,
especially in matters of war and peace.
They envisioned in Article I the Congress playing the
primary role and the chief executive essentially executing the
direction of the Congress, where to deploy troops, how many
troops to deploy, what engagements we might have, what
hostilities we might be engaged in.
Now, we live in a more complex world. Challenges require
sometimes instant reaction. But in the case of both Iraq and
Afghanistan, we have been involved in the two longest wars in
our history. They began with an authorization of use of
military force in response to a very specific set of
circumstances. And, unfortunately, once again the executive has
encroached on that authorization and used it to rationalize and
justify many, many actions not envisioned by Congress just a
dozen years ago. It is time to repeal the AUMF and,
thoughtfully, to consider what and how we replace it.
We cannot do that on the fly, but we most certainly can
start by repealing an outdated and I think dangerous
authorization, dangerous in its extended use, dangerous in the
commitments and entanglements and military hostilities that we
might be engaged in without any of it having been contemplated
by the original Congress that authorized it in the first place.
So, prudence dictates we take action. The American people
want us to take this action. And it is in the process a very
focused rebalancing of powers that have gotten way out of whack
between the legislative and executive branches about the most
significant decisions we ever make, those of war and peace.
I support the motion with respect to the AUMF, and yield
back.
Chairman Meeks. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize Representative Andy Barr for 5 minutes.
Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank all
my colleagues for all of the thoughtful comments and opinions
offered today, and especially want to thank my colleagues who
have either served the country before their service in Congress
in uniform, or in other capacities. My colleague Representative
Spanberger in her capacity and certainly Representative Jacobs
in her service to the country, all my colleagues I really
enjoyed listening to the thoughtful comments and the arguments
that are being offered.
But I have to rise today in opposition to H.R. 256 and in
support of Mr. Perry's amendment. And I will offer a couple of
thoughts for consideration to my colleagues about why.
Certainly I cannot speak from the same position of
authority on this as General Perry or Representatives Mast or
Green having served in uniform in Iraq. And I also understand
that the AUMF for both 2001 and 2002 are certainly arguably
outdated, probably are outdated, and they need to be updated.
Perhaps we need a consolidated single replacement for both.
I also am well aware that the American people, including my
constituents, are weary of protracted war and that we may need
AUMF reform in general. I agree with Representative Connolly
that we need to reassert our Article I powers.
And, Mr. Chairman, you made a point at the outset that
these were entirely different wars, the wars related to the one
AUMF and the war, the Iraq War, the 2002 AUMF. They are
different in some respects in that they are different types of
enemies perhaps, but there is a connection. And the connection
is that it is all the global war on terror.
So, my view is that we need to be very clear about what we
are doing today by repealing the 2002 AUMF, admittedly
outdated, without a replacement at the same time. What we are
doing is we are repealing or we are withdrawing the authority
that we, as Congress, has given to the commander-in-chief to
protect Americans against threats in and emanating from Iraq.
We are voting to cutoff the President's power to protect
Americans who are in harm's way without a replacement.
I see this as a vote to disregard the terrorist threats
that remain in Iraq such as the Shia threat; the Shia militia
groups that we see active right now; the Iranian proxies; the
remnants of Sunni radicals in Iraq, including ISIS; jihadist
groups that are connected to ISIS.
And so, you know, I understand that this is a protracted
war, as Representative Jacobs pointed out, but these are
protracted threats. The threats remain, and we still have
servicemembers in harm's way.
I do agree with Ranking Member McCaul when he says this
sends a very bad signal. We have to remember what happened when
President Obama totally disregarded the threat of the rise of
ISIS. I think this is an analogous, wrong message that we send.
I agree with my colleagues who support this bill that we
need to repeal the 2002 AUMF. We just cannot do it without
doing anything replacing it right now immediately because of
the remaining threats.
And maybe the command-in-chief has inherent executive
power. I have heard several of my colleagues to act if we do
face a problem here. I have heard several of my colleagues talk
about how this bill would not interrupt or disrupt any ongoing
operations, no ongoing operations would be impacted, that it
wouldn't in any way compromise the ability of the commander-in-
chief to act. But I have to say, I mean, if that is the case
then why have an AUMF to begin with? It implies that the
commander-in-chief can act without authorization.
And I thought the whole point of this, the point of our
hearing and the testimony of the professors the other day was
that Congress needs to reassert itself in the authorization of
use of military force, we shouldn't allow the commander-in-
chief to act unilaterally. And in effect we are inviting the
commander-in-chief to do so when our troops will be inevitably
threatened without this AUMF in place.
So, look, I agree with many of my colleagues in what they
are saying here on both sides of this debate, but I would urge
that we, that we take this repeal up with a replacement at the
same time, and do our job under Article I.
Let's do our job. Let's reassert our Article I authority in
this context, but let's not invite these threats without giving
the commander-in-chief the ability to act in defense of our
brave men and women in harm's way.
And I yield back.
Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired.
I now recognize Mr. Pfluger of Texas for 5 minutes.
Mr. Pfluger. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this
hearing. Ranking Member McCaul, thank you for the leadership.
The efforts that have been taken I think are a good step in the
right direction. As somebody who served in this area at the
height of ISIS, and saw not just things that were happening in
Iraq but also in Syria, which involved national States, non-
nation States, and a tremendous amount of actors in the region,
this is a very, very complicated issue.
And I would also like to say that I very much appreciate on
both sides of the aisle today the acknowledgment that the most
important thing that anybody in Congress can do is make a
decision whether or not to send our troops to war. And I
couldn't agree more. And as somebody who has been sent into
harm's way by both Democrat and Republican presidents, it is a
very emotional thing. And I would like to thank everybody for
their service, whether it was in the military or in other
departments that have dealt with this.
But I would like to ask the question: if it truly is the
most important thing that we do in Congress, if that truly is a
fact, then I would ask all of my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle today, let's have the discussion because we owe it to
those troops that are fighting right now. And then let's
proceed to a dialog, and then we can end in debate.
And let's give the time--the proportional amount of time--
required to this very important subject, to ask the Department
of Defense at the very highest levels--and I appreciate, Mr.
Chairman, the opportunity to have a classified briefing.
I think we need more of those with each of the service
chiefs and the joint chiefs and the combatant commanders, with
the secretary of State and with other key leaders and
principals who can guide us in the reform because it is a
dynamic environment.
As I served there, it changed in the course of a year, but
every single day as a pilot, as somebody who was tasked with
carrying out the orders of our President and of our government
to keep not only ourselves safe, but to also make sure that
every instrument of power that we had continued to keep the
world safe, I would ask that we look at that dynamic
environment and we take this into account and we do a good
bipartisan job because security is not partisan. And I know
everybody on this hearing appreciates that, and I appreciate
listening and learning from each of you on this subject.
We need to take some time to put thought into it, so that
the authorizations appropriately meet the threat and that we
understand what Iraq is going to look like with the actions
that we take.
And, Mr. Chairman, I would just implore everyone here to
consider how important it is to send our troops into harm's
way, and to give it everything we have, which means sitting as
a bipartisan committee, in classified briefings together,
without TV cameras, so that we can have that debate and we can
come up with the solutions that we need.
And, Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back.
Chairman Meeks. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize Representative Peter Meijer from Michigan
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Meijer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wish to associate
myself with the remarks of both yourself, Chairman Meeks, and
also Ranking Member McCaul, in strong agreement and how
positive it is that there is bipartisan support on this issue.
As many have noted before, I think we share broadly a sense of
where we need to go. We just are on different sides in terms of
how to get there.
I just want to clear something up. The 2002 AUMF has not
been used in the sense of being the operative authorization for
any military action undertaken in and around Iraq roughly since
the time I left Iraq in 2011. If we had repealed this AUMF in
2012, it would not have constrained American operations. It
would not have hampered our ability to defend ourselves.
The majority of the operations that have taken place since
then, whether it was ISIS using the 2001 AUMF or some of the
attacks--or some of the--I shouldn't say attacks--some of the
operations we have seen more recently that have been predicated
on the Article 2 self-defense provisions, while they may have
tangentially referenced 2002 as a backstop, they were not
solely predicated on that 2002 AUMF.
So the idea that we would be left defenseless I find
disingenuous, and that is exactly why we have Article 2 self-
defense provisions, so we are well-equipped to defend
ourselves.
And I actually do not think this bill goes far enough. In
addition to the outdated and irrelevant 2002 AUMF, we still
have authorizations on the books, as my colleague Ms.
Spanberger said, from the original Gulf War in 1991 and 1957
around some Middle East operations.
In fact, I am proud to co-sponsor legislation with Ms.
Spanberger, Mike Gallagher, Jared Golden, in order to do
everything we can to not only repeal 1902 but also 1991 and
1957.
And a preemptive response to Mr. Mast's question, I have
not asked the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, nor the
secretary of defense, their thoughts on the 1991 or 1957
repeals for the simple fact that they are irrelevant to current
operations.
Perhaps not holding 6 months of hearings to check might be
hamstringing our efforts to check Communist influence in The
Levant or to liberate Kuwait, if it is re-invaded by Iraq. But
if that happens, there is a very easy solution to those
outlandish hypotheticals, and that is we pass a new AUMF or we
can engage in Title 50 operations or we could find
justification under Article 2 self-defense provisions.
Or, frankly, we could probably find a way to finagle it
into the 2001 AUMF, because in this hypothetical scenario there
is just about no way that we haven't been able to find that
Sunni terrorist nexus to justify operations.
We have used it to justify going after groups that did not
even exist on 9/11. We have used it to go after groups that
have actively fought al-Qaeda. So we could probably figure out
a way to shoehorn other threats in as well. But at the end of
the day, it is the 2001 AUMF that has been the basis for our
offensive operations in the Middle East and Central Asia.
And I strongly agree and second all of the efforts of--or
all of the comments on this committee talking about the need to
reform it, and I think it should be reformed in a thoughtful,
forward-looking way. But the 2002 AUMF, in comparison, is
simply dead letter.
And in response to the idea that by doing this we may be
emboldening the enemy, I think we are fooling ourselves if we
think evildoers are tenting their fingers, watching this
hearing and seeing weakness. In fact, you know, not only do we
not need the 2002 AUMF to drop a hellfire on Qasem Soleimani,
but I think this whole conversation that we are having, the
vibrancy of this discussion, shows the strength of our
commitment to thinking in a thoughtful way.
The passion in this debate I think is incredibly healthy.
You know, it projects that we as a committee are stepping up,
we are committed to stepping up, and that we are not stepping
back. And I think the best way to do this is to discard these
irrelevant AUMFs, so we can step forward and strengthen our
Nation for that long term.
Therefore, I will probably be voting to support this bill,
Congresswoman Lee's bill to repeal the 2002 AUMF.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Meeks. The gentleman yields back.
Do any other members wish to speak on this measure? Hearing
no further requests, let's move on to amendments. For what
purpose does the representative from Pennsylvania, Mr. Perry,
seek recognition?
Mr. Perry. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have got an
amendment at the desk.
Chairman Meeks. The clerk shall distribute the amendment to
your staff virtually. Let's pause briefly to give all members
enough time to review the amendment.
Has everyone received a copy of the amendment? The clerk
will please report the amendment.
Ms. Stiles. Perry Amendment Number 52, amend the bill, add
the following, effective date.
[The amendment offered by Mr. Perry follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Meeks. Without objection, further reading of the
amendment will be dispensed with, and a point of order is
reserved. The representative from Pennsylvania, Mr. Perry, is
recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
Mr. Perry. Thank you very much again, Mr. Chairman. And
like many of my colleagues, I was a little surprised to see a
clean repeal of the 2002 AUMF on the schedule for today's
markup.
It seemed to me a bill of this magnitude, and the
implication it can carry for U.S. strategy in the Middle East,
would have required feedback from numerous key stakeholders in
the security arena, including DoD, Department of State, et
cetera. To unilaterally pursue this measure I think would be,
as I said before, grossly irresponsible.
It, therefore, begs asking if due diligence was undertaken
to buffer the integrity of this proposal. Did the architects of
this bill consult with the intelligence community in bringing
this repeal before us today? Did they consult with the
Department of Defense? Did they consult with the Department of
State?
I am not sure I have really any indication that any of that
happened. And I guess it doesn't have to to bring a bill, but I
think it speaks to what maybe is lacking.
Who did the architects of the bill consult? All indicators
point to the leftist wing of the--the leftist wing of the
Democrat party, disappointed that the President chose to launch
a strike in Syria last month. And let me just say, many of us
were not critical of that. In the last administration, anytime
President Trump lifted a finger everybody acted like World War
III was going to start.
Nobody likes exercising military authority. It is the last
resort. But if it keeps America safe, at least I will tell you,
I am for it whether it is President Trump or President Biden.
These individuals I think are infuriated that the President
chose to attack select targets in Syria, targets that could
have been justified by the 2002 AUMF. The 2002 AUMF has
provided the past three administrations with legal cover to
pursue Iran-backed militias in Iraq and the wider region.
You know, I know there is a border between Iran and Iraq,
and I know they fought a war. But I will tell you this: when
you are standing on it, it is hard to tell. You know, one grain
of sand looks like the other grain of sand right next to it.
To be clear, it needs to be replaced. There is no doubt. We
agree on that. It seems like everybody on the committee agrees.
It is outdated, and everyone here can see we are no longer
trying to get rid of the Ba'athist regime in Iraq.
That being said, I think it is foolish to risk doing away
with the 2002 AUMF with no replacement. Some of the left want
to get rid of this amendment because they want to
disincentivize the administration from pursuing similar
activities in the future. But it is clear that we should be
able and willing to target Iran-backed militias, especially
when they attack U.S. targets in the region.
They are attacking--they have been attacking them almost,
it seems like, my whole life, and they are attacking right now.
This amendment would allow for the repeal of the 2002 AUMF,
but in a responsible way that secures U.S. national security
interests. It would provide new, specific statutory
authorization for the use of military force against specified
terrorist groups. In doing so, it would repeal the 2001 AUMF
but not without denying the United States the ability to
specifically target new and emerging threats since the 9/11
attacks, including the Islamic State.
This amendment would secure war powers reform and place
decisionmaking, including decisions regarding specific targets,
squarely in the purview of Congress where it belongs. On that
we all agree.
Today we have the opportunity to put an end to years of
debate on critical issues of U.S. national security, given
everything at stake. And I know, look, I am sure it is going to
get rammed through the committee, and it will probably get
rammed through on the floor. And that is a shame because I
think if we were a little--spent a little more time personally
and were a little more thoughtful and deliberate about this, we
could have overwhelming bipartisan support in the committee and
on the floor.
But, unfortunately, this is going to go I think the way of
a lot of things where one side generally supports it and the
other side doesn't. And it is not indicative of how most of us
on this committee feel, and quite honestly, I do not think it
is indicative of how most Americans feel.
They want Congress to do its role. They do not want
unilateral unrestricted powers vested in the executive branch.
They want us to be thoughtful, but they do not want us to walk
away from the responsibility we have to safeguard America for
the sake of politics and scoring points. And, unfortunately, I
feel a lot of--that that is what this is about.
I agree with Abigail. I did sign the letter, and I agree
with the assessment of the letter. But I never said we should
walk away from our commitment, especially to troops in contact
right now. I never said we should disarm unilaterally.
Absolutely, like I said, I support repeal. I wrote an AUMF 6
years ago because I support repeal--repeal and replacement--not
repeal, unilaterally disarm, and walk away.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield.
Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes. I oppose this
amendment. The Perry amendment would keep the 2002 UMA--UMF--
AUMF, excuse me, getting tired--AUMF on the books until
Congress provides new, specific statutory authorization for the
use of military force against specified terrorist groups.
The problem with that is, the 2002 AUMF does not authorize
force against any specified terrorist groups. So the amendment
will prevent Congress from repealing an authority that does not
apply to terrorists until we enact a new authority that does
apply to terrorist.
That doesn't make any sense, especially because Congress
authorized force against terrorist groups in a separate
authority. It is called a 2001 AUMF. That is what authorizes
force against certain terrorists. It is not in the 2002 AUMF.
I know we have been urged to take up 2001 AUMF also.
Believe me, I support doing so. But replacing the 2001 AUMF
requires much more work, much of the work that you are talking
about now, of which I am saying we will get done in a
bipartisan manner. We will work with the 2001 AUMF, as most of
us are saying needs to be updated. And we need to do that in a
bipartisan manner and take our time and make sure we are doing
it right because it is still needed.
But replacing the--and the 2001 just isn't so--the bottom
line is that the 2002 AUMF is not needed for any current
operations. Can't protect us because it is not needed for any
operations.
Look, a repeal passed the House 2 years ago. There is no
reason to wait now. And it was bipartisan. It was done in the
NDAA. But guess what, folks? It should have been done in the
Foreign Affairs Committee. It is our jurisdiction. We do not
want to pass up the vote. I know many members on both the
Foreign Affairs and the Armed Services. But it is the
jurisdiction of the Armed Services to pass any AUMF.
We need to do our job in this committee. So, clearly, our
job is to be very clear about where Congress stands on the 2002
AUMF, unlike the 2001. Keeping the 2002 AUMF in place does not
help the President fight terrorism. It just helps the executive
branch avoid working with Congress.
We need to be decisive about Congress' power to authorize
force. The hardest vote that I have had to take in my 22 years
in the U.S. Congress is whether or not I send our women and men
into war. I do not want to punt that responsibility. I do not
want to give it to the executive branch. I want it to be right
here with Congress, and I want this committee to lead in that
regard. And for that reason, I oppose Mr. Perry's amendment.
Is there any further debate on the amendment? Hearing no
further requests to speak, the question is on the amendment. We
are going to take a vote by voice. All members, please unmute
your microphones.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, say no.
In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it, and the
amendment is not agreed to. And without objection, the motion
to----
Mr. Perry. Mr. Chairman, I request a recorded vote.
Chairman Meeks [continuing]. Reconsider is laid upon the
table.
Mr. Perry. Mr. Chairman, I request a recorded vote.
Chairman Meeks. A roll call vote is requested. Pursuant to
committee Rule 4A(2), further proceedings on the amendment
shall be postponed.
Are there any other amendments?
Mr. Issa. Mr. Chairman, this is Congressman Issa. I have an
amendment at the desk.
Chairman Meeks. The clerk shall distribute the amendment.
Let's pause briefly to give all members time to review the
amendment.
Everyone has a copy of the amendment? The clerk will please
report the amendment.
Ms. Stiles. Issa Amendment Number 18, strike Section 1 and
insert the following. Section 1----
[The Amendment offered by Mr. Issa follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Meeks. Without objection, further reading of the
amendment will be dispensed with. A point of order is reserved.
The representative from California, Mr. Issa, is recognized for
5 minutes in support of his amendment.
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will be brief. As
I explained a little bit earlier, this would make two
substantive changes to the existing elimination of the AUMF.
One is it would move its
[inaudible] no matter what to January 30, 2023.
Second, it would require that the President of the United
States, on an every-90-day basis, request with specificity a
reason for extending or continuing it. I believe that the
current administration would likely extend once or twice while
we work together to fashion a new AUMF if they needed one.
However, if they continue to use it every 90 days, they
would have to come to the realization that less than 2 years
from today that ability would disappear completely. I think
this puts the administration in the right position to have to
come to Congress, if they anticipate some portion of this
legislation or this authorization continue to be used.
If they truly do not believe that they will need it, then
this would be almost moot because this would--90 days after
enactment of the Act, the AUMF would be canceled, since the
President would not have asked for a specific 90-day extension.
I think this finds some middle ground between both sides
where Ms. Lee would like to have this be upon enactment, but if
we do not get an enactment--in the last Congress we did not--
that we get immediate enactment. If, on the other hand, we are
willing to allow the administration the possibility of a short
extension based on specific need, with the recognition that if
they do not need it, then Congresswoman Lee's vision would
happen just 90 days later and likely would allow for the Senate
to enact this bill.
So I fashioned this after listening to what I thought were
the arguments over the last 2 years by both sides and believing
that this legislation that I voted for in my first term in
Congress truly does need to have a sunset certainty. And this
would allow for us to get sunset certainty.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I would yield for whatever
time you need.
Chairman Meeks. The gentleman yields back.
I now yield 5 minutes to myself. Let me first thank, as
many of my colleagues, Barbara Lee for her great work for all
of these years in putting this bill together in regards to the
AUMF.
And I respect Rep Issa's interest in some sense, but the
problem is the 2002 AUMF doesn't need a sunset. It just needs
to be repealed. It is not for anything else. It doesn't need a
sunset. It needs to be repealed. It is our duty to consider and
vote on authorizations to use military force. We simply cannot
keep avoiding that responsibility.
I repeat again, the 2002 AUMF is not needed for any current
operations. That is what the 2001 AUMF is for.
If the President needs authorization for a future
operation, he should come to us in Congress, and we should
consider an issue on its own merits. That is how it is supposed
to work. The President can take defensive action without
Congress, but if he wants to take offensive action, he needs to
work with Congress. And we need to do our jobs and work with
him.
Letting the President just continue to extend the 2002 AUMF
for any purposes he sees fit is exactly how Congress ended up
on the sideline on issues of war and peace in the first place.
I am cutting my remarks short there, because that is the
reason I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Do any other members wish to speak on this amendment?
Hearing no further requests to speak, the question is on the
amendment. We are going to take a vote by voice. All members,
please unmute your microphones.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, no.
In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it, and the
amendment is not agreed to. And without objection, the motion
to reconsider is laid upon the table.
Mute me for a second.
The committee will now resume consideration of the
amendment to H.R. 2118, the other measure of which roll call
votes were requested and postponed. The question is on the
amendment designated number--what was that designation? 53. We
are going to do 53, to H.R. 2118, Securing America From
Epidemics Act.
A recorded vote is ordered. All members, please make sure
you are visible to the chair, and unmute your microphone when
your name is called. As you cast your vote, please be sure to
say your name for the record first, and then for your vote. For
example, Representative Jones votes no.
The clerk, will you please call the roll?
Ms. Stiles. Representative Sherman.
Mr. Sherman. This is a vote on final passage?
Chairman Meeks. This is--yes, on the amendment to H.R.
2118.
Mr. Sherman. Oh. So this is a vote on the amendment offered
by which member?
Chairman Meeks. Perry.
Mr. Sherman. Sherman votes no.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Sherman votes no.
Representative Sires.
Mr. Sires. Sires votes no.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Sires votes no.
Representative Connolly.
Mr. Connolly. Connolly votes no.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Connolly votes no.
Representative Deutch.
Mr. Deutch. Deutch votes no.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Deutch votes no.
I do not see Representative Bass.
Representative Keating.
Chairman Meeks. Can somebody mute until your name is called
by the clerk?
Ms. Stiles. Representative Keating.
Chairman Meeks. You have to unmute, Representative Keating.
I see you, but I do not hear you.
Ms. Stiles. I will come back to you.
Representative Cicilline.
Mr. Cicilline. Cicilline votes no.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Cicilline votes no.
Representative Bera.
Mr. Bera. Representative Bera votes no.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Bera votes no.
Representative Castro.
Mr. Castro. Castro votes no.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Castro votes no.
Representative Titus.
Ms. Titus. Titus votes no.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Titus votes no.
I do not see Representative Lieu. Oh, there you are, sir.
Representative Lieu.
Mr. Lieu. How did the chair vote?
Ms. Stiles. The chair has not voted, sir. It is Perry
Amendment Number 53.
Chairman Meeks. It is a vote on the Perry amendment.
Mr. Lieu. No.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Lieu votes no.
Representative Wild.
Ms. Wild. Wild votes no.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Wild votes no.
Representative Phillips.
Mr. Phillips. Phillips votes no.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Phillips votes no.
I do not see Representative Omar.
Representative Allred.
Mr. Allred. Allred votes no.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Allred votes no.
Representative Levin.
Mr. Levin. Levin votes no.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Levin votes no.
Representative Spanberger.
Ms. Spanberger. Spanberger votes no.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Spanberger votes no.
Representative Houlahan.
Ms. Houlahan. Houlahan votes no.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Houlahan votes no.
Representative Malinowski.
Mr. Malinowski. Malinowski, no. And not because it is from
Mr. Perry.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Malinowski votes no.
Representative Kim.
Mr. Kim of New Jersey. No.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Kim votes no.
Representative Jacobs.
Ms. Jacobs. Representative Jacobs votes no.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Jacobs votes no.
Representative Manning.
Ms. Manning. Manning votes no.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Manning votes no.
Representative Costa.
Mr. Costa. Costa votes no.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Costa votes no.
Representative Vargas.
Mr. Vargas. Vargas, no.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Vargas votes no.
I do not see Representative Gonzalez.
Representative Schneider.
Mr. Schneider. Schneider votes no.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Schneider votes no.
Ranking Member McCaul.
Mr. McCaul. McCaul votes aye.
Ms. Stiles. Ranking Member McCaul votes aye.
Representative Smith.
Mr. Smith. Smith votes aye.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Smith votes aye.
Representative Chabot.
Mr. Chabot. Chabot votes aye.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Chabot votes aye.
Representative Wilson.
Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson votes aye.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Wilson votes aye.
Representative Perry.
Mr. Perry. Even if it is Perry, Perry votes aye.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Perry votes aye.
Representative Issa.
Mr. Issa. Aye.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Issa votes aye.
Representative Kinzinger.
Mr. Kinzinger. Kinzinger, aye.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Kinzinger votes aye.
I do not see Representative Zeldin.
Mr. Zeldin. Zeldin votes aye.
Ms. Stiles. Oh. I am so sorry, sir. One more time?
Mr. Zeldin. Zeldin votes aye.
Ms. Stiles. Thank you. Representative Zeldin votes aye.
Representative Wagner.
Mrs. Wagner. Wagner votes aye.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Wagner votes aye.
Representative Mast.
Mr. Mast. Representative Mast votes aye.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Mast votes aye.
Representative Fitzpatrick.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Fitzpatrick votes aye.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Fitzpatrick votes aye.
Representative Buck.
Mr. Buck. Buck votes aye.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Buck votes aye.
Representative Burchett.
Mr. Burchett. Burchett votes aye.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Burchett votes aye.
Representative Green.
Mr. Green. Green votes aye.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Green votes aye.
Representative Barr.
Mr. Barr. Barr, aye.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Barr votes aye.
I do not see Representative Steube.
Representative Meuser.
Mr. Meuser. Meuser votes aye.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Meuser votes aye.
I do not see Representative Tenney.
Representative Pfluger.
Mr. Pfluger. Pfluger votes aye.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Pfluger votes aye.
Representative Malliotakis.
Ms. Malliotakis. Malliotakis votes yes.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Malliotakis votes aye.
Representative Meijer.
Mr. Meijer. Meijer votes aye.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Meijer votes aye.
Representative Jackson.
Mr. Jackson. Representative Jackson
[inaudible].
Ms. Stiles. I am sorry. One more time, Representative
Jackson?
Mr. Jackson. Representative Jackson votes yes.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Jackson votes aye.
Representative Young Kim.
Mrs. Kim of California. Representative Young Kim votes aye.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Young Kim votes aye.
I do not see Representative Salazar.
And I am going to go back through, make sure I did not miss
anyone here.
First, I will start with Chair Meeks.
Chairman Meeks. Chairman Meeks votes no.
Ms. Stiles. Chair Meeks votes no.
Mr. Keating. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Meeks. Yes.
Mr. Keating. Representative Keating. Have I been recorded?
Ms. Stiles. Representative Keating, I do not have a vote
for you yet, sir.
Mr. Keating. Keating votes no.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Keating votes no.
Chairman Meeks. Have all members been recorded?
Ms. Stiles. One moment, please, sir.
Chair Meeks, all members have been recorded.
Chairman Meeks. The clerk will report the tally.
Ms. Stiles. Chair Meeks, on that vote, we had 24 noes and
21 ayes.
Chairman Meeks. The amendment is not agreed to.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon
the table.
The question is to report H.R. 2118, Securing America From
Epidemics Act, to the House with the recommendation that the
bill do pass. We are going to take a vote by voice. All
members, please unmute your microphones.
All those in favor, say aye.
All opposed, no.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the
motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.
The question is on the amendment designated Number 52, the
Perry Amendment Number 52, to H.R. 256, repeal the
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution
of 2002.
A recorded vote is ordered. All members, make sure you are
visible to the chair and unmute your microphones when your name
is called. As you cast your vote, please be sure to say your
name for the record first, and then your vote. For example,
Representative Jones votes no.
The clerk will call the roll.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Sherman.
Mr. Sherman. On the Perry amendment, Sherman votes no.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Sherman votes no.
Representative Sires.
Mr. Sires. Sires votes no.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Sires votes no.
Representative Connolly.
Mr. Connolly. Connolly votes no.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Connolly votes no.
Representative Deutch.
Mr. Deutch. Deutch votes no.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Deutch votes no.
I do not see Representative Bass.
Representative Keating.
Mr. Keating. Keating votes no. People should mute, please.
I could barely hear you.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Keating votes no.
Representative Cicilline.
Mr. Cicilline. Representative Cicilline votes no.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Cicilline votes no.
Representative Bera.
Mr. Bera. Representative Bera votes no.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Bera votes no.
Representative Castro.
Mr. Castro. Castro votes no.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Castro votes no.
Representative Titus.
Ms. Titus. Titus votes no.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Titus votes no.
Representative Lieu.
Mr. Lieu. Lieu votes no.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Lieu votes no.
Representative Wild.
Ms. Wild. Wild votes no.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Wild votes no.
Representative Phillips.
Mr. Phillips. Phillips votes no.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Phillips votes no.
Representative Omar. I am sorry. I do not see
Representative Omar here. All right.
Representative Allred.
Mr. Allred. Allred votes no.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Allred votes no.
Representative Levin.
Mr. Levin. Levin votes no.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Levin votes no.
Representative Spanberger.
Ms. Spanberger. Spanberger votes no.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Spanberger votes no.
Representative Houlahan.
Ms. Houlahan. Houlahan votes no.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Houlahan votes no.
Representative Malinowski.
Mr. Malinowski. Malinowski, no.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Malinowski votes no.
Representative Kim.
Mr. Kim of New Jersey. No.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Kim votes no.
Representative Jacobs. Representative Jacobs, I see you on
camera, ma'am. Would you like to vote? Representative Jacobs,
would you like to cast your vote?
Ms. Jacobs. Representative Jacobs votes no.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Jacobs votes no.
Representative Manning.
Ms. Manning. Manning votes no.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Manning votes no.
Representative Costa.
Mr. Costa. Representative Costa votes no.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Costa votes no.
Representative Vargas.
Mr. Vargas. Vargas, no.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Vargas votes no.
I do not see Representative Gonzalez.
Representative Schneider.
Mr. Schneider. Schneider votes no.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Schneider votes no.
Ranking Member McCaul.
Mr. McCaul. McCaul votes aye.
Ms. Stiles. Ranking Member McCaul votes aye.
Representative Smith.
Mr. Smith. Smith votes aye.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Smith votes aye.
Representative Chabot.
Mr. Chabot. Aye. Chabot is aye.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Chabot votes aye.
Representative Wilson.
Mr. Wilson. Wilson votes aye on the Perry amendment.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Wilson votes aye.
Representative Perry.
Mr. Perry. Perry votes aye.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Perry votes aye.
Representative Issa. Representative Issa, I see you on
camera, sir.
Mr. Issa. Representative Issa votes aye.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Issa votes aye.
Representative Kinzinger.
Mr. Kinzinger. Kinzinger, aye.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Kinzinger votes aye.
Representative Zeldin.
Mr. Zeldin. Zeldin votes aye.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Zeldin votes aye.
Representative Wagner.
Mrs. Wagner. Wagner, aye.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Wagner votes aye.
Representative Mast.
Mr. Mast. Representative Mast votes aye.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Mast votes aye.
Representative Fitzpatrick.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Fitzpatrick votes aye.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Fitzpatrick votes aye.
I do not see Representative Buck.
Mr. Buck. Can you see me now?
Ms. Stiles. Yes. Now I can, sir. Would you like to cast
your vote?
Mr. Buck. Buck votes no.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Buck votes no.
Representative Burchett. Representative Burchett, you are
muted, sir.
Mr. Burchett. Burchett votes aye.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Burchett votes aye.
Representative Green.
Mr. Green. Green votes aye.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Green votes aye.
Representative Barr.
Mr. Barr. Barr, aye.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Barr votes aye.
I do not see Representative Steube.
Representative Meuser.
Mr. Meuser. Meuser votes aye.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Meuser votes aye.
I do not see Representative Tenney.
Representative Pfluger.
Mr. Pfluger. Pfluger votes aye.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Pfluger votes aye.
Representative Malliotakis.
Ms. Malliotakis. Malliotakis votes yes.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Malliotakis votes aye.
Representative Meijer.
Mr. Meijer. Meijer votes no.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Meijer votes no.
I do not see Representative Jackson.
Mr. Jackson. Representative Jackson. Can you see me?
Ms. Stiles. Sorry, sir. I do now. Would you like to cast
your vote?
Mr. Jackson. Yes. Representative Jackson votes yes.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Jackson votes aye.
Representative Young Kim.
Mrs. Kim of California. Representative Young Kim votes aye.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Young Kim votes aye.
I do not see Representative Salazar.
Chair Meeks.
Chairman Meeks. Chairman Meeks votes no.
Ms. Stiles. Chair Meeks votes no.
Chairman Meeks. Have all members been recorded?
Mr. Gonzalez. No, sir. Congressman Gonzalez, Vincente
Gonzalez, votes no.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Gonzalez votes no.
Chairman Meeks. Have all members been recorded? Any members
wishing to change their vote?
Will the clerk please report the tally?
Ms. Stiles. Chair Meeks, on that vote, there were 27 noes
and 19 ayes.
Chairman Meeks. The amendment is not agreed to.
The question is to report H.R. 256, to repeal the
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution
of 2002, to the House, with a recommendation that the bill do
pass.
We are going to take a vote by voice. All members, please
unmute your microphones.
All those in favor, say aye.
All opposed, say no.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the
motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.
Without objection, staff is authorized to make any
technical and conforming changes.
Pursuant to the House Rule----
Mr. McCaul. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Meeks. Mr. McCaul?
Mr. McCaul. With that, I ask for a recorded vote.
Chairman Meeks. The question to report H.R. 256 to repeat
the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Resolution of 2002, with the recommendation that the bill be
passed. All members, please turn on your video, so you are
visible to the chair, and wait to unmute your microphone until
your name is called, as you cast your vote. Please be sure to
say your name for the recording--for the record first, and then
for your vote.
The clerk will please call the roll.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Sherman.
Mr. Sherman. Sherman votes aye.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Sherman votes aye.
Representative Sires.
Mr. Sires. Sires votes yes.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Sires votes aye.
Representative Connolly.
Mr. Connolly. Connolly votes aye.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Connolly votes aye.
Representative Deutch.
Mr. Deutch. Deutch votes aye.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Deutch votes aye.
I do not see Representative Bass.
Ms. Bass. I am here. I vote aye.
Ms. Stiles. I am so sorry, ma'am.
Ms. Bass. Can you see me?
Ms. Stiles. Yes, ma'am. I do. Representative Bass votes
aye.
Representative Keating.
Mr. Keating. Yes.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Keating votes aye.
Representative Cicilline.
Mr. Cicilline. Representative Cicilline votes aye.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Cicilline votes aye.
Representative Bera.
Mr. Bera. Representative Bera votes aye.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Bera votes aye.
Representative Castro.
Mr. Castro. Castro votes aye.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Castro votes aye.
Representative Titus.
Ms. Titus. Titus votes aye.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Titus votes aye.
Representative Lieu.
Mr. Lieu. Lieu votes aye.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Lieu votes aye.
Representative Wild.
Ms. Wild. Wild votes aye.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Wild votes aye.
Representative Phillips.
Mr. Phillips. Phillips votes aye.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Phillips votes aye.
I do not see Representative Omar.
Representative Allred.
Mr. Allred. Allred votes aye.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Allred votes aye.
Representative Levin.
Mr. Levin. Levin votes aye.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Levin votes aye.
Representative Spanberger.
Ms. Spanberger. Spanberger votes aye.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Spanberger votes aye.
Representative Houlahan.
Ms. Houlahan. Houlahan votes aye.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Houlahan votes aye.
Representative Malinowski.
Mr. Malinowski. Malinowski, aye.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Malinowski votes aye.
Representative Andy Kim.
Mr. Kim of New Jersey. Aye.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Andy Kim votes aye.
Representative Jacobs.
Ms. Jacobs. Representative Jacobs votes aye.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Jacobs votes aye.
Representative Manning.
Ms. Manning. Manning votes aye.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Manning votes aye.
Representative Costa.
Mr. Costa. Representative Costa votes aye.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Costa votes aye.
Representative Vargas.
Mr. Vargas. Vargas, aye.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Vargas votes aye.
Representative Gonzalez.
Mr. Gonzalez. Gonzalez votes
[inaudible].
Ms. Stiles. I am sorry, sir. One more time?
Mr. Gonzalez. Gonzalez votes aye.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Gonzalez votes aye.
Representative Schneider.
Mr. Schneider. Schneider votes aye.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Schneider votes aye.
Ranking Member McCaul.
Mr. McCaul. McCaul votes no.
Ms. Stiles. Ranking Member McCaul votes no.
Representative Smith.
Mr. Smith. Smith votes no.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Smith votes no.
Representative Chabot.
Mr. Chabot. Chabot votes no.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Chabot votes no.
Representative Wilson.
Mr. Wilson. Wilson votes no.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Wilson votes no.
Representative Perry.
Mr. Perry. Perry is no.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Perry votes no.
Representative Issa.
Mr. Issa. No.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Issa votes no.
Representative Kinzinger.
Mr. Kinzinger. Kinzinger votes no.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Kinzinger votes no.
Representative Zeldin.
Mr. Zeldin. Zeldin votes no.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Zeldin votes no.
Representative Wagner.
Mrs. Wagner. Wagner votes no.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Wagner votes no.
Representative Mast.
Mr. Mast. Representative Mast votes no.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Mast votes no.
Representative Fitzpatrick.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Fitzpatrick votes no.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Fitzpatrick votes no.
Representative Buck.
Mr. Buck. Buck votes aye.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Buck votes aye.
Representative Burchett.
Mr. Burchett. Burchett votes no.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Burchett votes no.
Representative Green.
Mr. Green. Green votes no.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Green votes no.
Representative Barr.
Mr. Barr. No.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Barr votes no.
I do not see Representative Steube.
Representative Meuser.
Mr. Meuser. Meuser votes no.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Meuser votes no.
I do not see Representative Tenney.
Representative Pfluger. You are unmuted, sir. Or, I am
sorry, you are muted. Representative Pfluger. Representative
Pfluger, your audio is cutoff, sir. I am going to keep going,
but we will ask after we are done. Okay. Let the record show
that Representative Pfluger did a thumbs down sign. So
Representative Pfluger votes no.
Representative Malliotakis.
Ms. Malliotakis. Malliotakis is no.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Malliotakis votes no.
Representative Meijer.
Mr. Meijer. Meijer votes aye.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Meijer votes aye.
Representative Jackson.
Mr. Jackson. Representative Jackson, no.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Jackson votes no.
Representative Young Kim.
Mrs. Kim of California. Representative Young Kim votes no.
Ms. Stiles. Representative Young Kim votes no.
I do not see Representative Salazar.
Chair Meeks.
Chairman Meeks. Meeks votes aye.
Ms. Stiles. Chair Meeks votes aye.
Chairman Meeks. Have all members been recorded? Any members
wishing to change their vote?
The clerk will report the tally. The clerk will report the
tally.
Ms. Stiles. Chair Meeks, on that vote, there were 28 ayes
and 19 noes.
Chairman Meeks. The ayes have it. And without objection,
the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. The measure is
ordered favorably reported. Without objection, staff is
authorized to make any technical and conforming changes.
Pursuant to House Rules, members will have 2 calendar days
to file with the clerk of the committee supplemental, minority,
additional, or dissenting views for inclusion in a report to
the House on any of the bills ordered reported by the committee
today.
This concludes our business today, and I want to thank
Ranking Member McCaul and members of both sides of the aisle
for all of their contributions to--and assistance to today's
markup. It is a markup that I think that we had some very good
debate, and I look forward to continuing to work together to
make America stronger.
I now adjourn this markup.
[Whereupon, at 7:02 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
BILLS AND AMENDMENTS
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
VOTES
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
MARKUP SUMMARY
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
INFORMATION FOR THE RECORD
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[