Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, as ranking member of the Asia and the Pacific Subcommittee, I rise to support H. Res. 1157, which reaffirms the strong commitment of the United States to the countries and territories of the Pacific Islands region. I want to applaud Representative Bordallo for introducing this, and I am proud to join with others as a cosponsor.

First, this resolution sends an important message to the 300,000 Americans who call the region home. Our fellow Americans in Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa, for them, this measure recognizes that they are a critical part of our Nation's fabric.

Indeed, when North Korea threatened to launch missiles at a U.S. territory, it said that it would hit Guam. We cannot forget about these Pacific territories and, in Congress, we have an obligation to make sure that their voices are heard in these Halls.

This resolution also specifically encourages continued support for the Compacts of Free Association which we currently have with the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and Palau. Currently, the United States provides, under these compacts, essential governmental functions, including defense.

While our compact with Palau was recently renewed, the Compacts of Free Association with the Federated States of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands will expire in 2023. We in Congress should not wait. We should ensure that the compacts are expeditiously renewed. These arrangements not only help encourage the development of Palau, Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands, but also serve our core national security interests.

I know firsthand that we cannot take our Pacific partnerships for granted--not just in the compact states, but across the region, because other states around the region are facing entreaties from the Chinese Government.

The Chinese Government states that the Pacific Islands are a core component of their One Belt, One Road initiative, which seeks to ensnare small nations into Beijing's debt traps.

We know that China is stepping up its military involvement in the region, recently placing acoustic sensors in the Mariana Trench to track American submarine movements.

As the resolution recognizes, the solution to this challenge is for the U.S. to strengthen its engagement. We must ``increase the frequency of high-level bilateral and multilateral visits with leaders of Pacific Islands'' and find issues to work on in common.

For example, many of the Pacific Island nations face an existential threat from rising sea levels. Accordingly, this resolution calls for us to work with these countries to address the negative impacts of climate change. Many of the territories or islands of these countries actually face submersion as a result of rising sea levels. In doing so, we would work with our partners around the world.

While China employs bully tactics to unilaterally assert itself in the Pacific, the United States sets an example by working closely with the island nations and with Australia and New Zealand to promote sustainable development across the region.

I want to thank Representative Bordallo again for her leadership on this issue. This resolution is an overdue affirmation of our commitment to the prosperity of the American territories in the Pacific and to the strengthening of the relationships between the United States and the nations of the region.

Mr. Speaker, last week, I cosponsored H.R. 5233, The Adoptee Citizenship Act of 2018. This is bipartisan legislation that seeks to make an important correction to U.S. adoption law.

Currently, when a child is legally adopted by an American parent and is raised by the family here in the U.S., they automatically acquire U.S. citizenship. However, when Congress updated the law, it failed to address the situation for thousands of families with previously adopted children. We need to correct that, which is why I support H.R. 5233.

This legislation does not create a new loophole that allows anyone to game the system These are individuals who legally entered the U.S. They were legally adopted as children, and they grew up here believing they were U.S. citizens. Unfortunately, through no fault of the children, adoptive parents in several thousand cases failed to properly file all of the citizenship papers on behalf of their adoptive children, often not realizing that it was even necessary after completion of the legal adoption process. If you were legally adopted by an American family, entered the U.S. legally as a child, and raised in the United States, you are an American. I look forward to working with both my Republican and Democratic colleagues on this bipartisan effort.

Mr. Speaker, as the Ranking Member of the Asia and the Pacific Subcommittee and the founder and chair of the Sindh Congressional Caucus, I have long focused on the human rights conditions in Pakistan. I have long urged Pakistan's government to ensure the human rights of its citizens and uphold the rule of law. This is especially true in Sindh province. Today, I wish to discuss two issues currently confronting the Sindhi community: enforced disappearances and the construction of dams along the Indus River.

The most egregious problem in Sindh is enforced disappearances. The United Nations defines enforced disappearances as ``the arrest, detention, abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty by agents of the State or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person.'' Hidyat Lohar (Loohaar),

Khadim Arijo, and Aqib Chandio are just three of the hundreds of people in Sindh who have been forcefully disappeared. Often times, these people later turn up dead, and no justice is ever served. To give just one example, Dr. Anwar Laghari was murdered three years ago, and no perpetrator has been brought to justice. In fact, no one has even been charged.

Another issue plaguing Sindh province is the construction of dams and canals along the Indus River. Sindh province's economic well-being depends on having sufficient access to the water supplied by the Indus River. For decades, Sindh and Punjab provinces have shared this vital water supply. Recently, however, the Pakistani government has taken to unilaterally constructing dams and canals along the river without Sindh province's consent. This has increasingly choked off Sindh's water supply, threatening the province's economic viability.

These problems must be addressed. I urge the Trump administration to raise these issues with the new Pakistani government starting with Secretary of State Pompeo, who is meeting with the Pakistani Foreign Minister on October 2.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute and mourn the recent passing of a long-serving former staffer of mine, Evita Mendiola, after a battle with cancer. She grew up in San Diego and lived briefly in the California Bay Area before settling in Los Angeles. Evita worked for me on my first campaign for Congress in 1996 and served as Executive Assistant in both my Washington and Los Angeles offices for 12 years. She went on to work for our former colleague, Dale Kildee in his Washington office for another four years before returning to California in 2013.

My staff and I were deeply saddened to hear of her passing. I extend all of her family my deepest condolences, especially to her mother Renate Mendiola and her brother, Robert King. Evita loved her family, and was especially dedicated to her precious nieces and nephews. She took great pride in their achievements and spent much of her free time at their athletic events and extracurricular activities.

She served both Dale and I with dedication and diligence. She was my longest serving and best Executive Assistant. Evita watched over her colleagues and served by my side with fierce loyalty to the office, to the district, to my constituents and to the priorities of the office.

Evita was more than an Executive Assistant. She was a utility player that handled case work and field representative duties whenever called upon--even though being a ``scheduler'' alone is the toughest job in a Congressional office.

She took a particular interest in helping young people with their plans to attend military service academies. Over the years she guided dozens of applicants through the very complex and competitive application processes to make sure they received the opportunity to pursue serving our country. The annual service academy nominations became a highlight for me and members of my staff because of the hard work Evita put into it. Our country is better because of the military service of young people from the San Fernando Valley whom Evita helped pursue their dreams.

Evita served as a mentor for junior staff and interns alike. She often maintained contact with former staff and interns years after they had left the job, offering guidance, support and friendship.

Once again Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the life and service of Evita Mendiola who will ultimately be remembered for her dedication to her family and country. May her family find comfort and solace in the memories they shared and in the life she led.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I want to applaud the chair and the ranking member for a tour de force of bipartisanship: 32 bipartisan bills with near unanimous support in our committee, all put together in one outstanding package.

I want to thank them both for including in this the BUILD Act, introduced by Mr. Loudermilk and me. This bill will help Habitat for Humanity and similar organizations. It says that when they provide a zero percent loan, they can use the old disclosure forms or the new disclosure forms, whichever is easiest for them and whichever they have the software to produce.

This bill is supported by Habitat for Humanity International and the National Housing Conference. It passed our committee with a unanimous 53-0 recorded vote.

I want to thank both the chairman and the ranking member for including this legislation in an excellent package, and I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4819, the DELTA Act, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry) for his initiative in putting forward this legislation to help protect one of Africa's most important ecosystems. I am pleased to cosponsor this measure. I also want to commend Chairman Royce and Ranking Member Engel for their leadership on international conservation issues, particularly the fight against wildlife trafficking.

The Okavango River Basin in Angola, Botswana, and Namibia supports an amazing array of wildlife, including the largest remaining concentration of elephants in Africa. It is also home to more than a million people.

The DELTA Act requires the development of a strategy to encourage sustainable management of natural resources in the river basin, including the protection of wildlife. This strategy will require input from a wide range of stakeholders, including national governments, local communities, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector.

The goal is to support economic development for the residents of the region while preserving unique ecosystems and protecting wildlife.

The DELTA Act has the support of key conservation organizations, including the World Wildlife Fund and the Wildlife Conservation Society.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this bipartisan legislation, which passed our committee by unanimous voice vote, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to reiterate the importance of conservation in combating the scourge of wildlife trafficking around the world. This bill reaffirms our commitment to these goals and will result in a strategy to encourage sustainable management of natural resources in the Okavango River Basin located in Angola, Botswana, and Namibia.

I thank Mr. Fortenberry, Mr. Cuellar, and, of course, Chairman Royce and Ranking Member Engel for their work. This bill passed our committee by unanimous, bipartisan voice vote. I strongly support it, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in support of this measure.

Mr. Speaker, this bill passed our committee by unanimous, bipartisan voice vote. It is named for Elie Wiesel, the Holocaust survivor and author who spent decades leading the fight to bring Nazis to justice.

First, I thank the gentlewoman from Missouri, Ambassador Wagner, and the chairman of the Democratic Caucus, the gentleman from New York, Joe Crowley, for their work in bringing forward this very important bill that improves our capacity to prevent and respond to genocides and mass atrocities. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this legislation.

Millions of innocent civilians have died in mass atrocities and genocides. I would like to take just a second to remind everyone of a few of these tragedies:

The first genocide of the 20th century, the Armenian genocide, which killed approximately 1.5 million people;

The Holocaust, from 1933 to 1945, more than 9 million people were killed, including over 6 million Jews;

Cambodia in 1975, which saw the slaying of 2 million people;

Rwanda in 1990, which saw the deaths of 800,000 in just 100 days; and

Sudan, Darfur, and the tragedy there.

Tragedies and crises like this are not just in the past. Today, we are witnessing mass killings of innocent people in many places around the globe.

In Burma, the military has inflicted horrific violence against the Rohingya people. Thousands have been killed. This is ethnic cleansing, and it appears on the verge of genocide.

Now, 700,000 refugees have been pushed into Bangladesh, 80 percent of them are women and children. And as I mentioned, in Darfur, some 300,000 are dead, 3 million displaced.

This measure gives us the tools to detect the warning signs of a mass atrocity or genocide so that we can respond quickly and improves interagency coordination. Overall, this measure will make our government better equipped to handle the growing threats of genocide and crimes against humanity.

This is a good bill. The prevention of genocide and mass atrocity should be a core objective of our Nation's national security and foreign policy missions. The bill passed, as I said before, our committee by a unanimous bipartisan voice vote.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) an original cosponsor of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this measure, and I thank Ambassador Wagner and Representative Crowley for their work.

This bill will equip our government with the tools to better monitor and, hopefully, prevent genocide. It passed our committee with an unanimous bipartisan voice vote.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise in support of H.R. 4989, the Protecting Diplomats from Surveillance Through Consumer Devices Act. This bill, again, passed our committee by unanimous, bipartisan voice vote.

I want to begin by thanking Mr. Castro, and also others, for introducing this legislation. I am pleased to be one of the cosponsors.

This bill aims to ensure the Department of State has policies in place to prevent our adversaries from tracking the locations of our Foreign Service officers through their electronic devices.

From fitness trackers, to smartwatches, to phones, most of us have at least one device that could be used to track us with the right technology that has GPS capacities. Many of us would literally be lost without these devices, but they could pose a security risk. This is especially true for our diplomats overseas whose locations and travels can reveal sensitive information sources. Location information is a potential gold mine to our adversaries.

This commonsense measure would make sure that the Secretary of State has a policy in place on the safe use of consumer electronic devices by our diplomatic and consular facilities and personnel. It would require proper training for employees and contractors, and ensure that the policy is coordinated across all parts of our government that use our diplomatic and consular facilities.

This bill would also improve congressional oversight of this policy.

This bill will reduce the security risks associated with GPS devices and other consumer electronic device.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro), the author of the bill.

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

H.R. 4989 is commonsense legislation that will improve the safety of U.S. personnel overseas. I want to commend the chair and the ranking member for bringing this through our committee, and commend Mr. Castro of Texas and Mr. McCaul of Texas for their hard work in creating this legislation.

This bill will ensure that the State Department is addressing the risks associated with consumer devices that can be used, in some cases, to track the locations of those who own them.

This bill passed with a unanimous, bipartisan voice vote in our committee. I commend it to my colleagues. I will support this measure. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5105.

H.R. 5105, the BUILD Act, which stands for Better Utilization of Investments Leading to Development Act, modernizes our international development finance system. It does so by consolidating the existing Overseas Private Investment Corporation, which has the most unfortunate acronym in the Federal Government, since it is referred to as OPIC and is often confused with OPEC. It consolidates that organization into the new Development Finance Corporation.

I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this important measure.

I want to start by commending the lead sponsors of this bipartisan bill, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho), whom I am pleased to work with on the Asia and the Pacific Subcommittee, where he serves as chairman and I serve as ranking member; and the second lead sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee.

It has been more than a decade since Congress last updated OPIC's charter. The landscape in development finance has changed substantially, and we now need a new approach to the way our government uses financial instruments to spur economic development and tackle poverty in the developing world.

Mr. Speaker, I particularly want to thank the leadership of the committee and the sponsors of the legislation for accepting four of my amendments.

The first of these requires a certification from the new DFC, or Development Finance Corporation, that the corporations that benefit from their investment and their affiliates do not conduct any activity which is the subject of U.S. sanctions. This is an important safeguard to ensure that entities that engage in contact that violates U.S. Government sanctions do not benefit from U.S. Government financing.

Simply prohibiting the support of sanctioned entities is not enough. We need an affirmative statement from prospective beneficiaries of the DFC that they and their affiliates are in compliance with American sanctions law.

Second, the new agency will need to consider whether the benefiting entity is participating in a foreign boycott that is at cross-purposes with American foreign policy. The U.S. should not be in the business of providing assistance to entities that participate in discriminatory boycotts against foreign countries.

Since the 1970s, we have had on the books laws designed to prevent our corporations from participating in the Arab League boycott of Israel. It is common sense that the DFC, when it is selecting projects, should take this into consideration. So my amendment will do just that.

I should point out that there is another amendment that I would have offered, but, instead, we secured a letter from OPIC that will be binding policy on the new DFC stating that the DFC will not finance regional projects in the Caucasus that are designed to exclude Armenia. If it doesn't make geographic sense that a regional railroad or road or other activity excludes Armenia, then that is OPIC policy that will be carried forward with the new agency that this will not be financed by the DFC.

Mr. Speaker, I include the following letters from OPIC in the Record.

Overseas Private

Investment Corporation,

Washington, DC, May 8, 2018.

Hon. Brad Sherman,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Sherman: Thank you for your continued

support of U.S. development finance, including your support

for H.R. 5105, the BUILD Act. Knowing of your long-standing

support for Armenia, I wanted to clarify an issue raised by

your office in writing.

The Overseas Private Investment Corporation will not

support regional projects in the Caucasus that deliberately,

by design or effect, exclude Armenia from participation or

benefit, unless such exclusion is necessitated by geographic

or economic impracticality. As you know, when the BUILD Act

legislation is enacted into law, the functions, personnel,

assets, liabilities and policies of OPIC will transfer to the

U.S. Development Finance Corporation. Accordingly, this will

become the policy of the DFC.

Again, thank you for your continued support.

Regards,

Cameron S. Alford,

Deputy General Counsel, Projects.

Mr. Speaker, the third amendment that I thank the sponsors for agreeing to requires an annual report from the new DFC on its compliance with its own human rights, labor, environmental, and social policies.

OPIC maintains robust environmental and social policies. This bill carries those policies forward so the new DFC will follow them and will now make an annual report so that Congress can see whether these policies are actually being implemented.

The fourth such amendment states that, as to the four public nongovernmental members of the DFC board, that we take into account their experience in international environmental, developmental, and labor organizations. There are a number of other factors that go into selecting the public members of the board, but certainly experience in the environment and labor ought to be taken into consideration.

The BUILD Act updates U.S. development finance and, I think, will complement our foreign assistance efforts. With this bill, we can keep the U.S. as a global leader in promoting economic prosperity around the world while, at the same time, encouraging American jobs.

I support this measure and hope my colleagues will join me in doing so. Once again, this bill had a unanimous, bipartisan voice vote in our committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee and the lead Democratic sponsor of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to commend the sponsors of this legislation and the leadership of our committee. I urge an ``aye'' vote,

and I point out that this bill received a unanimous bipartisan voice vote in our committee, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this measure, H.R. 5480, the Women's Entrepreneurship and Economic Empowerment Act. I want to thank Mr. Royce and Ms. Lois Frankel for their work on this bill.

This is an important bill that expands U.S. development policy to empower women entrepreneurs in developing countries. In 2016, the McKinsey Global Institute estimated that achieving global gender parity in economic activity could add as much as $28 trillion to the annual gross domestic product by the year 2025.

This bill will help unlock the productive power of women, and particularly women-owned small- and medium-sized enterprises. In the interest of time, I won't go into the details because we have excellent speakers on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this bill, which passed our committee by a unanimous bipartisan voice vote, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Frankel), the lead Democratic sponsor of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus).

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

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I invite my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

Women and girls around the world must be included in and empowered by ongoing U.S. investments in diplomacy, development, and security. The Women's Entrepreneurship and Economic Empowerment Act requires USAID to address gender-specific challenges across the world, and it expands support for small- and medium-sized enterprises that are owned, managed, and controlled by women. It also explicitly establishes that it is our national policy to support the empowerment of women worldwide.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this bill, which passed our committee by unanimous, bipartisan voice vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, Robert Mueller is conducting a criminal investigation. Mr. Trump's attorney doesn't want him to testify.

Rudy Giuliani has taken three outrageous positions: He has claimed that Mr. Trump doesn't have to testify if he doesn't think the prosecutor has a good basis for the investigation; that Mr. Trump doesn't have to testify if he doesn't think the prosecutor is being objective; and that Mr. Trump doesn't have to testify if the prosecutor doesn't already have sufficient evidence of a crime.

On this poster is a picture of Mr. Al Capone. He was forced to testify before a grand jury. Mr. Capone didn't think that there was a basis for that investigation, and Mr. Capone didn't think that the prosecutor was objective. But he testified under oath, as did President Bill Clinton, because no one is above the law. No one is immune from a subpoena, not Mr. Al Capone, not Mr. Donald Trump.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

I would like to thank my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk) for working with me on this bill, titled the Building Up Independent Lives and Dreams, or BUILD Act. This has been a collaborative process, and I am pleased to serve as the chief Democratic sponsor.

We have heard from a variety of chapters of Habitat for Humanity. They are having difficulty dealing with the new TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure form, chiefly because they don't have the software to deal with that form. The new form is a good form. The old forms were pretty good as well, but what is really good for the consumer in this case is that they are getting a zero percent loan.

So what this bill says is that, if you are a bona fide nonprofit organization providing the new homeowner with a zero percent loan, you have the flexibility to either use the new form or to use the old forms.

The new form is good. The old forms were pretty good, too. A zero percent loan is very good for the consumer.

This bill is supported by Habitat for Humanity International and the National Housing Conference. It passed the Financial Services Committee 53-0, and I urge everyone to vote ``yes.''

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5861 and I want to associate myself with the remarks of Chairman Royce of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

This bill deals with two very related issues. One is investment in the United States when that could indeed undermine our national security. So this bill would reform the CFIUS process, the process by which we review taking control of a business enterprise in the United States that may have strategic implications. That part of the bill is the product of the Financial Services Committee.

The second part of the bill reauthorizes and reforms our long-lapsed export control statute.

I would like to commend Representatives Heck, Pittenger, and Barr for their work on the first part of this bill, and commend Chairman Royce and Ranking Member Engel for their leadership on the reform and recodification of the Export Control Reform Act.

This is a bill that deals with our national security as it may relate to business; first focusing on investments, then focusing on the sale of products abroad.

I have served on the two committees of jurisdiction for over 20 years, and have been working on this issue for all of that time.

First, as to the investment or CFIUS portion of the bill, I serve as ranking member of the Asia and the Pacific Subcommittee and know firsthand that Chinese companies are not always driven just by their own company profits. But instead, they are looking at a bigger picture, working with Beijing to advance China's global interests. And all too often, these interests undermine American national security.

Foreign investment in the United States often benefits us. We should encourage and welcome foreign investments that create jobs for American workers. But when a firm absorbs innovative American technology and an innovative American company and then transfers the know-how and the jobs, often to China, we may have a problem.

I am pleased to indicate that the CFIUS portion of this bill has three of my amendments, which are designed to recognize that national security is not just a matter of missiles and warships, but also maintaining our strategic technological edge.

The first of my amendments requires that CFIUS focus on the national security risks of offshoring American jobs. Because when you hollow out the American workforce, when you create a circumstance where Americans no longer have those technical skills, then you undermine our ability to provide for our own national defense.

The second deals with the risk of censorship that arises when foreign companies acquire our companies engaged in entertainment and information, and requires CFIUS to report to Congress on this issue of controlling our entertainment and information industries.

We learned in the 2016 election that hostile foreign countries attempt to influence the American public, so we should study the potential for foreign ownership of media in the United States to influence our political discourse and ultimately our elections and government power.

I would point out that if you control broadcasting, if you control movie screens, if you control mechanisms of distribution, you control what movies and TV shows will be made, and we should not put any hostile foreign power in a position to dictate that we never make another movie about Tibet.

We never want to put ourselves in a position where China controls what we see on our screens, in our entertainment, in our newspapers.

I would point out that China already has control over films being distributed in China. They unjustly limit that through a protectionist quota system and use that to try to force American studios to make movies that are consistent with the objectives of the Chinese Government.

My third amendment focuses on the Made in China 2025 program by acknowledging that supposedly independent Chinese companies are, in fact, required to work with their own government.

Simply put, if you are based in Shanghai, you are going to listen to Beijing, and when the CFIUS process provides heightened scrutiny for government-controlled investment, that should apply to any company in a managed economy that is, in effect, under government supervision and control.

Mr. Speaker, I now move on to the export control portion of this bill, the portion that limits what technology we can sell abroad.

This act has not been amended since 1990. It expired in 2001. It has been held together through a series of temporary executive orders.

This bill provides for export controls that support U.S. foreign policy goals such as complementing economic sanctions, combating terrorism, and prohibiting the export of items that will be used in human rights violations.

I offered, and I am pleased that the committee accepted, one of my amendments that would require the Department of Commerce to look at the significantly negative impacts of controlled exports on our defense industrial base.

When we allow the tools, the dies, the materials for manufacturing to be exported, we, therefore, lose the workforce, lose the capacity, and lose the ability to provide for our own defense.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the support of this important legislation which modernizes CFIUS and our export control laws.

Mr. Speaker, seeing no other speakers on our side from the Foreign Affairs Committee, I would urge my colleagues to vote for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters), the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee, and I ask unanimous consent that she be allowed to control that time.

Mr. Chair, I want to commend the subcommittee and the full committee for including in the base text a provision that says that no funds shall be used in contravention of the War Powers Act. This is a provision I originally proposed in 2011 as a floor vote. We lost at first, but it was adopted in 2011 and has been part of the base text ever since.

The War Powers Act is the one restraint on a President who seeks to, on their own accord, send our troops into harm's way for permanent warfare. It says that troops cannot be deployed for more than 60 or 90 days without an Authorization for Use of Military Force, but every President since the Vietnam war has claimed that the War Powers Act was an unconstitutional, nonbinding provision on the President's power to send our troops.

That is why I am pleased to report to the House that, when he testified before our committee, former Attorney General Mukasey said, But with this provision, the President has to abide by the War Powers Act.

Mr. Speaker, for 22 years, I have served on the Foreign Affairs Committee and focused on North Korea. For two decades I have urged the toughest possible pressure not only on North Korea, but on China, North Korea's lifeline.

Just last month I joined Chairman Yoho of the Asia Subcommittee, where I serve as ranking member, in sending a letter insisting that we have tougher enforcement of our sanctions on large Chinese banks and other entities that supplied the necessary services to Kim Jong-un.

When the possibility of a summit was announced, the foreign policy community came forward with a unified message: No concessions until we get CVID, or the complete, verifiable, irreversible dismantlement of North Korea's nuclear program.

I found myself on the dovish edge of the foreign policy community. While I supported tougher sanctions, I believe that we should settle for a verifiable limit, a freeze and monitoring, a system where there is no cheating and where we can be sure that they are not selling their nuclear weapons to other even more dangerous parties.

So I eagerly awaited Singapore. What we saw was a President that put into practice what he wrote about when he wrote his famous book, newly reissued and retitled, Trump: The Art of the Capitulation.

What are the steps in capitulation?

First, give the other side just about everything.

Second, accept in return vague platitudes.

Third, go on TV and announce that you have got the best deal ever.

What did we get from North Korea?

A temporary suspension of their most extreme barbarism. They agreed to release and did release three hostages. They said they will allow us to look for the bodies of our fallen heroes from the Korean War. They did not release the Japanese hostages, but they did release three American hostages.

They implicitly agreed, though not explicitly, to an end of testing. But testing is hardly necessary once you have already proven your capacity. Russia has the capacity to destroy American cities, but they haven't tested a nuclear weapon since 1990. Why? They proved it long ago.

Likewise, North Korea has proven the capacity of its nuclear weapons. They don't need further testing. They have missiles that can kill tens of thousands of Americans and millions of our allies in Tokyo, Seoul, and elsewhere in Asia. They have the capacity to smuggle their nuclear weapons near or into any of our West Coast cities. They have that capacity. They don't need further testing.

So they have given very little, but they gave one more thing. They pronounced the word denuclearization. This is the epitome of a vague platitude. For when North Korea says denuclearization, they say will give up their nuclear weapons when the whole world gives up its nuclear weapons; when, in the words of the Good Book, swords are beaten into plowshares.

So what have we given up?

First, we gave them what the Kim dynasty has always wanted: that face-to-face equality with an American President.

Second, we have relaxed our sanctions, in effect.

No, the statutes haven't changed. But those big banks that Chairman Yoho and myself as ranking member once sanctioned, no way that is going to happen. Businesspeople in Moscow and Beijing know it is now time to move forward with business deals with North Korea.

Also, he declared our military exercises to be provocative. What does that mean worldwide when an American President says: We better not train our troops; that is warlike?

In the words, of Admiral Stavridis, who wrote in Time Magazine just a few days ago: ``These are operational military exercises in which ships, aircraft, and ground forces . . . practice executing defined war plans.'' To have our forces forward deployed without the benefit of that kind of practice would be negligent in the extreme and would lead to major combat losses in a real fight.

Trump is saying these exercises are expensive. It is hardly expensive to train our troops.

We have got a long way to go. We need to enforce the sanctions and make them tougher. We have to do this until we get a complete declaration of their nuclear materials, a verification, and a freeze.