H.Res. 1430

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this entire Republican majority has been one gigantic, complete, total failure, a complete mess from day one with the majority in charge. It is an embarrassment.

We have 8 weeks left in the 118th Congress to do our legislative work, and instead of doing something to make life better for anyone or, hell, even the bare minimum, by stopping a government shutdown, we are considering a no-good stopgap resolution that extends funding into 2025.

My colleagues have to love this: The gentleman from New York is on the floor today trying to convince everyone to vote for the bill when Republicans cannot even convince their own Members to vote for it. Seriously, every minute I look at my phone, I see another Republican defecting.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican manager is wasting his time debating me. He needs to be debating his Republican friends who are coming out against the bill in droves. Clearly, the majority doesn't have the votes for this awful plan, so why are we wasting time here in this House on a bill that has no chance whatsoever of ever becoming law?

Mr. Speaker, this is embarrassing for the Republican side of the aisle. It is mid-September. Republicans said the majority would get all 12 separate appropriation bills done before we left for the August break. That is yet another broken promise, among a long list from Speaker Johnson, to add onto all the broken promises from Speaker McCarthy before him.

House Republicans are once again showing their deep disrespect for the veteran community by proposing a 6-month CR that shortchanges the VA Cost of War Toxic Exposures Fund by $12 billion. That is morally reprehensible and just plain cruel. These are our veterans who we are talking about. How the hell can Republicans turn their backs on our veterans?

To be clear, this is the Republican playbook: a big promise, and it gets broken. Republicans promised we will have a robust, effective appropriations process, and it gets broken. Republicans promised to continue supporting our veterans, and it gets broken.

Now we are headed into another potential shutdown, all because Members on the other side of the aisle want to play political games. To make matters worse, Mr. Speaker, Republicans have jammed the SAVE Act onto the CR because why not mix up government funding with more ridiculous conspiracy theories about voter fraud?

I know why my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to bring this bill to the floor. Republicans are worried the majority won't win in November without pushing conspiracy theories.

Mr. Speaker, let's set something straight: Noncitizens cannot vote in Federal elections. Let me repeat that: Noncitizens cannot vote in Federal elections. If they vote, it is illegal. It is a crime.

Guess what? They have done studies. Even conservative institutes say there is no evidence that noncitizens voted illegally in large enough numbers to shift the outcome of any election.

We all know what this is about. It is not about voter fraud. This is part of their Project 2025 plan to undermine the vote count and take total control of the government.

Mr. Speaker, the majority wants power whether Republicans win or lose at the ballot box, and so my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will claim voter fraud, whatever happens, the facts be damned.

Do Republicans really want to talk about the threat of voter fraud?

Let me remind the American people: The only ones committing voter fraud in an attempt to overthrow an election are Republicans. We have seen this movie before. Following Trump's loss in the 2020 election, he and his cronies allegedly conspired to overturn the will of the American people by submitting fake electors to falsely certify that Trump won the election. He didn't win the election. He lost the election.

What did those efforts get them: Dozens of people across four States have been indicted over this election fraud scheme.

Republicans want to talk about the threat of voter fraud. Give me a break. Republicans are the threat.

This horrible CR will never become law the way it is structured. We are really just here wasting more time after House Republicans failed to do what they should have done months ago.

This rule before us today would also bring to the floor five bills that Republicans claim will target China, five bills that are actually weak on China, five ineffective bills that don't get the job done and don't represent a real attempt to actually address some of the very serious concerns we have about the PRC.

Mr. Speaker, I have been a critic of China's human rights record for decades, longer than some of my colleagues have been in Congress. Hell, I was sanctioned by the Chinese Government in July. I can't travel to China. My wife can't travel to China. My son can't travel to China. My daughter can't travel to China. I can't even converse with any Chinese officials.

I have written strong, effective bills that would hold the PRC accountable, and so they don't like me. They sanction me, and I wear that sanction as a badge of honor.

Let me be clear: These bills that the gentleman referred to are not about taking a strong stance against China. They are poorly written, weak bills that don't get the job done. It is like they are written for a press release. I am sorry. That is because they are meant for a press release and not about serious legislating.

Believe it or not, we can strengthen our national security. We can stand up to China on human rights, and we can support our veterans and make sure they get the care that they need.

We can fund the government. We can do all of that and more if we work together. That is what people want. They want us to behave like adults. Sadly, Republican leadership is more interested in sound bites and FOX News headlines heading into November than they are about governing.

I say they would rather put politics ahead of progress but, Mr. Speaker, Project 2025 isn't just politics. It is weird. It is shameful. It is deeply dystopian. It is dangerous stuff.

Americans are tired of this garbage, and I think they are about to make some very different choices starting November.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

It is unbelievable. All we heard last night and all we are hearing now on the House floor from the other side is that it is the Senate's fault. That is the reason why House Republicans aren't doing their job and that is why they are pushing this misguided CR is because of Senate Democrats. We heard that again today.

Guess what: Even Republican Senators hate this CR plan.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include a link to an article in the Record from NewsNation titled, ``House GOP government funding plan gets chilly reception from Senate Republicans.''

The link is: https://www.newsnationnow.com/the-hill/ house-gop-government-funding-plan-gets-chilly-reception-from-senate- republicans/ Mr. Speaker, their own Republican colleagues are worried that this ``measure requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote could complicate the stopgap funding bill's path,'' and that this ``comes dangerously close to risking a shutdown.''

Here is an idea: If Republicans are so serious about the CR, maybe they should have done some work to shore up support within their own party.

However, let me just talk about how Republicans feel about this CR.

Tom Massie on the Rules Committee tweeted: ``I am voting Hell No on the `continuing resolution and the other matter act' this week. I don't care which bright shiny object is attached to it, or which fake fight we start and won't finish.''

The gentleman from New York decided to talk about national security. Here is another news flash for the gentleman: The top Republican national security expert in the House, the Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Mike Rogers, says he is a ``no'' on the CR. He says it is bad for the Pentagon. He hopes other HASC members will vote ``no'' too.

That is your top guy on national security. He is voting ``no.''

It is reported from Melanie Zanona that ``Representative Cory Mills says he has informed the whip team that he is a no on the 6-month CR plus SAVE Act. Also says there are `quite a few' other Republicans who are against it who haven't said so publicly yet.''

Matt Rosendale tweets: ``1 year later, the same old theatrics by the D.C. cartel. I have never voted for a CR, and I never intend to.''

John Bresnahan reports that Representative Jim Banks is a ``no'' on the CR.

Jordain Carney reports that Representative Burchett says he is currently a ``no'' on the CR plus SAVE plan. He says there are many, many others that want to vote no.

Marjorie Taylor Greene is a no on everything, so she is no on this, as well.

I have to be honest with the gentleman, your problem isn't House Democrats or Senate Democrats; your problem is House Republicans. You can't even get consensus amongst your own Members of your own party.

This is ridiculous that we are here debating this rule to bring up a CR that is going nowhere fast.

Last night in the Rules Committee, Representative Massie said: ``This SAVE Act isn't going to save anything.''

Representative Massie, as everybody knows, is a prominent leader in the Republican caucus. He says, and particularly because ``it ain't never going to become law. It's a false promise to get all the Republicans half pregnant. Then you're going to get fully pregnant by the end of September when you vote for this CR. . . . '' That is not going to have--``I hate to break it to you, and I'm not telling you anything special. I hate to break it to the Republicans, you ain't getting the SAVE Act.''

Then he concludes by saying: But ``This is political theater,'' folks. I have to tell you, it is bad political theater, and it is pathetic.

Here we are at this late day approaching a government shutdown and we get this garbage.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

My God, the Republicans must be really afraid of losing the November election if the conspiracy theories are already starting up this early.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from the Cato Institute titled: ``Noncitizens Don't Illegally Vote in Detectable Numbers.''

Mr. Speaker, at a press conference on the SAVE Act, the Speaker of the House said: ``We all know, intuitively, that a lot of illegals are voting in Federal elections, but it has not been something that is easily provable. We don't have that number.''

Mr. Speaker, this body legislates based on facts, not on intuition or conspiracy theories. Maybe it is time for House Republicans to get serious about their jobs and stop making laws based off their absurd conspiracy theories.

Again, I say to the gentleman after that little rant that maybe he needs to be talking to his Republican Members, who all have basically said that the inclusion of the SAVE Act on this horrific CR is basically a gimmick. It is a gimmick to get people to look someplace else and not look at the fact that Republicans are not doing their job.

If we want to talk about an insult to our men and women in uniform, then I hope that they will join with me in defeating the previous question. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to include $12 billion that our Nation's veterans need for their healthcare, $12 billion that the House Republicans decided, intentionally, to leave out of their partisan continuing resolution.

Mr. Speaker, with this unserious and unacceptable continuing resolution, Republicans are not only risking disaster assistance and domestic investments, but they are also shortchanging veterans and jeopardizing their care.

An additional $12 billion is needed before the new year to maintain medical care for veterans. That is just a fact.

The House Republican bill does not include a single dollar of the $12 billion needed, shortchanging veterans and jeopardizing the medical services they need and have earned.

Mr. Speaker, our veterans deserve our support. It is our responsibility to provide the care that they have earned. This inadequate continuing resolution does not meet the moment, which is why I am giving my Republican colleagues the chance now to do the right thing and include the funding for our veterans in this continuing resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include the text of my amendment in the Record, along with any extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, there were lots of things that were left out of this CR, and the Republicans came up with a manager's amendment to try to address that, but they left out the $12 billion for our veterans.

They left out $12 billion for our veterans. I don't understand that. There is no explanation for that. It is so wrong.

To discuss our proposal, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Ruiz).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Oh, my God. I don't even know where to begin, to be honest with you. There is just so much there.

First of all, let me read from a letter that the Secretary of Defense sent to all of us here in Congress. He said: ``A 6-month CR would set us significantly behind in meeting our pacing challenge highlighted in our National Defense Strategy, the People's Republic of China. The PRC is the only global competitor with both the intent and capability to change the international order. The PRC does not operate under CRs. Our ability to execute our strategy is contingent upon our ability to innovate and modernize to meet this challenge, which cannot happen under a CR. Asking the Department to compete with the PRC, let alone manage conflicts in Europe and the Middle East, while under a lengthy CR, ties our hands behind our back while expecting us to be agile and to accelerate progress.'' That is what the Secretary of Defense sent to Congress.

Republicans are here with a bunch of fake anti-China bills that will never become law, but what they are actually doing is hurting our national security.

This approach, their CR, is hurting our national security. It is not just the Secretary of Defense saying that. As I said earlier, the Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee has said it, and that is why he is opposing the Republican CR, so let's get that straight.

The other thing is, on the SAVE Act, it is true that a military ID alone is not sufficient to meet the criteria of the SAVE Act. Is that how we thank the men and women who serve our country?

In fact, many Americans don't have the kind of identification required to be able to comply with the SAVE Act, but that is even beside the point because, as Republican after Republican has said, this is a gimmick. This is going nowhere. This is just a sound bite during an election. This is not real. This is all theater. That is not me saying it. It is Republican after Republican saying that.

In terms of helping our veterans, let me tell you, Republicans keep talking about the $112 billion in the bill for VA care, but guess what? These dollars were already provided in last year's bill.

Both VA and OMB say that these dollars are insufficient and that they need an additional $12 billion or our veterans' care will be affected. That is what has been said to Republicans and Democrats over and over again.

Mr. Speaker, this bill provides zero additional dedicated funding for vets with toxic exposures. Zero. I don't understand why, when you are trying to fix some of the omissions in the manager's amendment that was put in in the Rules Committee, this could not have been added. These are our veterans. These are people who have served our country. These are people who have been exposed to toxic chemicals who are battling with all kinds of illnesses and diseases.

The least we can do is make sure the funding is there so they can get adequate healthcare. This bill provides none of that $12 billion. I don't understand what my Republican friends are thinking.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, we have 3 weeks left to ensure that our government doesn't shut down. Instead of working with Democrats to keep the government open, what we have here is an awful, cynical, partisan continuing resolution that has exactly zero chance of becoming law. Hell, as I said earlier, it may not even pass the Republican-controlled Congress.

It is like Republicans won't even try to get the job done. They have passed 4 appropriations bills out of 12. That is it, and they want a trophy for that. I mean, it is pathetic how little work has been done in this House.

Again, they have sent a grand total of four appropriations bills to the Senate, although listening to them last night at the Rules Committee, you would think they had completed all their work and everything is wonderful. Imagine thinking 30 percent was a passing grade. It is pathetic.

At the end of the day, the Republican majority has failed the American people, and the Republican majority has failed the American people miserably. They want to condition keeping our government open on a Project 2025 pipe dream to disenfranchise millions of Americans at the ballot box. Let me be clear, the SAVE Act is not about targeting undocumented immigrants. It is about suppressing the vote of millions of American citizens.

Again, I point out what happened in the last election. The person who shall not be named by name lost but didn't want to accept the loss and instructed people to go out there and to submit fraudulent electors to try to stoke all these conspiracy theories.

Multiple people are now under indictment for trying to overturn the legitimate results of the last election. The threat to our democracy, the threat to our election integrity, is the Republicans.

My friends are willing to rip $12 billion away from our sick veterans all to play political games. What is wrong with them, Mr. Speaker? They are pursuing poorly written, bad bills that are soft on China when we could be doing the real work, teaming up across the aisle to strengthen our national security. It is a joke. It is a joke. It is embarrassing. All they bring to the table is destruction, disruption, dysfunction, and the dystopian Project 2025. Every measure before us today is a bad deal.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can help our veterans. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and on the underlying bills.

Mr. Speaker, we have to do better. If the government shuts down because of their dysfunction, real people in this country get hurt. We need to come together and get our work done. Enough of this partisan garbage.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1516. While I support the spirit of Mr. Pfluger's bill, which seeks to help address the threat posed by the People's Republic of China and the Chinese Communist Party, I cannot support this bill as it is presently written.

H.R. 1516 is fatally flawed. This bill denies critical homeland security funding to U.S. universities, puts American students at risk, and harms our national security.

H.R. 1516 would prohibit any DHS funding from going to any U.S. university that has any relationship with virtually any Chinese university. That means no FEMA funding, no disaster preparedness funding, and no terrorism prevention funding. In fact, this bill is totally divorced from the very real concerns we all have when it comes to Chinese espionage and national security.

In all likelihood, universities across this country will have to shut down student exchange programs, deny students study-abroad opportunities, and stop hosting guest lectures, panel events, or sporting events with Chinese universities if this poorly written, overbroad bill becomes law.

For example, under this bill, Colgate University, located in the district of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Williams), would be prohibited from receiving FEMA grants simply because Colgate has a program that gives students an opportunity to get firsthand experience abroad while being hosted by a university in Shanghai.

The same goes for Cal State Fullerton, located in the district of the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Steel). Cal State Fullerton pioneered international partnerships with Chinese universities back in 1984 so that students could collaborate on educational and cultural exchanges.

Because of these bilateral agreements with partner institutions in China, this bill would prohibit DHS from helping students or CSU Fullerton if an earthquake strikes Orange County.

What about Niagara University, where Mr. Langworthy went to college? Niagara signed an exchange agreement for MBA students from a university in China, which is the world's second largest economy. Would Niagara University be prohibited from receiving FEMA grants if a major blizzard or flood sweeps through Niagara County? Under H.R. 1516, the answer is yes.

SUNY Binghamton, located in the district of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Molinaro), has an exchange program with a Chinese university so that SUNY Binghamton students can learn the Chinese language, a critical foreign language for the military and for business leaders.

Because of that exchange program, SUNY Binghamton would be denied funding and contracts for something as basic as DHS renting a room to host a hiring event or as serious as DHS providing help responding to a flood.

The same goes for Valdosta State University, located in the district of the gentleman of Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott). Since Valdosta State has a Chinese exchange program in urban planning and land resource management, it would lose any shot at DHS funding for research, hurricane preparedness, or terrorism prevention.

Supporting this bill also means that the University of Iowa, located in the district of the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Miller-Meeks), would be cut off from DHS funding to help it prepare for a tornado or acts of violence just because Iowa has an informal requirement that its Chinese majors study abroad in China and because Iowa has programs housed at universities in China.

It also means that Hofstra University, located in the district of the gentleman from New York (Mr. D'Esposito), would not be able to apply for FEMA grants because Hofstra has a dual-degree program with Dongbei University of Finance and Economics in China.

I could go on listing how this bill, as it is written, could hurt universities and students in each of our districts. The bottom line is that this bill is not just absurd; it is cruel.

H.R. 1516 is so poorly written that neither its author, Mr. Pfluger, nor Committee on Homeland Security's chairman, Mark Green, were able to answer even the most basic questions about the bill during our committee markup.

Democratic Members pointed out at markup that the definition of ``relationship,'' which triggers the funding prohibition in this bill, would incorporate all sorts of agreements, including student exchange programs and other cultural programs that help American students.

Mr. Pfluger, the bill's author, told members of our committee that the type of relationship is very important. You have rightly pointed that out. It is a monetary relationship.

Well, that is not what the bill says. It says that any institution of higher education that ``has a relationship with a Confucius Institute or Chinese entity of concern is ineligible to receive any funds from the Department of Homeland Security.''

If the bill's sponsor meant monetary relationship, the word ``monetary'' would be in the definition.

Then there is this overbroad term, ``Chinese entity of concern.'' During the markup, the bill's sponsor said something about DHS works with the university to deem an entity of concern.

Well, DHS does not deem entities of concern, so I don't know where that idea came from. Chairman Green tried to clean up the definition by saying, as I understand it, by the definition, it would only be those with ties to the military. Once again, that is not what the bill says.

Madam Chair, I cannot support a bill drafted so poorly that even its author and committee chairman do not know what it bans and do not know what it allows. I especially cannot support a bill that does all the damage I just described.

It is not just that this bill was poorly drafted. This bill has been mismanaged from the start. The bill's sponsor rejected bipartisan language agreed to by the Homeland Security Committee last Congress and reverted to the same bad language the committee had to fix in 2022.

Then the committee chairman reported the wrong text out of the committee, and not a single Republican noticed for 9 months. That is why the bill on the Union Calendar is not the same one in the Rules Committee print now under consideration.

Madam Chair, if we were voting on the language the Republicans actually reported out of committee, the language all of our committee staff probably read when the committee went to congress.gov, we would be having a different conversation.

I oppose H.R. 1516 because it is a poorly written and mismanaged bill that demonstrates a lack of seriousness among Republicans when it comes to the bipartisan desire to address the threat posed by the People's Republic of China and the Chinese Communist Party.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, this bill does not provide the Secretary of Homeland Security authority to issue a waiver from funding restrictions if it is in the interest of America's national security.

Without this waiver, we just cannot get behind this bill. We need to allow the experts, those at DHS, to determine what is in the best interest of our national security. This waiver was part of this bill when it was reported out of committee last Congress and supported by Democrats. Its absence in this bill today is a fatal flaw.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Magaziner) to discuss better versions of this bill.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, this bill does not ban China from influencing our institutions of higher education. It just makes universities choose between relationships with Chinese universities and the Department of Homeland Security funding.

This bill will not stop China's practice of exploiting the open and collaborative nature of American academia to conduct industrial and military espionage. I know that this is something that the sponsor of this bill, Mr. Pfluger, cares about because those are his words. Unfortunately, this bill does not get us there.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, we should not be on the floor today on this fatally flawed bill. Congressional Democrats recognize threats posed by China and the Chinese Communist Party. In fact, we worked with Republicans last Congress to craft a bipartisan bill on this very issue.

Instead, today, House Republicans have decided to reject their own past work and try to make up for their do-nothing Congress with this absurd and extreme measure rammed through just ahead of an election, despite multiple procedural and policy errors.

Governing by theme without any thought to very real negative outcomes in no way makes policy.

This bill would deny all Department of Homeland Security funds to all U.S. colleges and universities with any relationship whatsoever to practically any Chinese university.

This bill's author and my Homeland Security Republican colleagues did no factfinding. They could not answer questions about the bill during markup. They repeatedly said the bill does not do things that the bill says it does. If this bill's author doesn't know what the bill does, then how can he expect it to become law?

This whole thing is a cruel disservice to American universities, academics, and students. It puts them and DHS in horrible positions.

In addition to forcing American colleges and universities with any relationship with any Chinese university to choose between that relationship and DHS funds for disaster relief or terrorism prevention, this bill does not provide the Secretary of Homeland Security with any strategic flexibility to

waive the funding prohibition when in the national security interests of the United States.

This House previously granted the Secretary of Defense a similar waiver on a bipartisan basis, but congressional Republicans do not think the Homeland Security Secretary should be given the same authority.

Mr. Chair, the Committee on Homeland Security has not produced a single law this Congress. In contrast to a proud record of bipartisan cooperation and legislating over the last 20 years, House Republicans have turned our committee, which I have served on from its beginning, into a partisan press release factory and done nothing to make the homeland more secure.

I repeat: We have not passed or produced a single law this Congress.

H.R. 1516 is another sad example of the extreme MAGA Republican failure to deliver for the American people.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this flawed, extreme partisan messaging bill and vote ``no'' on H.R. 1516, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record President Biden's Statement of Administration Policy opposed to H.R. 1516.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 1516--DHS Restrictions on Confucius Institutes and Chinese

Entities of Concern Act--Rep. Pfluger, R-TX, and 18 cosponsors

The Administration supports the intent of H.R. 1516, the

DHS Restrictions on Confucius Institutes and Chinese Entities

of Concern Act, which would prohibit institutions of higher

education that have relationships with certain institutes

funded by the government of the People's Republic of China

(PRC) or located in the PRC from receiving Department of

Homeland Security (DHS) funds. The Administration appreciates

Congress's efforts to ensure that DHS funding is made

available only to partners that advance U.S. interests,

homeland security, and democratic norms. However, there may

be more appropriate ways to prevent DHS funding from being

directed toward academic institutions that are vulnerable to

the PRC's increasing monetary influence. The Administration

looks forward to working with Congress to refine this bill as

it moves through the legislative process.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to Mr. Cline's amendment. This amendment is impractical and infeasible, like the bill he is trying to amend.

This amendment will require the Department of Homeland Security to identify and report on any U.S. college or university that has any relationship with a Chinese entity of concern.

The Republican author of H.R. 1516 and the Homeland Security Committee Republicans who rammed this partisan bill through committee should have done a little factfinding before bringing this bill to the floor. Had they done so, then Mr. Cline would not be asking for this impractical amendment because his colleagues would have been able to tell him which universities in the United States have a relationship with a Confucius Institute or Chinese entity of concern.

The problem at the heart of this amendment is the Republicans' made- up, overbroad definition of ``Chinese entity of concern.'' It requires a multipart test to identify Chinese universities that participate in military-civil fusion, the Chinese defense industrial base, and receiving funding from the Chinese Communist Party.

I agree that those sorts of relationships between Chinese universities and the Chinese Communist Party are a

problem, but the term ``Chinese entity of concern'' goes way past actual security risks and deems every Chinese university a threat without regard to actual national security concerns.

For example, it encompasses any university in China that provides any support to the police. As a result, if a university in China were to provide support for a criminal investigation, such as a crime against a U.S. study-abroad student, suddenly the university in China would qualify as a Chinese entity of concern.

Even American university campuses located in China would be deemed a Chinese entity of concern if they were to provide any sort of support to the police in China. If an American student at an American university's branch in China gets stabbed, that branch campus would become a Chinese entity of concern if it as much as provided translation services to the police to catch the perpetrator. This is absurd.

This amendment would drain DHS resources and require DHS to dedicate teams of staff to gain considerable insight into internal Chinese Government functions in order to identify which of China's 3,000 universities are an entity of concern. DHS has acknowledged that this would be a struggle.

If that wasn't enough, DHS would then have to figure out which universities it provides funds to have a relationship with the Chinese university that meets the entity of concern definition. Those relationships would include perfectly innocent and valuable agreements, including student exchange programs and other cultural programs that help American students get a well-rounded education.

H.R. 1516 is already poorly drafted and fatally flawed, so it is not surprising we are adding impractical into the mix with this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, I stand in opposition to H.R. 1425. We can't forget the dark times that COVID-19 brought to our communities across the United States and around the entire world. The pandemic resulted in a tragic loss of lives. More than 1.2 million Americans and more than 7 million people around the world died. The next pandemic is not a matter of if, it is a matter of when.

During the response to COVID-19, we saw inequities, inequalities, and unfairness across the international system--vaccine manufacturing capabilities benefiting wealthy nations and vaccine access being denied to less wealthy nations who were forced to wait in line and, in some cases, punished for sharing COVID samples with CDC labs and other global health institutions that helped improve the efficacy of U.S.- produced vaccines.

The American people understand that the United States' leadership is critical to addressing the world's most pressing challenges. A key way to do this is through multilateral institutions, including the World Health Organization. Working multilaterally is critical to strengthening our national security and to securing our public health systems.

Don't just take my word for it. In a nationwide poll conducted at the height of the pandemic, it was found that 82 percent of American voters supported the United Nations' role in helping to stop the spread of COVID-19 overseas. That included 98 percent of Democrats and 69 percent of Republicans.

The pandemic accord aims to strengthen global pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response. The United States is a linchpin in ensuring a pandemic accord not only serves our global health security interests but also helps coordinate a global response to public health threats that don't see our borders.

H.R. 1425 is a sadly, nakedly partisan attempt to subvert U.S. diplomatic efforts to reach a pandemic accord agreement alongside 194 World Health Organization member states. The draft pandemic agreement strengthens the global workforce, improves distribution of medical countermeasures, and provides funding for WHO members to improve their response capacity. We must not miss this opportunity to improve global health systems response capacity, including to prevent the tragic loss of life in the United States of America and globally.

Only by learning from our mistakes made during the global response to the COVID-19 pandemic, this agreement could be a watershed moment in advancing global health security. We must support the ongoing pandemic agreement negotiations, as it could prove essential to saving American lives. Unfortunately, this bill only serves to undermine diplomatic efforts seeking to strengthen global health security.

House Foreign Affairs Committee Democrats unanimously opposed this measure at markup, and we made clear when this bill was marked up by our committee in July, the President has the authority of acceding to an agreement through executive action.

Executive action does not require the advice and consent of the Senate. The vast majority, 90 percent, of all U.S. international legal agreements are approved via executive action rather than formal approval by the Senate.

The draft pandemic agreement under negotiation is not a treaty. If it were, I would be standing in support of H.R. 1425.

While framed as an effort to increase congressional oversight, this bill really is a part of Republicans' politicization of COVID response and antiscience-based policy. It puts the safety and national security of Americans in jeopardy, simply because they don't like the WHO, or any multilateral institutions for that matter, under their isolationist--they like to isolate themselves from everything and everyone. It is the MAGA platform.

If the U.S. is not allowed to sit at the table or our negotiating leverage is weakened by this bill, our adversaries and those who do not have our best interests in mind, guess what, they will be the ones to fill the void.

The Biden-Harris administration has made a good-faith effort to notify Congress of its planned actions regarding U.S. negotiations, and these efforts have been met with unanimous opposition from Senate and House Republicans who have voiced their opposition to any agreement no matter what its contents are.

One of the misleading claims made by critics of the draft pandemic agreement includes the idea that it would subvert U.S. sovereignty. Yet, in fact, the draft pandemic agreement explicitly states that it does not give the WHO any power to dictate specific policy to member nations and that member states may implement policies according to their sovereign laws. Simply put, the draft pandemic agreement expressly affirms the sovereignty of nations to address public health matters.

False claims that the agreement would undermine our sovereignty have been thoroughly debunked by multiple reputable sources. The Biden- Harris administration has made it clear that they will not support any agreement harmful to U.S. interests, including our sovereignty.

Securing the pandemic agreement would be essential to saving not just American lives but many lives around the world. This bill undermines diplomatic efforts seeking to strengthen global health security, and I, alongside all House Foreign Affairs Committee Democrats, unanimously oppose this measure.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The gentleman indicated that he had not seen or known of the draft. I would refer him to the WHO's website. There is plenty of information. Just go to the website.

On the website, Article 24, Paragraph 3 of the draft agreement--I am reading from it now--goes on to say that: ``Nothing in the WHO pandemic agreement shall be interpreted as providing the WHO Secretariat, including the WHO Director-General, any authority to direct, order, alter or otherwise prescribe the domestic laws or policies of any party, or to mandate or otherwise impose any requirements that parties take specific actions, such as ban or accept travelers, impose vaccination mandates or therapeutic or diagnostic measures, or implement lockdowns.''

It is clear, concise, and available.

Furthermore, I understand that the Biden administration has issued a statement of policy on this bill strongly opposing it.

I include in the Record that statement of administration policy.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 1425--No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval

Act--Rep. Tiffany, R-WI, and 59 cosponsors

Pandemic preparedness was a day one priority for the Biden-

Harris Administration. Under this Administration's

leadership, the United States has coordinated global efforts

to end the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic and ensure

the international community is better prepared to respond to

the next pandemic.

The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 1425, which

provides that any international instrument on pandemic

prevention, preparedness, and response reached by World

Health Organization (WHO) member states pursuant to the

recommendations, report, or work of the International

Negotiating Body (INB) established by the second special

session of the World Health Assembly ``is deemed to be a

treaty'' and require the advice and consent of the Senate.

Presidents have historically taken a variety of approaches to

making and carrying out international agreements, and this

bill would improperly purport to constrain the President's

authority to do so in furthering the important work of

achieving advancements, with the international community, to

prevent, prepare for, and respond to pandemics. If enacted,

this bill would undermine efforts by this Administration and

future Administrations to better protect the United States by

preventing international public emergencies like COVID-19

from happening again. The Administration will continue to

engage with the Congress and adhere to well-established

principles in assessing the outcome of the work of the INB as

these negotiations continue.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me say, Mr. Chair, that I believe that one of the things that my Republican friends are trying to do here is to divert the actions, the inactions, and the failure of the prior administration during the pandemic. I think that is what the real issue is here and that is what the problem is. That is why they are putting this bill forward. It is because they know about the former President, and they know what he said during the time of the pandemic. It is still there for all the world to see about what he said at that particular time. It is this debate, and this bill is why they are debating this and are against the bill vigorously.

So what happened?

What did Donald Trump say?

Let's go back, because sometimes it seems as though our memories fail of what took place during the pandemic. One way we can do that is let's look at what the President said because he loves to tweet, or now whatever else he puts it on, but he said:

``We are in very close communication with China concerning the virus. Very few cases reported in USA, but strongly on watch. We have offered China and President Xi any help that is necessary. Our experts are extraordinary!''

That is what he said. Then he came right back after that:

``I think our relationship has never been better. We're very much involved with them, right now, on the virus that's going around. We're working very closely. I spoke to President Xi. We're working very closely with China. And, honestly, I think, as tough as this negotiation was, I think our relationship with China now might be the best it's been in a long, long time.''

He goes on, and on January 29 he said:

``Just received a briefing on the Coronavirus in China from all of our great agencies, who are also working closely with China. We will continue to monitor the ongoing developments. We have the best experts anywhere in the world, and they are on top of it 24/7!''

That is the former President of the United States.

What I think has to happen is that we must apply some of the very painful lessons from COVID-19. One of those lessons that we learned is we must strengthen our global health systems.

The pandemic agreement, if secured, could do just that. We learn from the past. It would help us, but if we do H.R. 1425, we would be effectively sending and torpedoing the United States' membership in the WHO's pandemic agreement.

Now, I know as, I said before, my Republican colleagues don't like to be a part of multilateral organizations. However, when we have a worldwide pandemic, it is multilateral organizations working collectively together that can save lives because it doesn't stay in one part of the world. It travels all over the world, and it means that we have to conversate, negotiate, and work with others.

The world is much smaller today. You can't isolate it. We have got to work with people. Multilateral organizations are for that purpose. Oftentimes our experts' voices lead. If you take our voices away, then it hurts the American public, the American people, and our friends and allies and others all around the world.

We have got to strengthen our multilateral relationships, especially when we are talking about WHO's pandemic agreement. That is because what that agreement aims to do is strengthen global pandemic prevention and strengthen preparedness and response. We can't let this noise and we can't allow Republicans to politicize the response of COVID pandemic and utilize antiscience-based policies to derail our diplomatic efforts. This is something that we really should be working together on to get done.

Doesn't it just make sense that we are part of the process of improving and moving forward for the next pandemic because we know it is not a matter of if, it is a matter of when the world will have it?

Don't you want to learn so the lives that we lost previously are no longer lost?

Preventing them should be our goal in a bipartisan way, not coming up with something that virtually takes away our negotiating power with the WHO and move forward.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the esteemed gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee). My colleague is the ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations' State, Foreign Operations, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

First, I thank my colleague, the indomitable Congresswoman from California, Barbara Lee, for her remarks on the bill and on PEPFAR, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. She is a true leader and a tremendous advocate on many issues, but especially on PEPFAR.

I support her bill that reauthorizes PEPFAR. As she stated, it is one of the most successful U.S.-led global health interventions ever. She did it in a bipartisan way with a Republican President and Republican Senate. That is the way we used to do business around here.

PEPFAR, as she said, has saved over 25 million lives in more than 50 countries. I was pleased by the statements made by my Foreign Affairs Committee chair, my friend who I have talked to about this bill over and over again, Mike McCaul, during a hearing we had where we recognized the importance of PEPFAR's programming in Africa.

Chairman McCaul emphasized the need to ensure the extension of PEPFAR, ``a 20-year success story.'' He highlighted the President of Botswana's gratitude toward PEPFAR, who noted its public health impacts have saved a generation.

I was pleased by Africa Subcommittee Chair John James, who today praised PEPFAR as the most successful foreign policy tool since the Marshall Plan and declared we have to have a long-term reauthorization plan--bipartisanship at its best--and recognition of the value of

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1398. This legislation, which would establish a so-called CCP Initiative within the national security division of the DOJ, is simply a rehash of the Trump administration's failed China Initiative by another name. Resurrecting this misguided program, as this bill would do, represents a clear step backwards.

When the Trump Justice Department launched what it called the China Initiative in 2018, it claimed its purpose was to counter efforts by the Chinese Government to steal American intellectual property. This might have been a laudable goal, but what actually resulted was little more than a series of unsupportable cases against Chinese academics at the height of their careers that left their reputations in tatters.

The government was forced to drop many of these prosecutions. Others failed in court. Even more were overturned on appeal. No matter how you look at the data, a postmortem analysis shows that the China Initiative was an undisputed failure. From the flimsy cases brought under this program to the so-called brain drain of scientists of Chinese descent who left American research labs, the China Initiative hurt our interests here at home.

The Trump DOJ devoted significant resources to targeting professors of Chinese descent working in the United States, diverting crucial funding and personnel that could have been used to combat actual economic espionage and trade secret theft.

However, the China Initiative did not just waste valuable resources. If you were a person of Chinese descent working in American higher education, you were a suspect. Rather than keeping America safe, the China Initiative divided workplaces, ruined careers, and contributed to anti-Asian hate at the height of the pandemic.

The resulting chilling effect hampered American innovation by discouraging foreign talent from moving to American companies and disincentivizing Chinese researchers from accepting positions at our institutions of higher learning.

It is foolhardy to punish China by harming American innovation, but by discouraging researchers from working here, that is exactly what the Trump administration did with the China Initiative. Countries around the world send their best and brightest to the United States for education and to perform valuable research in our academic institutions.

Instead of welcoming their contributions to our economy and to our society, programs like the China Initiative encouraged them to take their training and their talents elsewhere.

We cannot quantify those missed opportunities. There is no way to know what inventions never came to be, but we can realize when we made a mistake and move on. This bill would prevent us from doing so.

Despite its well documented failures, reviving the China Initiative is a key plank of the ultraconservative Project 2025 agenda, the blueprint for a potential new Trump administration. Republicans cannot credibly argue that resurrecting this program is about keeping Americans and our business secrets safe because we know that racially profiling professors of Chinese descent was unsuccessful. It did, however, contribute to an us versus them mentality that divided Americans and heightened tensions across the country.

It is particularly disappointing that we are engaging in this partisan exercise because the fact is that Democrats and Republicans largely agree that China poses a threat to the United States. There are bipartisan bills ready for markup, ones that could pass on suspension today, but instead the majority has chosen to take up bills that divide us.

Since the end of the China Initiative, the DOJ has embraced a broader strategy to counter threats from hostile nations, not just China, but Iran, North Korea, and Russia. For example, the Disruptive Technology Strike Force has been lauded by both sides of the aisle for doing what the China Initiative failed to do. It collaborates across agencies to prevent nation-state actors from illicitly acquiring our most sensitive technology by successfully investigating and prosecuting illegal procurement networks.

We are on the right path to protecting our Nation's secrets and keeping Americans safe. This legislation would take us in the opposite direction.

I oppose this legislation. I encourage my colleagues to do the same, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu).

Mr. Chair, I have two comments before I call on the next speaker. Number one, I wouldn't count on the next Trump administration--maybe, but I wouldn't count on it.

Number two, during the Trump administration, anti-Asian crimes spiked, and as I recall, we passed an anti-Asian crimes bill, which was signed into law by President Biden.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Veasey).

Mr. Chair, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Krishnamoorthi).

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Tokuda).

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, it has been said that figures don't lie but liars figure. The figures are very clear. Crime has gone down under the Biden administration. I don't care what anybody in this Chamber says. Those are the statistics. Consult the FBI and crime statistics. Crime has gone down every single year since the Biden administration took office. No one can debate that, at least no one can debate that if you believe the FBI statistics or any other statistics, unless you are getting your information from the Trump campaign or from Project 2025 or other less than honest sources.

Having said that, I urge the defeat of this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Chairman, using fear and division for political benefit while pushing policies that hurt American innovation and American ideals is irresponsible and dangerous. However, that is exactly what we are doing here today.

The China Initiative was a divisive program that made Americans afraid of one another and produced zero benefits. Donald Trump and the MAGA movement had 4 years to come up with new policy solutions, but they decided to play politics instead.

Just last week, we learned that the Russian Government was paying conservative influencers in an attempt to manipulate our elections. We also know that they are not the only hostile foreign nation trying to do so.

We should be working to address that threat. We should be working to protect our elections. Instead, we are taking part in a partisan exercise that does nothing except take our eye off the ball to the real dangers to our people, our government, and our businesses.

There is so much we could do together. Under the Biden-Harris administration we enacted the bipartisan Chips and Science Act which has sparked tremendous investment in domestic manufacturing of computer chips crucial to national security. That is what actual leadership and that is what actual policy solutions look like. Unfortunately, Republicans have chosen the politics of division.

Instead of looking forward and developing new strategies for taking on the threats that face this Nation, the Republican majority wants to take us back to the failed policies of the past. The Chinese Government poses real threats, but this bill would do nothing to address them while setting back our efforts to take meaningful action.

The China Initiative failed to address any of the actual threats posed by the Chinese Government and only succeeded in ruining the careers of academics and scientists of Chinese descent while stifling American innovation.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, even though I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, this amendment would add to the annual report a study on the impact of hacking and trade secret theft by the PRC on the United States economy.

If anything, this amendment highlights the magnitude of agreement between Republicans and Democrats on the danger from the Government of China to our economy and our security. I have no problem with the Department of Justice increasing its reporting to us. I, too, would like to know how hacking by PRC-affiliated groups impacts the United States economy.

For that matter, I would like to know how it impacts our elections and our national security, too. If this bill only consisted of its annual report section, we could all agree and move on. Agreement, however, is not a possibility under this partisan exercise.

The China Initiative is part of the Trump Project 2025 agenda not because of its potential for good bipartisan work, but, rather, when the China Initiative was an active program, it divided Americans and encouraged foreign scientists to leave our research labs.

This bill would do the same, and improving the reporting section unfortunately will not change that.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, this amendment would require agencies to identify intellectual property theft of small businesses by the CCP. I have no concerns with adding this to the legislation, and I agree that it is important that we root out instances of intellectual property theft of small businesses.

Unfortunately, adding this provision to H.R. 1398 does not make small businesses any safer from IP theft by the Government of China. In fact, it puts them in even more danger.

Since the end of the China Initiative, the Department of Justice has implemented the Strategy for Countering Nation-State Threats and the Disruptive Technology Strike Force, which have been effective at rooting out economic espionage and trade theft by nation-states, including China.

The China Initiative was a total failure. Adding this well- intentioned amendment to Frankenstein's monster is not going to make this program less of a failure when we resurrect it.

Moreover, by requiring the DOJ to create a duplicate program and then attempting to impose limitations on the use of resources, this bill dilutes and ultimately reduces the ability of prosecutors and investigators to respond to the range of foreign threats faced by the United States.

Again, I support this amendment and the spirit with which it is offered, even though it would not improve the underlying bill.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would require an analysis of the use of unmanned aircraft by the PRC, as well as related elements, such as communication links and components required to operate safely and efficiently in national airspace.

I appreciate that the gentleman from Florida is curious about spying by the PRC in the United States. I think we all are. As with all of these other amendments, even if, by themselves, they were a good or even just neutral idea, they cannot make the China Initiative redux any better. I have said this repeatedly throughout this process. We agree on the threat from the government of China, so what is the purpose of bringing up a bill that divides us?

I would also note that the investigation into the PRC's use of CUAS to spy on the United States is being conducted by multiple agencies, including the Pentagon, the Department of Homeland Security, and the

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, this amendment would require prosecutors to investigate investments made by Chinese companies and subsidiaries listed on the Bureau of Industry and Security's Entity List and the DOD's PRC Military Companies List.

Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment primarily because the language here exemplifies the broader problem with

the entire legislation. By requiring an agency to investigate certain parties, the China Initiative did not give prosecutors leeway to prioritize cases or to choose where to expend resources. This all-or- nothing approach resulted in a culture of fear in research labs across America with few successful prosecutions to show for it.

This approach is what led to investigations of grant applications for paperwork errors. Rather than looking for the individuals seeking to commit trade crimes, the requirement to investigate relegated many DOJ prosecutors to the role of meter maids handing out parking tickets.

Mr. Chair, I am also opposed to this amendment because we already do something very similar. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States already looks at all pending Chinese investments into the United States.

This amendment would duplicate this work, causing a further strain on the limited resources available at the Department of Justice.

Finally, the language is unclear as to the limit of these investigations. This broad mandate for investigations into existing investments without any clear objective, again, could lead to the kind of overreach the original China Initiative suffered from.

Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment and encourage my colleagues to do the same, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge

the 23rd anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks. Today will serve as a reminder that we should work hard to guard against terrorism and always stand against hate.

Mr. Speaker, moving to the debate on H.R. 9456, I would like to start by noting that Democrats, especially those serving on the Financial Services Committee, have a strong record of working with Republicans to counter threats from the People's Republic of China. In fact, just yesterday, the House passed two bills from our committee.

Unfortunately, H.R. 9456 is not an example of that kind of bipartisanship. In fact, this bill undermines a bipartisan law that we passed just 6 months ago. Yes, it was 6 months ago that the House and Senate worked across the aisle and with the Biden-Harris administration to pass legislation that would protect our national security from adversarial countries like China acquiring critical agricultural land in the United States.

To help review foreign investments involving U.S. agriculture, this bipartisan law added the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS, which is the interagency committee that determines whether a foreign investment in a United States company or asset could pose a threat to our national security. That law further codified reporting and coordination between the Secretary of Agriculture and CFIUS.

I mention this law, Mr. Speaker, because I think my Republican colleagues have forgotten what we did only 6 months ago. In their rush to pull together bills for the so-called China week, they appear to have brought up a poorly drafted copy of legislation we already passed.

However, in the frenzy to bring this bill to the floor, H.R. 9456 doesn't duplicate the law. Rather, it results in the Secretary of Agriculture having to report countless transactions to the committee that have nothing to do with our national security.

Currently, the law provides to the Secretary of Agriculture the support of the United States intelligence community to identify those transactions that may pose a threat to our national security. Inexplicably, H.R. 9456 removes that intelligence community assistance, leaving the Secretary to guess which transactions might pose a threat to our national security.

Further, unlike the law that was passed just 6 months ago, the bill broadens the scope from ``foreign governments and entities of concern'' to now include ``foreign persons,'' which means all individuals and entities of China, Russia, Iran, or North Korea. This means anyone with citizenship in those countries, including refugees or people who are here in the United States with green cards or other visas.

The bill's broad-brush approach of targeting individuals from China, North Korea, Russia, and Iran amounts to racial profiling. This bill's focus is similar to the restrictive, xenophobic real estate laws passed in a number of States, like Florida, where citizens of the same countries are banned from buying property and which has resulted in numerous instances of discrimination.

It is for this reason that this bill is opposed by the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, the National Iranian American Council, Stop AAPI Hate, Asian Americans Advancing Justice, the National Council of Asian Pacific Americans, the Asian American Scholar Forum, and the American Civil Liberties Union.

The Biden-Harris administration has also put out a Statement of Administration Policy, saying that is it inconsistent with CFIUS process and would not be implementable as drafted.

Mr. Speaker, these deficiencies, taken together, will divert precious resources from CFIUS' targeted national security reviews. This is a bad bill that harms the bipartisan work we already passed this year and would sow divisions among neighbors across America.

Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I will vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to highlight just how rushed the process for this bill has been. I remind my colleagues that this bill was only introduced 5 days ago, on Friday of last week.

The notice of the Rules Committee hearing for this bill went out the same day that the bill was introduced, and the hearing happened the very next Monday.

That timing didn't give Members and staff so much as a single business day to prepare, let alone for the Treasury Department and outside groups to conduct their own analyses. Needless to say, there hasn't been a single hearing on this bill, nor has it ever been marked up. To top it all off, the rule providing for consideration of the bill gives Members no opportunity for amendment.

Considering we just passed legislation to address the very concerns that this bill purports to tackle, I can see no policy reason as to why we are moving ahead with this bill so hastily. Given the serious defects with this bill, I don't understand why Republican leadership is denying Members the opportunity to properly assess these issues.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have insisted on following regular order again and again, so I would urge them to heed their own calls on this bill and allow this body to properly consider this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is exactly right that the Financial Services Committee passed language that is similar in some respects to Representative Newhouse's bill just 6 months ago in the Consolidated Appropriations Act.

That language reflected bipartisan work done by the Financial Services Committee on two Republican bills that had been marked up by our committee with unanimous votes. We continue to work in a bipartisan manner as well as with the Senate and the Treasury Department to get language that reflected these two bipartisan bills into the appropriations bill, which ultimately got passed into law.

It is simply false to claim that the bill we are considering today is somehow a harmless duplication of what we have already enacted, as I have laid out in detail already.

This bill undermines the bipartisan work that we have done on this issue and raises serious concerns about both national security and racial profiling. We already did the work to strike a reasonable bipartisan compromise on this front, but Republicans are choosing to undermine that bipartisanship with this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), the ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Several groups have come out in opposition to this bill over concerns of racial discrimination and profiling, including the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, the National Iranian American Council, the Stop AAPI Hate, the Asian Americans Advancing Justice, the National Council of Asian Pacific Americans, the Asian American Scholar Forum, and the American Civil Liberties Union.

For example, according to the American Civil Liberties Union:

This legislation discriminates and targets individuals

solely because of their citizenship and tends to conflate

individuals from covered countries with their governments. It

does this despite the lack of any showing that it is

necessary or that passing this bill would do anything to

protect U.S. national security interests.

According to the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus:

H.R. 9456 is not an effective way to address national

security. It is a continuation of our Nation's shameful

history in enacting racist alien land laws from the 19th and

20th century that barred Chinese and Japanese immigrants from

purchasing land and which eventually laid the groundwork for

mass incarceration of 120,000 Japanese Americans during World

War II.

We cannot go back to those shameful parts of our history where we denied equal protections and due process for entire ethnic groups simply because of their ethnic heritage.

The bipartisan language that we already passed into law appropriately tailors reporting from the Secretary of Agriculture to include only those transactions that have a national security nexus, including transactions that involve foreign governments or entities of concern, which is defined to include foreign terrorist organizations or sanctioned entities on the Treasury Department's economic and trade sanctions lists.

The law also provides support to the Secretary of Agriculture from the United States intelligence community to determine which transactions may pose a national security concern.

This bill overturns that bipartisan compromise and would treat refugees and legal immigrants from any of these countries in the same manner as known terrorist groups.

This is outrageous. I hope that both sides of the aisle will do what is right, do what is fair, and recognize the history that we are not proud of as it relates to racial profiling.

I hope that we would do the right thing on this bill. This bill should not be passed. We have already done what was needed in a bipartisan way. I don't know why they would take time to undermine the work that we did, and I certainly want a ``no'' vote on the bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

My colleague across the aisle has pointed out that the language that we passed into law as part of the Appropriations Act just 6 months ago may expire along with the appropriations.

While that may be the case, it is simply false to claim that all this bill would do is ensure that the language survives past that expiration. If that were all this bill were doing, I would support it, the same way I supported that language before.

In fact, I would urge Republicans to bring a bill to the floor that would exclusively eliminate any expiration on the bipartisan language that we have already passed so that we can continue to work in a bipartisan manner on this issue, instead of moving this harmful bill that we are considering here today.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As I laid out in my opening remarks, this bill confusingly duplicates and conflicts with existing law.

To be clear, this bill would add new language rather than amending the existing language that is already in law. Having two conflicting laws creates significant legal ambiguity as to how to interpret these competing texts.

It would undoubtedly result in litigation as agencies struggle to determine what their legal obligations are, tying up limited resources at both CFIUS and the Department of Agriculture.

This hastily written text does not appear to have appropriately taken into account the resulting legal ambiguities, and I would urge all of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to, at the very least, take the time to address these legal ambiguities and provide a clear mandate.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for closing.

H.R. 9456 undercuts not only a bipartisan accomplishment from 6 months ago, but also our government's ability to stop adversarial countries like China and Russia from acquiring companies, technology, and land that are critical to our national security.

This bill will also cause financial harm to lawful, permanent residents and other immigrants based solely on an investor's citizenship.

Members of this body considered this issue just 6 months ago, passing bipartisan legislation to add the expertise of the Secretary of the USDA to CFIUS and improving the process by which agricultural land transactions are shared with and reviewed by the government.

That bill was drafted in coordination with the Biden-Harris administration as well as Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate. It was passed into law through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024. There is no need to rewrite this law.

H.R. 9456 is a rush job by the House Republican leadership, and it shows how harmful this bill is to both our national security and the people who we serve.

I would just say to my colleagues that if you are really concerned about security, if you really want to support ag and the farmers, why did you just pull the continuing resolution that we were supposed to take up to continue government functioning?

Now, I guess you don't have the votes, and you are doing nothing to protect the very people who you purport to want to protect. Wow.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.