Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Affairs be discharged from further consideration of House Resolution 734, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at noon tomorrow.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 726) strongly supporting the right of the people of Ukraine to freely determine their future, including their country's relationship with other nations and international organizations, without interference, intimidation, or coercion by other countries.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include any extraneous materials in the Record.

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

Madam Speaker, this is a historic moment for Ukraine. It has withstood invasion by Russian forces, their illegal occupation and annexation of Crimea, the arming of separatist militias by Moscow, the cutoff of natural gas and imposition of trade barriers aimed at undermining Ukraine's economy. They have suffered under a Russian propaganda offensive designed to sow fear and exploit division, and they have had many other assaults along the way.

I had an opportunity--myself and Eliot Engel of New York--to travel to Ukraine, along with Jim Gerlach. We are happy to have Mr. Gerlach and Marcy Kaptur with us today. They are the authors of this resolution, a resolution in support of Ukraine. I will lay out what we saw both in western Ukraine and in the east, because we traveled across that country.

But before I do that, let me point out that thousands and thousands of Ukrainians have been killed by the fighting in the east and hundreds of thousands have been made refugees.

But Ukraine still stands. It stands unbowed, more determined than ever to secure its independence and its sovereignty and its territorial integrity. This resolution that the House clearly has before it states unambiguously our support for Ukraine in its effort.

The United States, our European allies, and many other countries have made clear that we will not allow Russia to bludgeon--bludgeon--Ukraine into submission, because that is exactly what they attempted to do. We have opposed tough sanctions on Russia. We have provided extensive assistance to help Ukraine through this very difficult time. Its military needs to be bolstered. And we are supporting the establishment of a democratic system representing all of the people of Ukraine.

Importantly, yesterday, the Ukrainian Parliament passed a law granting greater autonomy--including Russian language rights--to those in the east. A strong democracy respectful of individual rights is the best counter to Vladimir Putin's very autocratic ways.

Ukraine faces many challenges, including growing economic problems, the possibility of a gas shortage this winter, and a never-ending onslaught of propaganda. We will continue to assist Ukraine, but it is vital that in Ukraine--and we carried this message when we were in country--they implement the far-reaching economic and structural reforms necessary to enable that country to grow.

Ending Russia's ability to use its oil and natural gas as a weapon has got to be a priority. There are many steps that Ukraine itself can take, beginning with reforming its energy sector to expand its own production of energy and, of course, to increase efficiency. The United States and other countries, especially Ukraine's neighbors in Europe, can help by making alternative supplies available to that country.

You notice that the Polish engineers have reverse-engineered those pipes so

that gas can come into Ukraine. Western Ukraine has tremendous possibilities for oil shale. We met when we were in Azerbaijan with the government there that is building a pipeline into Central Europe, and we know that a lot more can be done in order to get gas into Ukraine.

The U.S. can take a major step forward by removing the restrictions we have imposed on ourselves that severely limit the export of our abundant supplies. We have got a glut on our market. Frankly, this is a way to create jobs here, this is a way to help our balance of payments. Let's sell this to Ukraine because they deeply need it. And, frankly, the prices in the east are very, very, high and this will give us a new market.

And the other body could act on legislation this House has passed to revamp U.S. international broadcasting so there is an effective counter to Moscow's never-ending propaganda. This is legislation that I and my colleague Eliot Engel have authored in order to make certain that the people in Ukraine and, frankly, that Russian-speaking populations everywhere, can hear the truth about what is happening inside their own countries, as well as an appeal to political pluralism and tolerance and all of the values that the international community should share.

In April, Ranking Member Engel and I led a delegation, as I mentioned, to the Ukraine to see for ourselves the situation on the ground, including in the east in Dnipropetrovsk, in eastern Ukraine, which borders the region controlled by the separatists. There and in Kiev, we had extensive discussions with a range of senior officials, including Prime Minister Yatsenyuk, about the situation in their country. We also spoke with leaders of the civil society community: women's groups, lawyers' groups, Jewish groups, Tatar groups, Russian- speaking communities. All strongly supported a united Ukraine; all opposed Russian intervention. All shared with us that at the end of the day they wanted Ukraine whole, they wanted Russia out.

We met with Mr. Poroshenko prior to his election and assured him of strong U.S. support. Now the entire Congress will demonstrate that continuing commitment when the President of Ukraine addresses the joint session tomorrow. The message will be heard loud and clear, not just in Ukraine, not just in Kiev, but also in Moscow and around the world, that the United States stands with the people of Ukraine now and always.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gerlach), cochairman of the House Ukraine Caucus and the author of the resolution we have before us.

Mr. Speaker, I have the right to close, so I reserve the balance of my time.

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

The Ukrainian people have had a long, turbulent history of struggle. It is important to remember that when that vote for independence came, it passed overwhelmingly across Ukraine.

For me, I think the most memorable point of that trip was standing with Mr. Engel in the synagogue--it was Passover--adjacent to the largest community center, Jewish community center in all of Europe.

Eliot Engel, whose four grandparents all came from Ukraine, spoke to the hopes that the American people have for a Ukraine which is a Ukraine that embraces tolerance, political pluralism, freedom, a Ukraine in which the persecution of people is a thing of the past but in which the future lies with the democratic ideals that we share, a Ukraine independent, a Ukraine free of threat, free of outside influence.

These are the hopes embodied in this resolution because the Ukrainian people have withstood these enormous pressures. They have endured this great suffering. They know there are many challenges still to overcome before they can rest secure. But the Ukrainians that we spoke with told us that among the most important things sustaining them throughout this difficult time is the knowledge that we in the United States stand with them.

Tomorrow, President Poroshenko will address this joint session of Congress here; and by granting him, his

country, this honor and by adopting this resolution today, we will demonstrate our continuing commitment to Ukraine and to helping its people achieve the freedom, achieve the security and prosperity that they so rightfully deserve.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this amendment. Today, we face, as we know, a great and growing threat from ISIL. Never has a terrorist organization controlled so much territory, a safe haven, as well, to plan future attacks.

Never has one had access to vital natural resources. Never has a terrorist organization possessed the ready cash, the heavy weaponry, and the personnel that ISIL possesses.

We are late in responding. At least 2 years ago, the President had a proposal on his desk to arm those under threat inside Syria. It was backed by his Secretary of State, backed by his Defense Secretary, and backed by General Petraeus, then head of the CIA.

If the President had accepted this recommendation coming from his entire national security team years ago, we might be in a different position right now, but we are where we are.

The question is Syria continues to spiral out of control, Assad has hung to power, and ISIL has risen from a terrorist group to a terrorist army. That is where we were.

Caught in the middle has been the civil society types, those who are trying to defend--in Aleppo--defend themselves from the barrel bombs coming down from above from Assad while at the same time trying to defend themselves from ISIL attacks on the ground. They have been left to fend on their own.

These are the individuals--I will remind you for those who remember the tapes, who remember the programming at the time--chanting ``peaceful, peaceful'' as they were protesting the Assad regime.

Assad's soldiers opened up with automatic weapons fire on them in the streets of Damascus. After Assad began this slaughter, they took up arms to defend themselves.

The question is: Will we give them the wherewithal to fight back against the ISIL attacks that are, right now, on the borders of Aleppo?

In July, the Foreign Affairs Committee heard unprecedented testimony from a Syrian Army defector named ``Caesar.'' He showed our committee pictures of the atrocities--tens of thousands of people tortured, men, women, and children--by Assad. Assad has killed over 200,000 people now. The fact is that Assad is a protector of no one except himself. That is the bottom line.

Where ISIL operates, they have gone on a horrifying rampage, killing and beheading. Some of you have heard about the crucifixions there. In the meantime, Assad is no fool.

His regime has pursued a strategy to avoid confrontation with ISIL, focusing his efforts on wiping out these rebels in Aleppo that we are talking about supporting who are fighting ISIL; indeed, the Assad regime continues to purchase crude oil from ISIL, giving them ready cash, an average of $2 million daily for that terrorist group. His strategy is to present the world with a choice between the regime and the ISIL extremists.

Friends, we do not have to play his game. What we can do--what this amendment would do--is give the Syrian opposition what they desperately need, training and equipment. We are looking to aid these individuals who have risked their lives to combat the Assad region and to combat the ISIL terrorists that they are fighting today, but, Mr. Speaker, these fighters aren't starting from scratch.

They have been in the fight for several years. Out of sheer commitment and determination, they have hung on, but, with greater U.S. training and supplies, they will be bolstered. As an ultimate boost, this force would be supported by U.S. and coalition airpower, and that puts real spine into a fighting force which will be needed to confront and defeat ISIL. Our military has provided this type of training around the world for decades.

Mr. Speaker, let's do it here. Let's go on offense against ISIL. I ask for support for this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk a little bit about the enduring struggle of the Crimean Tatars, a people who have suffered much over the many generations of war that they have seen in their region. I had an opportunity to meet with many of them when I was in Ukraine. Eliot Engel and I sat down with all of the different minority groups that have been through so much in that region.

I just wanted to say this to the Members of the House, and that is that Russia's aggression in Ukraine has produced many tragedies, but none--none--more so than that of the Crimean Tatars. For centuries, this Muslim community has suffered greatly at the hands of Russia's rulers. Russia's rulers have devastated the population, and they have driven countless numbers from their homes. And now, Moscow's forcible occupation of Crimea has imposed a new oppression on this long- suffering community, forcing large numbers to flee and making the rest increasingly unwelcome in their ancestral homeland.

When I was in Ukraine, besides meeting with senior Ukrainian officials, we had these conversations with the representatives of their community as well as other minority groups, other ethnic Russian communities. And I was privileged to meet and talk at length with the most prominent Tatar leader, Mustafa Dzhemilev, who is the former head of the Mejlis, the executive body of the Tatar parliament, as well as with other senior leaders in their community. He and his colleagues have been blocked from returning to Crimea by the ruling authorities there, as so many other Tatars have been blocked once they go over the border from Crimea to come back into their home. They are refugees unable to go home.

During our meeting, we discussed the increasing pressure on the Tatars in Crimea and the situation they live under. Thousands have fled, and those who remain face a very uncertain future. They are subject to increasing pressure and restrictions by the local authorities, who they believe are trying to force them out because of their ethnicity and because they didn't welcome Russia's armed occupation and illegal annexation. Of course, there was never any possibility that they would be allowed to participate in the phony referendum held in March in which 97 percent of the population supposedly voted one way in that election to join Russia, even though the entire ethnic Russian population numbers only 58 percent of that overall community. The Tatar population is about 12 percent. Knowing that the vote would be rigged, they refused to provide the propaganda exercise with any credibility, and they and many other ethnic groups there in Crimea urged a boycott and undertook that boycott.

Unfortunately, their current struggle is only the latest chapter in their long history of great suffering and very brave perseverance. Many times in the past, they have been subjected to mass deportation and assaults, with great loss of life. The most terrible was Stalin's mass deportation of the Muslim Tatar population to Central Asia in 1944. Over half--over half--of the men, women, and children died in what only can be called a genocidal process. And those that survived the privations found themselves in an alien world, forced to begin their lives again in great hardship.

In the mid-1980s, the Tatars were finally allowed to return to Crimea. Most of the surviving population--and it was a fraction of the original population--eventually did come back. In the last census, they comprised 12 percent of the population. There they reestablished their ancient community and proudly took their place in Ukraine's new democracy.

All of the people I spoke with in Ukraine, including the ethnic Russians whose interests Moscow claims it is protecting, said that they opposed Russian intervention, and at the end of the day they supported a united Ukraine. And that was especially true of every ethnic community and civil society group in eastern Ukraine that we talked with. And the Tatars, including some still alive who survived Stalin's crimes, have a deep historical memory of Russia's actions in Crimea. They are not fooled by Moscow's protestations of peace there.

In our efforts to secure a lasting peace in Ukraine, the U.S. and our allies must not accept Russia's forcible expulsion of Tatars from Crimea, but that is, once again, what the Russian Government is doing to these people. They must recognize the religious and ethnic rights there. And we must not forget the people there. We must not leave them to this fate at the hands of merciless authorities who seek a region cleansed of all those they deem to be enemies of their imperial ambitions.

By refusing to surrender to endless threats and centuries of oppression, the Tatar people continue to give hope to all those around the world who are battling overwhelming forces in defense of their homes and of their freedom.

Mr. Speaker, two hundred years ago, on September 14, 1814, Francis Scott Key and two other Americans, one a prisoner of the British whose release Key had been commissioned to negotiate, waited anxiously for the outcome of the battle begun nearly 24 hours earlier. Although Key had secured the release of Dr. William Beams, they were detained by the British overnight because they had overheard the British attack plans.

During the rainy night, Key had witnessed the bombardment of Fort McHenry, and observed that the fort's smaller ``storm flag'' continued to fly. At dawn, Key was inspired by the American victory and the sight of a larger American flag, with fifteen stars and fifteen stripes flying triumphantly above the fort. This flag remains on public display in the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History.

The whole event inspired Key to write a poem, titled ``Defence of Fort M'Henry.'' It was soon set to music and performed to an enthusiastic public audience as ``The Star Spangled Banner'' less than a month later. In 1931, Congress adopted it as the national anthem of the United States.

Orange County, California, which makes up most of the 39th Congressional District I represent, is home to one of Francis Scott Key's descendants. George Key, the great great grandson of the author of our national anthem, is a resident of San Clemente and a member of the ``greatest generation.'' A veteran of both World War II and the Korean Conflict, Mr. Key has honored his heritage by leading efforts in his own community to honor the flag that inspired his ancestor.

Mr. Key is known as ``The Flagman of San Clemente.'' Even at 90 years of age, he continues to work with local schools, the Daughters of the American Revolution, the Boy Scouts, and others, teaching them U.S. history and how to properly dispose of American flags. He collects tattered flags from drop points in the city and arranges for their proper disposal. Along with a colleague, he created a program to honor veterans and their families by flying flags over San Clemente City Hall when the veterans pass away.

I am pleased to recognize the 200th Anniversary of the ``Star Spangled Banner,'' and the legacy of the Key family in honoring our nation's flag.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 125th anniversary of the First American Financial Corporation, and to use this occasion to honor the pioneering role that First American has played in developing the title insurance industry in the United States.

First American was founded in my home district of Orange County, CA in 1889, not long after the then-rural County was itself founded. First American grew from a small, local company into an international provider of title insurance, settlement services and risk solutions for real estate transactions. The company now provides a job to over 11,000 hardworking Americans.

Though it is a multinational corporation, First American has never lost sight of its roots as a closely held family business. Founder C.E. Parker instilled into the company a spirit of entrepreneurship and a commitment to service--core values that still steer First American today. Mr. Parker's grandson and Chairman Emeritus Don Kennedy joined the family business in 1948 after attending law school and serving in the U.S. Navy during the Second World War. Under his leadership, First American expanded into surrounding counties, and acquired a trust company, a home warranty provider, and a real estate tax service firm into its portfolio of services. In 1964 he took the company public. Eighteen years later, First American was serving every region of the country. Don Kennedy's son, Parker Kennedy, like his father and great- grandfather before him, is now the company's Chairman of the Board, and is leading the company as it continues to grow.

The Kennedy family has navigated uncertain times over the past century due to the rise of homeownership, technological developments in the field, and shifting regulation both in the U.S. and abroad. Yet by maintaining their commitment to the founding principles of their family business, the Kennedy family grew their small company in southern California into a multinational Fortune 500 company.

First American revolutionized the way title insurance is used across the globe as it pioneered the industry in a number of countries. First American was the first title insurance provider in Mexico, Korea, and Hong Kong, and it has the leading market share in Australia, Canada, and England. The company innovated the world's first international title insurance policy, and has worked with government officials in developing nations to create legislation that protects landowner rights and secures a stronger local economy.

Title insurance is a foundational component of the real estate industry, and by making sure a homebuyer gets what he bargained for, the First American Financial Corporation paved the way for homeowners across this nation to live out the American Dream. It is a company that all Americans--indeed, all people--can choose to be their financial partner.

I congratulate First American Financial Corporation on 125 years of service, and for supporting the homeowners and business communities in the U.S. and abroad.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Affairs be discharged from further consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 683) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives on the current situation in Iraq and the urgent need to protect religious minorities from persecution from the Sunni Islamist insurgent and terrorist group the Islamic State in Iraq and Levant (ISIL) as it expands its control over areas in northwestern Iraq, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment to the text at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment to the preamble at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Ways and Means be discharged from further consideration of the resolution

(H. Res. 699) welcoming African leaders to the first United States- Africa Leaders' Summit and African trade ministers to the 13th Forum of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment to the text at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment to the preamble at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I object as the request is not timely.

Mr. Speaker, I do object. The request is not timely.

There is an objection to the unanimous consent request, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 107) denouncing the use of civilians as human shields by Hamas and other terrorist organizations in violation of international humanitarian law, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the concurrent resolution.

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

Let me begin by expressing my appreciation to the chairman and ranking member of the Middle East Subcommittee, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, and Mr. Deutch of Florida for their good work on this legislation. I am pleased to have worked with Mr. Engel and the leadership to ensure that this legislation was scheduled for the floor today for consideration.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation places responsibility for the escalation and violence squarely where it belongs: with the Iranian- backed terrorist group Hamas. Hamas is deliberately targeting Israeli civilians through the use not only of rockets but longer and longer range missiles--2,500 of these so far--aimed at cities--Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, attempting to attack Israeli communities. Remember, these attacks are at civilian populations, they are not at military installations. And Hamas is perpetuating the kidnapping and murder, which started with three Israeli teenagers.

Again and again, we have seen these incursions through these tunnels--32 new tunnels found so far--3 miles into Israeli territory. One of the amazing things, when you go into the tunnels, you see not only how they are used for these attacks, but what they have in reserve in these tunnels: ropes, syringes, tranquilizers, handcuffs, explosives, walls and walls of explosives. These were attempts to inflict mass casualty attacks on the civilian population.

$100 million is approximately what was spent on these tunnels, at the expense, I might add, of the Palestinian people. That is 4,000 trucks of equipment coming in over the border from Israel with cement--which was presumed to be used, hopefully, for schools or hospitals--with cement, with aggregate, with steel, instead used for the construction of these tunnels tunneling under Israel.

Less than 10 years ago, Israel pulled out of Gaza. The Strip was going to flourish without Israel's control. That was what we were told. But it wasn't supposed to be this way. It wasn't supposed to be a situation where Hamas would take resources and plow it into terror day by day.

Today, the Gaza Strip is a terrorist sanctuary on Israel's borders with sanctuaries within this sanctuary. We now know 32 of these are tunnels.

Beyond targeting Israeli civilians with kidnapping and indiscriminate firing of rockets, Hamas shows a callous disregard for the lives of the Palestinians it ostensibly represents. That is the purpose of this initiative here today, to call attention to that fact.

Earlier this month, the Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri appeared on Al-Aqsa television and encouraged Gaza residents to act as human shields. That is the responsibility they ask as they are hidden down in these tunnels. As they are in these bunkers, they ask their civilian population to go and make of themselves human shields in front of rocket launchers.

The world can't let terrorists embed their forces among the civilian population, using them as human shields, without speaking out. This is a direct violation of international humanitarian law and the law of war, sacrificing the innocent in an effort to protect those engaged in terror from an Israeli response.

Hamas is engaging in a crime of enormous proportions, perpetrated by those who are deliberately hiding among civilians to protect themselves. According to the Geneva Convention, the presence of the civilian population, or individual civilians, shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular, in attempts to shield military objectives from attack, or to shield, favor, or impede military operations. That is the Geneva Convention.

A full court press to discredit Israel is on in the United Nations. My question is: Where are the defenders of international law in condemning Hamas' use of human shields? I saw the report. There is no mention in there of the rockets being fired against Israel.

Yes, this is a case where Israel is using missile defense to protect its civilians, and Hamas is using their civilians to protect their missiles. It is a case where we have to recognize Israel's right to defend its people by taking necessary and appropriate force to neutralize the threat posed by Hamas.

Think about the recent discovery that Israeli security sources unearthed, evidence that Hamas was preparing to dispatch 200 terrorists via ten tunnels toward six Israeli communities with a goal of killing and kidnapping scores and scores of Israelis on the Jewish New Year. If that was on our border with Canada, how would we react?

I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution, which takes a strong stand against Hamas' crimes, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), chair of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa and author of this measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho). He is a member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

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

I was in Haifa, Israel, in August of 2006 during the second Lebanon war, during the war between Hezbollah and Israel. While I was there, I was in Haifa. Rockets were raining down. For 30 days, rockets rained down on that city. Air sirens were blaring during the day. It looked like a ghost town. It was very debilitating, as you can imagine.

What amazed me was the targeting of the civilian areas of that town and the targeting of the hospitals--the deliberate targeting of civilians. That was the goal. At one point, we had to go into a bunker when rockets were fired close to where we were.

The one takeaway I had was that out of that came the Iron Dome. In a few short years, that system, the Iron Dome, which they were working on, went from the drawing board to deployment and battle, proving its mettle, and it proved its ability to shield Israelis in the south from the Hamas rocket threat more recently. Congress, I think, can be proud of our role here in backing the Iron Dome, which is recognized as part of this resolution.

There is another part of this resolution, Mr. Speaker. I have to tell you that Israel has more than the right to defend itself; it has the duty to protect its citizens. I saw what happened in Haifa--over 600 people in that one trauma hospital I was in.

It is exercising that responsibility right now to protect its people because, time and again, day after day, these rockets continue to be fired from these rocket launchers in Hamas-held territory.

No country would stand for the Hamas terror organization's rockets and tunnels. Remember, these tunnels come 3 miles into the border, 3 miles under Israel--one of them right outside an Israeli kindergarten. That is Hamas.

Of course, Hamas' whole reason for being, for any of you who have read its charter, is to attack Israel and to attack Jews. This nihilistic terrorist organization works to kill the maximum number of Israeli innocents while using its own population as human shields. Yes, that is a double war crime.

Since the last conflict, Hamas has improved on all aspects of its operation, courtesy of Iran. In the same

way Iran supplied Hezbollah, Iran supplies Hamas, and this could not have been done without the longer-range missiles--the M-302s--that Iran has now transferred into the inventory of Hamas, so that Jerusalem and Tel Aviv can be targets.

Earlier this month, my committee held a hearing that exposed Iran as the primary backer of Hamas through weapons, through funding, through missiles. Imagine the increase in material support to Hamas from Iran if that government--if the Ayatollah regime--is granted further sanctions relief as part of nuclear negotiations.

I ask all Members to join me in condemning Hamas on its despicable use of human shields and to continue to stand with Israel to face down the many shared threats that we face.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1771) to improve the enforcement of sanctions against the Government of North Korea, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include any extraneous materials in the Record.

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

Mr. Speaker, North Korea, which is one of the nuclear proliferators on this planet in having proliferated missiles to Iran and in having proliferated to Syria the construction some years ago of a site in order to create nuclear weapons, this particular regime remains today one of the most significant national security threats that we face. It is an enduring threat to us and our allies in northeast Asia. It is an enduring threat not just because of that proliferation but also because of the attitude of the regime there. Frankly, America's policy over the last 25 years, whether we are talking about a Republican administration or a Democrat administration, has been a bipartisan failure for that whole period of time.

This year marks the 20th anniversary of the Clinton administration's agreed framework, the first in a long line of failed agreements in which North Korea holds out the promise of cooperation, only to game the negotiations for more time and more incentives and uses that opportunity to continue to expand its nuclear program.

Today, we are no closer to the goal of disarming those nukes than we were in 1994. The only difference is there is a whole lot more of them.

Meanwhile, North Korea continues to make progress on its nuclear weapons program, conducting three tests in recent years. It has actively worked on intercontinental ballistic missile technology to deliver a three-stage ICBM.

To underscore the threats that we face, let us not forget that, in 2007, a North Korean-built nuclear reactor was destroyed in Syria along the banks of the Euphrates River.

Mr. Speaker, we need a new approach, frankly, to North Korea, and it is time for Congress to lead. Recent events around the world underscore the foolishness of inaction. We need a clear framework for sanctions to deprive Kim Jong Un of his ability to build nuclear weapons and to repress and abuse the North Korean people. The way a regime treats its own people will tell you a lot in life about how they may end up treating their neighbors.

The North Korea Sanctions Enforcement Act seeks to apply the same type of pressure that the Treasury Department used back in 2005 when it caught the regime counterfeiting hundred-dollar bills. Treasury, at that time, targeted the bank in Macao that was complicit in counterfeiting with North Korea. This action sent a ripple throughout the international financial system, and it seriously hindered North Korea's finances. This was one of the most effective steps in 20 years that we took against North Korea.

I can tell you some of the results because we have talked with defectors afterwards about what they had seen in terms of the fact that productions had closed. The regime could not pay their own generals, and that is not a good position for dictators to be in. Unfortunately, though, the sanctions were lifted by the State Department in the naive hope that the North Koreans would negotiate away their nuclear program.

It is time to open our eyes. This legislation enables our government to go after Kim Jong Un's illicit activities, just like we went after organized crime in our own country, by interdicting shipments and disrupting the flow of money, stopping the hard currency, the very hard currency he utilizes for his weapons program.

These sanctions target North Korea's money laundering, their counterfeiting, their narcotics trafficking operation. The only way we can stop North Korea is cutting off its access to this hard currency, to stop Kim Jong Un from being able to pay his generals or conduct research on nuclear weapons.

Critically, the North Korea Sanctions Enforcement Act also includes the basis imposing sanctions based on North Korea's deplorable human rights abuses. By directly targeting individuals in positions of power, we will finally hold North Korea responsible for the torture, the gulags, the extrajudicial killings that were recently exposed by that high-level UN inquiry, one of the first of its kind.

For far too long, the world has turned a blind eye to human rights abuses in North Korea. By supporting this bill, we will take a critical step toward stopping this type of abuse.

This bipartisan piece of legislation, by the way, has over 140 cosponsors. It has garnered the support of humanitarian groups around the world. And I note that humanitarian aid is in no way affected by this legislation.

Again, humanitarian societies worldwide support this, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

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

House of Representatives,

Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC, July 23, 2014.

Hon. Ed Royce,

Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs,

Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Royce, I am writing with respect to H.R.

1771, the ``North Korea Sanctions Enforcement Act,'' which

the Committee on Foreign Affairs ordered reported favorably

on May 29, 2014. As a result of your having consulted with us

on provisions in H.R. 1771 that fall within the Rule X

jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary, I agree to

discharge our Committee from further consideration of this

bill so that it may proceed expeditiously to the House floor

for consideration.

The Judiciary Committee takes this action with our mutual

understanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 1771 at

this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction over subject

matter contained in this or similar legislation, and that our

Committee will be appropriately consulted and involved as

this bill or similar legislation moves forward so that we may

address any remaining issues in our jurisdiction. Our

Committee also reserves the right to seek appointment of an

appropriate number of conferees to any House-Senate

conference involving this or similar legislation, and asks

that you support any such request.

I would appreciate a response to this letter confirming

this understanding with respect to H.R. 1771, and would ask

that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be

included in the Congressional Record during Floor

consideration of H.R. 1771.

Sincerely,

Bob Goodlatte,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, for far too long the world has ignored the significant human rights abuses that occur almost every single day in North Korea. Increasingly, as people escape, we begin to get some sense of what life is like for the hundreds of thousands that live in these concentration camps.

By turning a blind eye to what is going on in North Korea, we, and the rest of the world, risk missing an opportunity to hold the Kim regime responsible for its terrible crimes against humanity. This legislation is a chance to hold them responsible for those crimes against their own people. We have an opportunity here to cut off the hard currency that goes right to the leadership in this regime. They depend on that hard currency.

Earlier this year, the U.N. Commission of Inquiry laid out the most damning case against North Korea. Internationally, communities were shocked by the revelations in this Commission of Inquiry.

As chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I have met with a number of North Korean defectors and refugees over the years. I have heard their stories. We have had some of them testify here in the House of Representatives. I have seen North Korea with my own eyes. I have seen the malnutrition engineered by the regime, while the money goes into their nuclear arms program and their military buildup.

Listen. The message from the defectors and the survivors are remarkably similar. What they tell us is: please help us. By supporting H.R. 1771, we send an unmistakable message that the United States will no longer tolerate a regime that tortures and kills its own people. We will not tolerate, either, nuclear weapons and unchecked proliferation being developed with the hard currency that this regime gets its hands on by violating international law and being involved in the type of smuggling and illegal activities that they are involved in.

North Korea is, undoubtedly, one of the most significant security threats that we here face and our allies face, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4490) to enhance the missions, objectives, and effectiveness of United States international communications, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in the Record.

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

Mr. Speaker, the world has been watching eastern Ukraine following the downing of a civilian passenger plane by Russian-backed separatists. We have watched as families have grieved. We have watched as thugs have blocked access to the crash site.

I say ``thugs'' because a lot of these individuals are recruited in the Russian-speaking world on these social Web sites and, frankly, every malcontent, every skinhead that they could enlist in this cause has been given a weapon, and their behavior, as we have watched on television, is really unconscionable.

What isn't so well known is the information battle that is being waged and that we are losing. We are losing on this front in the information war.

Listen to what The Economist magazine says: ``Russia has again become a place in which truth and falsehood are no longer distinct, and facts are put into the service of the government. Mr. Putin sets himself up as a patriot, but he is a threat--to international norms, to his neighbors, and to the Russians, themselves, who are intoxicated by his hysterical brand of anti-Western propaganda.''

That analysis followed Russia's latest lie, that Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 was shot down by the Ukrainian military.

Look, I was in eastern Ukraine. I had an opportunity to talk to many Russian-speaking Ukrainians. I will tell you what they shared with me-- and this was whether they were civil rights groups, the local governor Dnepropetrovsk, minority groups, women's groups, the Jewish community there, which is a very vibrant community; they all share the same concern.

They felt that this crisis was being engineered by President Vladimir Putin and that he was sending in and recruiting malcontents and trying to create a crisis. And they felt that the reason he was doing it was to try to break off eastern Ukraine to become part of Russia. And they resisted this. They felt it was very important that elections go forward.

Now you have a new government in Ukraine that is trying to push a peace plan and, instead, you have got the propaganda every night. And the question is, who is going to offset that propaganda? Our best weapon in this information battle, the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the BBG, is totally defunct.

This is not just my observation. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and others have observed that that is the world we live in now. We have known this for years, based on report after report from the Government Accountability Office and the Office of the Inspector General.

This has real consequences. One newspaper rightly noted: ``The BBG has greatly diminished America's capacity to fight the Putin propaganda machine.'' If we don't put the truth out there, if we don't put our reality out there, if there isn't a surrogate free radio and television for people to listen to, all they are going to hear is the conspiratorial note of propaganda.

Former BBG governors, Voice of America directors, staff, and those that follow international broadcasting have repeatedly called on Congress to step up and reform the BBG. We must act with urgency.

Yes, Russia's propaganda machine is saturating the airwaves with false information designed to incite violence, designed to stoke sectarian fears and create a pretext for Russian military engagement in Ukraine.

But I will share with you that, in the Middle East, Hezbollah's television station, Al-Manar, continues to broadcast lies and propaganda and incitement designed to destabilize the region and build support for a terror war on Israel and on democracy there.

China's CCTV now broadcasts to over 100 countries and recently established its new Africa bureau in Nairobi, Kenya.

You know, there was a time when the U.S. dominated the international airwaves. Now we are a voice among many, but that voice is really on the defensive and, in many places, is no longer heard.

Our competitors highlight our failings. They minimize our successes. They are working 24/7 to discredit America in a well-orchestrated game of chess, and we have a part-time broadcasting board.

This legislation, the United States International Communications Reform Act of 2014, is a bipartisan effort to reform the BBG and make it more effective and efficient in efforts to confront this propaganda. The legislation cuts the bureaucracy so that more funding is spent fighting foreign propaganda instead of paying inflated salaries in Washington. The bill brings accountability to our international broadcasters, installing a full-time CEO empowered to make decisions. The current dysfunctional board of nine part-time Presidential appointees is reduced to an appropriate advisory capacity.

The Voice of America is, once again, an integral part of foreign policy, with a mission that makes clear that all three parts of the charter must be emphasized. Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Asia, and the Middle East Broadcasting Network--the so-called ``surrogates''--have a different mission; that is, to provide uncensored local news and information to people in closed societies and to be ``a megaphone for internal advocates of freedom.'' Whether it is in Iran, North Korea, or elsewhere, our surrogate broadcasters will be at the tip of the spear in this information battle and are given a global mandate to go after the most despotic regimes, exposing their abuses, their violence, their hypocrisy, and telling the story of what is really going on in the country.

And these critical reforms come with the benefit of a cost savings to the American taxpayers here. H.R. 4490 will result in a cost savings of $160 million over 5 years.

The legislation mandates that no future funding will be provided unless cost-saving reforms are implemented, including administrative consolidation, right-sizing, and leveraged public-private partnerships. Ripping away the bureaucracy will reduce administrative overlap and allow both organizations to strive.

To be clear, this legislation isn't about creating a U.S. Government propaganda effort. VOA is not being turned into a version of Russia's RT or China's CCTV.

This bill is about communicating America's message of pluralism, tolerance, and transparency to foreign audiences. There was a time when we did that really well, but we have lost it. This bill gets us back on track. We can't afford anything but high performance with the world's crises seemingly multiplying.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I just will close with this because we had testimony before the Foreign Affairs Committee last summer by the former BBG Governor, Enders Wimbush. And I wanted to quote what he said:

Today's problem is not enough information but the opposite.

Most places, even some enduring the repression of nasty

regimes, get plenty, much of it junk. This is the new

competitive landscape for U.S. international broadcasting.

Our competitors, too, have multiplied, while our allies have

retreated. One would think that American strategists would

sharpen their spears to compete in this world. Yet the

opposite seems to be happening, again, due in large part to

the incoherence of the BBG. It is incapable of articulating a

set of media strategies, and it has no way to attach whatever

measures it does adapt to larger U.S. national objectives.

So as you can tell, the current bureaucratic umbrella overseeing U.S. international broadcasters is deeply flawed. That is why this bill is so important. We need our international broadcasters to succeed in their missions. We want the Voice of America to--I am going to quote President Kennedy here--``tell America's story to the world.'' We want our surrogate broadcasters to tell the stories to people in closed societies that their own governments won't tell them. And we want the American taxpayers to see a return on the generous investment they have been making in international broadcasting. This legislation does that, and I urge all of the Members to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed one vote on July 24. Had I been present, on rollcall No. 449, H.R. 3393, the Student and Family Tax Simplification Act, I would have voted ``aye.''

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of July 23, 2014, I call up the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 105) directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces, other than Armed Forces required to protect United States diplomatic facilities and personnel, from Iraq and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend and to submit any extraneous materials for the Record on this measure.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. I very much appreciate the way in which Mr. McGovern, Mr. Engel, the bipartisan leadership of the House, and the staff of the committee have worked through this issue to bring us here this morning. I thank all of the Members. I also think all of the Members of this body can support this motion.

Earlier this week, the Foreign Affairs Committee heard testimony from senior officials from the Departments of State and Defense on the situation in Iraq.

Madam Speaker, the situation in this critical Middle Eastern country is precarious. The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, an al Qaeda offshoot, has taken over most of western Iraq, it has turned its sights on Baghdad, and it may be preparing to launch attacks against the United States.

Never has a terrorist organization itself controlled such a large, resource-rich safe haven as ISIS does today. Never has a terrorist organization possessed the heavy weaponry, the cash, the personnel that ISIS does today, which includes thousands of Western passport holders.

What started as a crisis in Syria has become a regional disaster with serious global implications, including credible threats of international terrorism, humanitarian disaster, and upward pressure on energy prices in a fragile global economy.

The top State Department official told our committee that ISIS represents a growing threat to U.S. interests in the region, local populations, and the homeland, calling it a vital national security challenge. This is a common assessment outside of government as well.

As part of the response to this threat, the Obama administration has deployed additional military assets and up to 475 troops to secure our Embassy, our personnel. A few hundred U.S. military advisers are evaluating how we might best train, advise, and support the Iraqis to take on ISIS.

As the Department of Defense testified this week, these small teams are ``armed for self-defense, but do not have an offensive mission.'' It was noted, these teams are not unlike the missions being carried out by U.S. forces around the world. U.S. forces currently maintain these types of troops in more than 70 countries, in Africa, the Americas, and Asia.

Now, if the President did decide to take more aggressive action in Iraq, Members on both sides of the aisle would be deeply split. Some don't see any role for the U.S. military. Others believe we should be more active in this region, believing that our absence has contributed to a vacuum that is churning the entire region.

But where I think all Members can agree is that if the President of the United States ordered U.S. Armed Forces into sustained combat in Iraq, then he should be coming to Congress to seek an explicit statutory authorization and the backing of this body.

That is the text before us today:

The President shall not deploy or maintain United States

Armed Forces in a sustained combat role in Iraq without

specific statutory authorization for such use enacted after

the date of the adoption of this concurrent resolution.

At the same time, this text preserves the flexibility the President may need to respond to the rapidly evolving national security in order to protect our

Embassy, to conduct search and rescue, or target an al Qaeda-type terrorist who poses an imminent threat to the United States, among other things.

Nothing in this text impacts the War Powers Resolution which, of course, requires the President to withdraw U.S. forces from hostilities within 60 to 90 days after introduction, absent an authorization from Congress.

The gentleman from Massachusetts brings a critical issue to the House floor: the use of force by U.S. Armed Forces, and the appropriate role for the Congress in that decision.

Any military officer will tell you that the support of the people is critical to the success of a sustained combat operation. As the representative body, that responsibility falls to us. It is an obligation that I know all of my colleagues take seriously, and it is why I expect overwhelming passage of this motion this morning.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), a member of the Committee on Armed Services.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Thomas Massie.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Adam Kinzinger, a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Madam Speaker, I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am going to reserve the right to close.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Well, Madam Speaker, let me begin by saying I appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts' spirit of cooperation. Mr. McGovern and I have worked on a number of issues from victims' rights to trying to stop the exploitation of child soldiers in Africa, and so I appreciate that spirit on his part.

As I noted in my opening testimony, my opening statement here, the threat of ISIS is real, and I do think we should reflect on that as we debate this issue.

Never has a terrorist organization itself controlled so much territory, especially such a large, resource-rich safe haven, as ISIS has in this caliphate, as they perceive it, now. Never has a terrorist organization possessed the heavy weaponry and cash and personnel as ISIS does today, and this includes thousands of Western passports and thousands of individuals who are passport holders from the West.

One militant engaged in this battle recently returned to Europe and attacked a museum in Brussels, so more of that is coming as a result of ISIS. And let's not take this debate to mean that we should not be doing anything to offset that organization.

I think the President has failed U.S. national security interests by not, for example, authorizing or accepting the request made by the government in Iraq and by our personnel in our Embassy for drone strikes on these terrorist ISIS camps. Remember, this is a situation where the drone can actually see the ISIS combatants with the black flag of al Qaeda waving as they move across the desert or as they are encamped. This was an opportunity to hit them when they were vulnerable, before they began that city march across the desert, as they began to take those cities with their armed columns.

I do think, as the U.N. reported yesterday, that there are going to be consequences to these fatwas that come down from ISIS. The one yesterday specifically--according to the U.N., ISIS is requiring female mutilation in the new caliphate it is establishing, at least in the Mosul area and around that area. That is about 4 million females that would be subject to this, if they are as doctrinaire as they have been on other issues. So we will be wrestling with what to do about ISIS, what we can do.

What this resolution says, and I think the overwhelming majority of us in Congress agrees with this, is that if the President of the United States ordered U.S. Armed Forces into sustained combat in Iraq, then he should be coming to Congress to seek an explicit statutory authorization and the backing of this body, and that is the text before us today.

It says, again:

The President shall not deploy or maintain United States

Armed Forces in a sustained combat role in Iraq without

specific statutory authorization for such use enacted after

the date of adoption of this concurrent resolution.

That is the position of the Members of Congress, as the representative body, frankly, and as any military officer will tell you, support of the people is critical to the success of a sustained combat operation. As the representative body, that responsibility falls to us. It is an obligation that I know all of my colleagues take seriously. And, again, it is why I expect overwhelming passage of this motion this morning.

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