Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss the negotiations with North Korea. I do so in my role as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific.

I point out that, just a month ago, I joined with the chairman of that subcommittee, Mr. Yoho, in sending a letter to the President saying we now need tougher sanctions on North Korea. In particular, we need to make it clear to the large banks in China that they can no longer do business with North Korea.

We had our foot on the neck of Kim Jong-un. We needed to press it down a little harder to get the concessions that we need. Instead, we have a lifting of the efforts. Instead of ratcheting our sanctions up, we are going to relax them. The word is out to businesses and banks in China: You can do a little bit more today and a little bit more after that.

This is a giant victory for Kim Jong-un. The negotiations will go forward, but those negotiations will go forward with Kim Jong-un being able to breathe because we no longer have our foot on his neck.

Four hours ago, the President tweeted: ``There is no longer a nuclear threat from North Korea.'' He might as well have smiled with Kim Jong- un and said: ``Peace in our time.''

Now, I am not saying that what happened in Singapore is as fraught with danger for the world as was what happened in Munich in 1938, but what happened in Munich will illustrate for us that just because you have a summit with smiles does not mean you are leading toward peace.

The President tweeted: ``There is no longer a nuclear threat from North Korea.'' If you believe that, you probably believe that he has been faithful to all three of his wives.

We hope that these negotiations lead to real peace. But so far, they have led only to a big win for the person President Trump calls ``Little Rocket Man.'' That is a big win for Little Rocket Man.

You see, the President's most famous book has been reissued. It is now called ``The Art of the Capitulation.''

How do you exercise the art of the capitulation? You make enormous concessions to the other side. You settle for vague platitudes. Then you go on TV and say: This is the best deal ever.

Let's look at the concessions. The President has referred to our military exercises as provocative and indicated that they will be scaled back or eliminated. He has given the green light to Chinese business and bankers to do business. He has given Kim Jong-un the prestige of a meeting with the President of the United States, not necessarily our most prestigious President, but a President of the United States nevertheless.

What have we received in return? A vague statement about denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula. But, as far as we know, North Korea doesn't intend to do that until the entire world is denuclearized. He also has released three American hostages and says he will help us, allow us, to find some of the bodies of our fallen heroes from the Korean war. Those are basic in human civilization. He releases hostages, and for that, we give major concessions.

The one concession that we did not get is a halt for even a minute in the creation of fissile material at Yongbyon. There, North Korea, throughout the negotiations and while the President was tweeting, makes more enriched uranium, more plutonium, and is building more bombs. That didn't stop for a minute.

So we are told that there has been at least a pause in their testing program. Keep in mind, Russia hasn't tested a nuclear weapon since 1990. Are we going to say that they don't have nuclear weapons capable of reaching the United States and destroying our cities?

The fact is, North Korea has proven its nuclear capacity, so they can go a while without testing. They are continuing to make more bombs that they have already tested and proven.

We all hope that we reach a peaceful settlement. This has not been a good start.

Mr. Speaker, I support the idea of rescissions. Some of the rescissions proposed by the Republicans are a good idea, but Republican leadership would not allow us to vote on the proposals separately. Therefore, I have no choice but to oppose the entire rescissions package. I hope to work with my colleagues to make fiscally responsible decisions moving forward.

Mr. Speaker, I will vote for the Federal Insurance Office Reform Act of 2017 because it prevents covered agreements from imposing new prudential requirements without a separate act of Congress. I am worried about the availability and accessibility of nationwide data about insurance and want assurances that this will be addressed before the bill reaches the House floor.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from the Chamber on Tuesday, June 5, 2018, and Wednesday, June 6, 2018. Had I been present, I would have voted yea on Roll Call votes 231, 232, 233, 236, 237, 238 and 239. I would have voted nay on Roll Call votes 234 and 235.

Mr. Speaker, I express my grave concerns about the human rights situation in the Sindh province of Pakistan, with special reference to enforced disappearances of persons at the hands of Pakistani security agencies. Many of the disappeared persons are from the Jeay Sindh Mahaz (JSM), Jeay Sindh Mutehada Mahaz (JSMM), and Jeay Sindh Qaumi Mahaz (JSQM). The disappeared persons also include teachers, intellectuals, writers, and publishers. Six of my House colleagues joined me in sending a letter to the State Department on this issue in August 2017. I also raised this issue on the floor of the House in October 2017, and this problem of enforced disappearances was discussed in a February 2018 hearing of the Asia Subcommittee at the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

I strongly condemn an incident that occurred this past weekend, when Pakistan's security forces assaulted the families of disappeared and missing persons who were on a hunger-strike in protest of these disappearances.

The family members of Sindhi victims of enforced disappearances (mainly their daughters and wives, as male members are being held by the security forces or have moved underground or remain silent as they fear the security agencies) and their friends have launched a peaceful nonviolent protest for their release. The daughters and wives of the disappeared persons were engaged in a 72-hour hunger strike in front of the Press Club at Karachi that began May 20. During this nonviolent protest, Pakistani security forces or their agents assaulted two daughters of the disappeared Hidyat Lohar (an elementary school headmaster who was taken away in April 2017 in front of school children) and two daughters of Khadim Arijo (a civil servant missing since April 2017). Security forces also reportedly detained about five of the nonviolent activists, though it seems they have been released.

It is crucial that Pakistan immediately cease these and other related human rights violations in the Sindh province. Pakistani security personnel and others involved in the enforced disappearances should be held accountable. I urge the U.S. State Department and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, as well as our ambassador in Pakistan, to take up this issue with the civilian and military leadership of Pakistan. Our ambassador to Pakistan must receive guarantees from the Pakistani government regarding the protection of human rights defenders and of those who advocate for Sindh's missing persons. It will be even more significant to set up a bipartisan fact finding mission to probe enforced disappearances and related killings in Sindh.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in recognition of the Day of Remembrance for Sri Lankan communities around the world. Remembrance Day is generally observed on May 18 or May 19, to remember and mark the sacrifices made by all those who died, irrespective of their ethnicity, in Sri Lanka's civil war.

For many, who have family and loved ones in Sri Lanka, there is still not closure, because those they lost are not accounted for.

The Sri Lankan government has acknowledged the receipt of at least 65,000 complaints of such disappearances.

Independent assessments provided by the human rights community estimate that between 60,000 and 100,000 individuals have disappeared since 1980.

The victims included human rights workers, those providing humanitarian assistance, journalists, critics of the government, community leaders, and many others. Abductions and enforced disappearances have been perpetrated by state and non-state actors.

The Tamil people have been disproportionately impacted by these crimes, and their families deserve to know the truth. All of the families deserve closure.

Despite some action, the Sri Lankan government has still made limited progress and more needs to be done.

Mr. Speaker, having been briefed at every stage of the negotiation of the Iran nuclear deal, I was able to come to this floor just 2 hours after it was published and be the first to speak in opposition to the Iran nuclear deal.

Today, I rise to urge the President not to renounce that deal. The question is this: Do we want to liberate the Iranian Government or sanction the Iranian Government? If we renounce the deal, then the Iranian Government is free to remove the inspectors, to begin a program of building an unlimited number of centrifuges, and can request the return of the fissile material, several bombs' worth of fissile material which, under the deal, they had transferred to Russia and which Putin might choose to return.

If we renounce the deal, we do nothing to give ourselves additional rights because, under the deal, we are free to sanction Iran in full proportion to its nonnuclear evil. The Iranian Government is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths in Syria and tens of thousands of deaths in Yemen. That alone justifies every sanction every Member of this body can come up with.

We can stay in the deal and sanction Iran.

Mr. Speaker, I have cosponsored H. Res. 861, urging the complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization of North Korea. This does not mean that I would necessarily oppose an accord with North Korea that only partially achieves our objectives

Mr. Speaker, vote against this rule for three reasons:

First, it is a closed rule. You should always vote against a closed rule.

But second, it is the embodiment of a pernicious tradition of always having closed rules on tax bills. That is outrageous. Why would we not apply that to everything that Congress deals with?

We are told: Well, if we don't have a closed rule, we have to have an open rule; we don't want an open rule on a tax bill.

You could have a structured rule. You could have germane amendments.

What does a closed rule on every tax bill mean? It means that over 400 of us can never offer an amendment about taxation, and it also means that, if an amendment is hotly debated in the Ways and Means Committee and prevails or is defeated by one vote, then the entire House cannot chime in on that issue. The second reason to vote against this rule is to break this ironclad tradition of closed rules on tax bills.

There is a third reason, and that is, my amendment to strike section 202 was not allowed. I am an old CPA. I headed the second largest tax agency in this country. I am very interested in easing the burden on taxpayers. This bill generally does that. But section 202 is designed-- doesn't actually do this, but it pushes in the direction of locking in the free file system. That is a contract that the IRS has with TurboTax and H&R Block that is supposed to allow everyone with an income of under $66,000 to file for free. But with TurboTax, you have to have an income under $33,000; with H&R Block, you have to be under 50.

I, personally, resent that.

The Free File Program isn't free even if you don't have to pay for the software because you have got to gather your 1099, your INT, your 1099-DIV, and your W-2, and you have to correctly interpret that and enter it into the system.

There is a better system. It is called the pre-prepared tax system. It is being used in Denmark, Sweden, Spain, Belgium, Japan, Chile, and the United Kingdom, not to mention Norway and Finland. The IRS would send you the return. It is already filled out. They already have all the information from your 1099s and your W-2s. You could just hit ``yes'' or you could make changes there on the screen, or you could throw away the IRS' version, go get TurboTax, go to H&R Block, and fill out your own return the way you do it now.

This provision, section 202, pushes the IRS against going to the pre- prepared return system, a better system, a system that was explored in 1998 by a Republican Congress, and the IRS was told to develop that system by 2008. The IRS never did.

So there should be an amendment to strike section 202 and push the IRS toward a pre-prepared return system where you could literally be done with your tax return in 1 minute and not have to keep track of all these pieces of paper and try to interpret them.

There is a solution because this bill will pass. This bill should pass. All the other provisions are pretty good.

You can cosponsor the Tax Filing Simplification Act. By doing that, you would override section 202, tell the IRS that they have to go to a pre-prepared return system.

We would catch up with Spain and Norway and Denmark and Japan and really have a tax system where you don't have to keep track of all the little pieces of paper that the IRS already has, and you wouldn't have to interpret them and figure out where to put them in the complicated software when the IRS already knows how to do that.

I realize that TurboTax and H&R Block might lose some money, but this is a chance for taxpayers around the country to have an easy system.

If you can't vote against the rule--and I wouldn't vote against the bill--cosponsor the Tax Filing Simplification Act.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I will point out, like every committee, you can always send a letter to any committee I serve on or the Ways and Means Committee. But to take away from Members their right to come to the floor and offer an amendment and get a vote is to relegate us to the same position as all 320 million Americans, all of whom can send a letter to the Ways and Means Committee.

I will also point out that the act I talked about, the Tax Filing Simplification Act, was referred to the Ways and Means Committee, has a number of cosponsors, and has never received a hearing or half a hearing or any discussion.

So to say that the Ways and Means Committee will accept our letters and, therefore, we should have closed rules on tax bills, apply that to every other issue we have--every committee in this House will accept a letter from any other Member, let alone any constituent--means we really want closed rules on everything.

Mr. Speaker, I support the committee system. The Democratic Caucus has put roughly 25 of its members on the Financial Services Committee. We are the members of the Democratic Caucus assigned to study and debate legislation on Financial Services issues.

We did just that. And 60 percent of the Democrats assigned to the Financial Services Committee, 15 Democrats, voted in favor of this bill, while 10 opposed it.

So if members of our caucus wonder what would our caucus position be if all the members of our caucus had a chance to really analyze bills in this particular technical area, one would expect that 60 percent of our caucus would support this legislation.

The reason for that is that the purpose of regulation is to reduce risk rather than having risk be the reason to have regulation.

This bill focuses on getting companies to reduce their risk. There are those that say if we just designate more companies as SIFIs, we will get more regulation.

No, you won't.

What you get is more companies designated, but then you get pressure to have less regulation on all the designated companies.

What we need is to reserve the SIFI designation for those who are clearly exposing our economy to the risk of another meltdown, and we need to encourage companies to be less of a risk to our economy.

The ranking member, who is bearing a substantial oratorical challenge, being, I think, the only speaker opposing the bill, correctly points out that AIG was a risk to our economy.

That is right.

This bill would have put it to AIG that you are going to get designated and regulated if you don't get out of the credit default business.

Had they done that, the meltdown in 2008 would have been much less significant.

So let us encourage these companies to de-risk, and let us have heightened regulation on those who refuse to do so or who by their very size pose a risk to our entire economy.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues in the Democratic Caucus to have some faith in the 60 percent majority who have been assigned to the Financial Services Committee and voted in favor of this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3542, the Hamas Human Shields Prevention Act.

Mr. Speaker, this is an act that came before our committee and was adopted unanimously by voice vote. I was there. My hearing has been tested recently, and there was not one dissenting voice. I thank Representatives Wilson and Moulton for their leadership in authoring the Hamas Human Shields Prevention Act, and I am proud to be a cosponsor.

This legislation calls out the cowardly use of human shields by Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. It sanctions anyone who supports or takes part in this horrific practice.

Let us be perfectly clear about what is at stake. There are designated terrorist entities using innocent civilians, even innocent children, as a means to camouflage their arsenals. Every time Hamas does this, every time it is done by Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the leadership is making a horrific statement: they put a higher value on their efforts to kill Israeli civilians than they do on the lives of Gaza's civilians.

Keep in mind, this practice is a violation of the Geneva Conventions and the rules and laws of war. It is a war crime and should, indeed, be sanctioned by the United Nations.

First and foremost, this is an issue of basic human rights. Hamas has forced civilians to gather on the roofs of their homes so they can hide terrorist military leaders and weapons below. Hamas has even built their tunnels that they use to move weapons and fighters right under civilian infrastructure. This puts hospitals, schools, mosques, markets, and innocent Palestinians at great risk.

It doesn't stop there. Hamas purposely puts rockets in U.N. facilities, compelling the U.N. to launch daily inspections of each of their facilities during times of heightened tension and putting international personnel in harm's way.

Hamas' use of human shields also raises important national security concerns for Israel. Unlike Palestinian terrorist groups--groups that seek to kill as many Israeli civilians as possible--in contrast with that, the Israeli Defense Forces are not blind and cannot be blind to the plight of innocent civilians.

That is why the Israeli Government has tried to warn Palestinian civilians of upcoming strikes, including evacuation notices, text messages and calls, and even low-explosive warning ``knocks.'' These warnings don't just give innocent civilians the opportunity to evacuate. They also put the terrorists on notice that strikes are imminent, giving them an opportunity to escape.

The Israeli Government has made an explicit decision. They care enough about warning and saving the lives of Palestinian civilians that they are willing to give an advantage to terrorist groups--groups who are trying to kill as many Israeli civilians as they possibly can.

The contrast, therefore, is astounding. While Israel has made bold investments in early warning apps on Israeli phones and developed the Iron Dome, along with the United States, to protect Israeli civilians from incoming

missiles, Hamas makes no effort to protect Gaza civilians and engages in activities designed to cause Gaza civilians to be killed.

Hamas puts innocent civilians in the line of fire. They hide their weapons and their leadership beneath schools and hospitals. Then, when Gaza children die, when innocent men and women are blown apart, Hamas' leadership cheers quietly at what they perceive as a propaganda coup against the Israeli Defense Forces.

That is why I support sanctions against Hamas and any of its supporting organizations and individuals that facilitate the use of human shields.

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

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

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

I have no other speakers on this side, so I will make a few remarks in closing. Mr. Speaker, I want to put this legislation in the broader context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A Palestinian state will never be born as a result of the use of human shields. No country can make peace with a group that uses its own women and children in that manner, and no country can build peace with an entity that makes the violation of the Geneva Conventions and the international rules of law established military policy.

I am a firm believer in a two-state solution that results in a secure Jewish State of Israel and a peaceful Palestinian state by its side. I hope that this legislation will help move toward that end because it seeks to empower those who want to make peace and sanctions those who cheapen human life and violate international law.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, which passed in our committee without a dissenting voice.

Mr. Speaker, 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. Res. 129 calling on the Department of Defense and other elements of the Federal Government and foreign governments to intensify efforts to investigate, recover, and identify all missing and unaccounted-for personnel of the United States.

I rise in support of H. Res. 129, which affirms our government's commitment to investigating and recovering missing American personnel. I especially want to thank Representative Sam Johnson, not only for introducing this resolution but for embodying our dedication to those who are captured or missing, whose service to this country, 7 years as a POW, three of those in solitary confinement, exemplify the highest honor of our military forces.

I also want to thank Chairman Royce for bringing this resolution forward. Our brave servicemembers risk their lives for our country every day, and when they go missing, we owe it to them never to give up. No matter how many years pass, no matter how many miles we must travel, our search for them must continue.

More than 83,000 personnel of the United States are still unaccounted for around the world from past wars and conflicts. This is the equivalent of an entire city, and their families are mourning the loss of ones they hold dear.

Although an estimated 50,000 of these are World War II personnel lost at sea and, sadly, unlikely to ever be recovered, we must continue our efforts whenever there is any possibility of discovering and recovering an American who has been lost in the service of our country.

Our brave men and women expect that when they make the ultimate sacrifice, we will make extraordinary efforts to recover them, and if we don't do exactly that, we are not only failing those families but also one of our military's most sacred principles: ``leave no man or woman behind.''

We honor this principle because it reminds us that, unlike many of our enemies, whose soldiers are viewed as expendable pawns of the regime, we value each and every life. Those missing in action need to be returned home to their families where they belong.

This resolution has a simple message for our government. It is time to intensify our efforts to investigate, recover, identify, and account as fully as possible for all those missing and unaccounted-for American personnel. It also urges foreign governments to cooperate with us in these important efforts so that every soldier, sailor, airman, and marine gets the homecoming they deserve.

Thank you to all the men and women who have served and continue to serve our great country and the principles we stand for. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, having no speakers on my side, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to add my voice to the voice of every other speaker on this resolution, for what an honor it has been to serve with Sam Johnson and to see his example of service on the floor of this House every day.

I want to reiterate the importance of this resolution. It sends a critical message to our military families that their sacrifices are not forgotten. Our government must never give up until every last American is returned to their families and to their homeland.

Today, it is easy to think of Congress as a body divided between Republicans and Democrats, but, ultimately, we are all Americans, and each and every one of us owes a huge debt of gratitude to our troops serving today and those who have served in the past. Their valor and courage have defined our Nation's course. We applaud them, we honor them, and we will do everything in our power to see that those who remain unaccounted-for are returned home.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today along with my colleagues Congressman Ted

Lieu, Congressman Adam Schiff, and Congressman Lee Zeldin to pay tribute to the visionary Rabbi Isaiah Zeldin, who passed away at the age of 97.

Rabbi Zeldin was the founder and spiritual leader of Stephen Wise Temple.

Stephen Wise Temple is located on an 18-acre mountain between the San Fernando Valley and the Westside of Los Angeles. The Temple started in 1964 with just 35 families and grew into one of the largest Reform Jewish synagogues and schools in the world.

Rabbi Zeldin transformed Jewish education in Los Angeles as an advocate for building Jewish day schools in the Reform movement. Thousands of students have now been educated at the Temple's educational venues which came to include a pre-school, elementary school, high school, and religious school.

Rabbi Zeldin was known for speaking from his heart on the pulpit, usually without any notes. He was a champion for issues ranging from access to education, affordable housing, and support for the state of Israel. Rabbi Zeldin inspired in future generations a desire to care for others and set an example of inclusiveness by welcoming Jews of all denominations, as well as non-Jews to the synagogue.

The Los Angeles community mourns the loss of its Rabbi, leader, teacher, mentor, and friend. We give thanks for the incredible legacy he leaves behind and for his many contributions to our community and the Jewish People.

We send our sincerest condolences to Rabbi Zeldin's children, Joel and Karen, and Michael and Terry; his brother, Bernard; his grandchildren, Sivan and Igor, Sasha and Dustin, Oren and Noga, Gabe, and Noam; and his great-grandchildren, Eytan, Ilan, Alina, Liam, Stav, Evan and Ido.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill.

In this House, we were on both sides of the Iran nuclear deal, but we were united in knowing that Iran is not an ally of the United States-- at least, the Islamic Republic of Iran is not--and this House never agreed to ignore extreme human rights abuses simply because the Government of Iran has agreed to limitations on its nuclear program.

This resolution puts us on the right side of history by stating that the House of Representatives stands with the people of Iran and condemns the Iranian regime's serious human rights abuses. It goes on to encourage the administration to expedite the licensing of communications technology to entities in Iran to improve the ability of the Iranian people to speak freely and also calls on companies around the world not to allow this regime to use any device or any technology to cut the Iranian people from social media and from other communications platforms.

We have seen in Iran a people dedicated to democracy and dedicated to improving their own lives. Over 1,000 Iranians have been arrested, and at least two dozen have been killed; this in a country with a great history. The Cyrus Cylinder is perhaps the first human rights document in world history. A model of it stands in the United Nations to commemorate the dedication of the Iranian people to human rights.

Today, they shout ``No Gaza;'' ``No Lebanon;'' ``No Syria;'' ``My life for Iran,'' because they know that this regime's involvement in supporting terrorism around the world has not only devastated Syria, where Assad clings to power and half a million people have died, not only brings death and destruction to Lebanon and Yemen, but it has also devastated the Iranian economy, because this regime insists upon supporting Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. Those are only the terrorist regimes whose names begin with H.

Of course, this regime has killed over 5,000 members of the LGBT community solely for who they are and whom they love.

This is a regime whose human rights record should, indeed, be criticized by the formal adoption of a resolution by this House of Representatives.

I also want to point out that the travel ban or Muslim ban implemented by this administration is harming our efforts to support the Iranian people at this time of crisis.

It says that if leaders of these demonstrations want to come to my community, where they have tens of thousands of Iranian-American supporters, they can't do it. And if, God forbid, they fear for their lives and want to flee, even if they are carefully vetted, they cannot set foot on American soil.

So I look forward to us standing with the people of Iran and eliminating the Muslim ban. I look forward to this House saying that we stand with the people who are putting their lives on the line to fight for democracy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schneider).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Illinois an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Suozzi), a member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I commend our committee chairman for an outstanding speech.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Gottheimer).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), and I ask unanimous consent that he be able to control that time.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a bipartisan resolution. It will put America and this Congress on the side of the Iranian people.

Regardless of which side you are on as to the nuclear deal, we are all dedicated to peace and democracy in Iran and an end to its support for terrorism around the world, support that not only causes damage outside Iran's borders but, as the demonstrators shouting in over 50 Iranian cities have clearly indicated, devastates the economy of Iran.

To us here in Washington, we may believe that the face of this regime is that of Foreign Minister Zarif, the dapper, debonair diplomat, meeting with us in Geneva and Vienna. But the real face of this regime is that of Alan Kurdi, the 3-year-old Kurdish child found washed up on the beach in Turkey after fleeing the war in Syria, a war that has claimed nearly 500,000 lives because, and only because, Assad has been propped up by the Iranian regime. The other faces of this regime are the real faces of Iranian protestors who put their lives on the line for the freedom of their country.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that deserves the support of both sides of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, 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 legislation, H.R. 535, the Taiwan Travel Act. I am pleased to have joined with Congressman Chabot in introducing this bill, the Taiwan Travel Act.

Taiwan is not just an important trading partner, our 14th largest market. It is not just a land of 23 million people. It is a democratic ally of the United States, a place where our values are displayed in the Asia-Pacific region. Yet it would be surprising for most Americans to know that leaders from Taiwan are not allowed to visit the United States under any reasonable format. Instead, the President of Taiwan cannot visit Washington, D.C., but can visit Los Angeles for a refueling stop on the way to Costa Rica.

What an absurd fiction that the President of Taiwan would fly across the Pacific again and again to visit their friends in Costa Rica or other

Central American countries and that the refueling stop in the United States is just a 2-day effort to put fuel on a jet plane.

Now, my district actually benefits from this, because when the President and several different officials of Taiwan come to America, they refuel at Los Angeles Airport and they come to the Sheraton Universal Hotel in the 30th Congressional District. But in spite of the benefit both in terms of image and the economy that the current situation provides for the 30th District, it is time for us to grow up and it is time for us to realize that Taiwan is a vital ally and that its most important leaders should be visiting Washington, D.C., and talking not only to the legislative branch, but talking to the executive branch as well.

We should no longer be in a circumstance where, when Members of Congress from other parts of the country want to visit with the President of Taiwan, they have to fly to Universal City and stay at the Sheraton in my district and visit there.

We could communicate far better if the President of Taiwan was able to land at Dulles and be in the halls of Congress.

This bill simply says that it is time to encourage travel of the high-ranking officials of each country to the other and meetings at the highest levels. These are important steps in ending this effort to isolate Taiwan, because by encouraging a greater level of high-level visits and dialogue, we would ease Taiwan's international isolation and reaffirm that the U.S. has a political and security commitment to the freedom of Taiwan.

Mr. Speaker, I commend Mr. Chabot for introducing this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, every year, China threatens Taiwan, attempts to strangle that democracy, bases missiles just over the Taiwan Straits, conducts military exercises designed to simulate an invasion, hurts the economy of Taiwan, and hurts the people of Taiwan.

What is the mildest possible response that the United States could make to these provocative and hostile actions? It is the adoption of the Taiwan Travel Act, H.R. 535, to simply have meetings with Taiwanese officials and simply allow them to land, even at those airports in the United States inconvenient for refueling on the way to Costa Rica.

We should welcome the leaders of Taiwan as we welcome the leaders of other allies of the United States, and this is the mildest answer we could make to the saber-rattling from Beijing.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.