Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for allowing me to speak. I thank the ranking member for all of his hard work because for sure what the President of the United States has done was lied to the American people and broke a promissory note.

That promissory note was that he told the American people on day one, inflation would go down. Prices would go down on day one, he said. Instead, what the President has done is, unleashed an economic chaos on the American people. Recessions are normally caused by complex factors like oil price shocks, overleveraged financial markets, or global pandemics.

This new economic disaster isn't caused by war or by an act of nature. It is the result of one man who lied to the American people. His name is Donald J. Trump.

With no coherent plan, he is imposing the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. That is what tariffs are: taxes that will increase the cost of living, your food, the car you need to drive to work, your appliances, and your electronics. All of it will increase what the average family will spend by more than $5,000 a year.

Trump has launched a trade war that has united our allies and our adversaries against us. I could go on and on about the absurd incompetence underpinning Trump's trade war: the pseudo emergency used as an authority, the nonsense methodology used to justify the tariff rates, or the ever-changing rationale about the reasons for starting this tariff tantrum.

The tariffs have already triggered a stock market plunge, wiping out trillions of dollars in value. That is the hard-saved money for your children's education, for your 401(k), and for your dreams of retirement. It is only going to get worse.

As prices go up, people will have less money to eat at their local restaurants, see a movie, enjoy a family vacation. That means lower demand, slower growth, job losses in every sector of our economy from Main Street shops to factory floors.

The Speaker pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.

While Trump may have started this, if this Republican majority chooses to duck a vote on my resolution ending these tariffs, then they will own this, too. They will own the higher prices. They will own the jobs lost. They will own the retirement savings erased. They will own all of it.

Mr. Speaker, join us, sign on, and stop this tax of American people. This is what should be happening for us to continue to be the greatest Nation on the planet and make sure that things are affordable for the American people. Let's join together in defeating the previous question and put an end to this self-imposed economic wrecking ball.

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply saddened today for the passing of Dr. Hazel Dukes. We called her Ma Dukes.

Ma Dukes' lifelong commitment to equality, from breaking racial barriers in New York to leading the NAACP at the national and State levels, has left an indelible mark on our society. She was a trailblazer. For many of us, she was our present-day Sojourner Truth.

In 1966, Ma Dukes became the first Black woman employed at the Nassau County Attorney's Office. Her tireless work for voting rights, fair housing, education, and economic development uplifted countless individuals and communities. Through her leadership and determination, she not only changed policies but also inspired generations to continue the fight for justice.

While words cannot fully ease the pain of such great loss, I find comfort in the extraordinary legacy that she leaves behind. May her memory continue to inspire us all to carry forward the work she so passionately championed.

As all of us grieve in the State of New York and across America, we find peace in the words of Psalms 34:18: ``The Lord is close to the brokenhearted and saves those who are crushed in spirit.''

May His presence bring strength, wisdom, and healing to all who are mourning the loss of the great Ma Dukes, a woman of warmth, wisdom, and unwavering dedication to those she served. Her impact has extended beyond her advocacy. She was a mentor, friend, and guiding force to me and so many others.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that Donald Trump's policies are collapsing our economy. Unemployment is rising. The NASDAQ had its worst day since the COVID crash. Millions of dollars in retirement savings have been wiped out in just weeks. The reason is clear: the Trump administration's reckless tariffs on our allies.

To impose these tariffs, Trump declared a made-up national emergency under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, but the law has a safeguard. Any Member can force a vote to terminate the emergency.

What happened? Speaker Johnson doesn't want a vote. Why? It would force Republicans to go on the record about Trump's tariffs. Instead, Speaker Johnson has rewritten the law in real time.

Here is what the rule says: ``Each day for the remainder of the first session of the 119th Congress shall not constitute a calendar day.'' What? If you don't think that makes any sense, neither do I.

House Republicans are declaring that the days are no longer days and that time has literally stopped.

The Speaker is petrified that Members of this House will actually have to take a vote on lowering costs for the American people.

This is what the American people elected us to do, but now, because of Donald Trump's tariffs and because Republicans would have to take a tough vote, Speaker Johnson is stopping us from voting.

If Congress can't act to lower prices, protect retirement savings, and hold the President accountable, why are we even here? What are we doing here?

A ``yes'' vote on this rule is a vote for Trump's tariffs. A ``yes'' vote on this rule is a vote to keep prices high for American families. A ``yes'' vote is a vote to block Congress from doing its job to lower costs.

If you actually care about lowering costs, you should vote ``no'' on this rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that Democrats love to claim foul on Republicans for shutting off national emergencies, but they are cherry-picking the facts.

Let's take a look back at when we were in charge in the 117th Congress. They never allowed a vote on terminating the COVID national emergency. Mr. Gosar introduced two separate national emergency disapproval resolutions, and Democrats, who were in control at the time, not only shut off consideration of those resolutions without a single vote, but they shut them off for the remaining 18 months of the Congress. Even 2 years after the COVID emergency was declared, Democrats still silenced the voices of Republicans who wanted to take a vote.

What is that saying again? Rules for thee but not for me.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise today to honor the life and legacy of St. John's University's Hall of Fame Head Coach Lou Carnesecca, who passed away on November 30, 2024, at the age of 99.

Born to Alfred and Adele Carnesecca in 1925, Lou was raised with strong principles that would set the foundation for his legacy. After graduating from St. Ann's Academy--now known as Archbishop Molloy High School, Lou served in the Pacific Theater as a troop transporter for the United States Coast Guard during World War II.

Mr. Carnesecca is most well-known for his lifetime commitment to the game of basketball and its players, with roles as head basketball coach for St. Ann's Academy, St. John's University, and the ABA's New York Nets. ``Little Looie'' was an old-school coach recognized for his tenacity, energetic leadership, and his emphasis on the fundamentals. He was a two-time National Coach of the Year, a three-time Big East Coach of the Year, and an inductee to the New York City Basketball Hall of Fame. Lou's coaching led St. John's to 18 postseason appearances in the NCAA Tournament, including in the Final Four and Elite Eight, and he cinched a NIT Championship title. His dedication to the program yielded five Big East Conference Regular Season Championships, two Big East Conference Tournament Championships, and more than 40 NBA Draft picks.

As a believer in the value of mentorship, I commend Lou for his dedication to impacting the lives of the players he coached, the fans he inspired, and the community he served. The vision of a future we desire is determined by our willingness to invest in others--Lou did it every day.

Mr. Carnesecca is survived by his wife of 73 years, Mary, and his beloved family--daughter Enes, son-in-law Gerard (Jerry), granddaughter Ieva and fiance Frank, niece and nephew, Susan Chiesa, John Chiesa and his wife, Nancy--and his extended family and many friends.

Mr. Speaker, my heart goes out to Omer's family. October 7, 2023, was a beautiful, clear day. Omer, a 21-year-old, who decided that he was going to make a difference and have peace in the Middle East, was just there on duty and then being called because of the horrific attack across the border of Gaza into Israel.

At 21 years old, he put everything aside, never thought on that morning when he woke up that he would have to go into battle to try to save lives because a vicious attack of pure hate was taking place.

He lost his life, an American-Israeli citizen killed, a tank platoon commander in the IDF. I can't even imagine the strength and the pain that his family, his mother and his father, Ronen and Orna, have felt and continue to feel.

We stand here united today, Democrats and Republicans, Members and people of the United States of America saying that we will stand together. We will be with you. We will continue to pray, for we must make sure that his life was not given and taken in vain.

Together, we must make sure that his name is forever, as well as all who lost their lives and those who need to be returned home, because all hostages should be returned home immediately, and strive and move for peace in the Middle East.

We cannot stop. We cannot forget. We have got to lock arms hand in hand until there is peace, and a 21-year-old who had a dream is not deferred, a 21-year-old who just wanted peace is not stopped.

We will stand together as American citizens to say we will stop evil that is happening and that happened on that day of October 7.

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

Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation.

We all recognize the challenges posed by the People's Republic of China. The Biden-Harris administration and this body are clear-eyed that the PRC is our foremost geopolitical challenge, but how we manage this relationship will have consequences not just for us but for the entire world. This requires sober policies and shrewd diplomacy, not fear or partisan grandstanding.

It is for that reason I oppose H.R. 3334. If signed into law, this bill would sabotage high-level diplomacy with Beijing. Why else would we sanction all of the PRC's top leaders, including the President, the Premier, the senior ministers in one fell swoop, an action that would immediately rupture the U.S.-China relationship? Such a unilateral action would undermine the United States' interests, divide us from our partners and allies, and endanger our national security by making a conflict more likely in the Indo-Pacific.

Over the last few years, the Biden-Harris administration has competed vigorously with China. They have sanctioned Chinese officials and companies for human rights abuses in Xinjiang and Hong Kong. They have provided Taiwan with the weapons that it needs to enhance its self- defense. They have imposed unprecedented export controls against China to ensure our technology isn't bolstering China's military or its human rights abuses. They have done so while revitalizing our alliances and partnerships in the region and stabilizing relations with Beijing so that our competition does not slide into conflict. All of this is endangered by this bill before us.

The State Department has warned that this bill will bluntly curtail the United States' ability to engage with Beijing at senior levels of our civilian and military leadership to advance our national interests.

For example, earlier this month, the head of U.S. forces in the Indo- Pacific spoke to his Chinese counterpart for the first time in years. During the call, Admiral Paparo underscored the importance of sustained lines of communication between the United States military and the PLA, noting that ``such discussions between senior leaders serve to clarify intent and reduce the risk of misperception or miscalculation.''

If we want to keep the American people safe and lower the chance of an accidental crisis in the Taiwan Strait or

the South China Sea, we have to talk to China. We already know that sanctioning its leaders is counterproductive. Beijing's last defense minister refused to meet with Secretary Lloyd Austin because of U.S. sanctions.

Engagement is necessary. Through senior-level, including engagements between President Biden and President Xi, the Biden-Harris administration has restored open channels of communication with Beijing.

Remember, even during the Cuban Missile Crisis, we were talking with Russia at the time. There was always dialogue and conversation. That probably prevented a nuclear war back then. That is something that we should take knowledge of. Conversation, diplomacy, preventing an accidental war, that is why this bill is not the right bill.

I thank the Biden-Harris administration. For the first time in years, Beijing has agreed to take action to crack down on fentanyl precursor chemicals and pill-presses that are killing 100,000 Americans a year. We still have to deal with issues that most people believe in, that there is a climate crisis. We cannot solve problems like that unless we are talking with each other and Beijing takes action.

Just this month, the Biden-Harris administration's diplomatic efforts led to the release of an American citizen, David Lin, who was unlawfully detained in China for over 18 years. Let me assure you, if this bill becomes law, it will be next to impossible to secure the return of the two remaining wrongfully detained Americans in China.

Sanctioning the top 200-plus CCP officials all at once would limit the United States' future leverage if China engages in more problematic policies and behaviors.

The legislation does not include basic exceptions that are standard in all bipartisan sanctions legislation. While the waiver in this legislation sunsets after just 2 years, the authority to impose sanctions does not. This is poor policymaking, plain and simple.

I oppose this dangerous and counterproductive bill, which will do nothing to help the Uyghurs, the Hong Kongers, and the people of Taiwan, while making it incredibly difficult to engage China to advance any U.S. interests, whether it is fentanyl, regional security, Taiwan, human rights, or IT theft.

Madam Chair, I must oppose this measure and urge all of my colleagues, all Members, to do the same.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chair, if you think that unilateral sanctions on 200 members in China is going to work, I got a bridge to sell you. Nothing is going to work--unilateral, none of it. All it will do is drive us against some of our Indo-Pacific friends, colleagues, and allies.

H.R. 3334 is a deliberate effort to undermine all of what we are trying to do. It would rupture the U.S.-China relationship. It would create collateral damage that would impact American workers, families, and companies. It would make America look like the instigator and divide us from our partners. It would make a conflict more likely by undermining the ability to have open lines of communication with the PRC civilian and military leaders about Taiwan or the South China Sea.

Shutting down communication channels is not what diplomacy is about. That is not what this committee is about. Shutting down communication channels, specifically with the PRC, is not a strategy for success.

American officials, diplomats, and military leaders must be able to engage directly with their PRC counterparts in Washington and elsewhere to address concerns and reduce tensions.

Ambassador Burns, who was recently here, urges communications even between Members of Congress and members of the PRC, not to back down from them but to make sure they understand what we say and what our positions are.

Dialogue and conversation, that is diplomacy. That is how we get things done, and that is how we can prevent a misunderstanding or a miscalculation that could lead to devastation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution, which is clearly just another attempt by Republicans to politicize their investigation. It was not a bipartisan investigation. It was their investigation into the United States' withdrawal from Afghanistan. For what purpose? Solely to attack the Biden administration in an election year and deflect the scrutiny of their own partisan claims.

Mr. Speaker, we had a committee markup just yesterday. Why avoid regular order? Well, I will tell my colleagues why. If this resolution had gone through committee, we would have been able to go line by line and address either their misleading or outright falsehoods that were made throughout the text.

We could have made clear, for example, how Republicans cherry-picked testimony to reinforce their own predetermined, meaning they made a determination before it was concluded, narrative about the Biden administration while omitting any facts showing that former President Trump initiated the withdrawal; that President Trump's actions undercut U.S. leverage in negotiating with the Taliban; and that President Trump's order to withdraw more and more troops set it into an irreversible motion.

The majority's investigation and this resolution, of course, is not concerned about the facts. What it is really concerned about is the politics.

Why do I say that? That is evidenced by the fact that Republicans released their partisan, misleading report, a report into which, I might say again, Democrats had no input and didn't even see until just hours before Republicans made it public, so it was their secret.

It is evidenced by Republicans' rush yesterday to baselessly hold Secretary Blinken in contempt, even though the Secretary of State, who was with President Biden, engaging in high-level diplomacy with world leaders at the U.N. yesterday, has stated time and time again that he is willing to testify.

Why? What is the rush? What is the urgency? It is not to get answers. It is not to get the facts. The withdrawal was completed more than 3 years ago. Why? The majority wanted to make a spectacle before the November elections. It is clear.

Nothing underscores their partisan theater more than Republicans, get this, naming Vice President Harris over 200 times in their report, and we don't know when the majority added it or not, I believe it was at the last second, and 5 times in the resolution. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle put that in there, despite the fact she is mentioned only three times in over 3,000 pages of transcript interviews. She was mentioned three times.

Vice President Harris was only mentioned twice in the Republicans' interim report in 2022. I wonder what changed. I wonder why, all of a sudden, the majority wants to put her name in it more. Could it have something to do with the elections that are coming up in less than 45 days?

This did not need to be a partisan exercise. No one has claimed on our side of the aisle, or any party, that the withdrawal was perfect. There are clear lessons to be learned.

The State Department even admitted it. The State Department did its own investigation. However, facts are facts, and witnesses consistently made it clear that the Biden administration developed a plan after the Trump administration failed to do so.

I remind Members that the former President initiated this withdrawal when he went from 14,000 troops, upon his taking office, down to 2,500 troops by the end of his term. Multiple witnesses told us that the former President did not have a plan in place to evacuate our Afghan allies or our American citizens, but my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't want to talk about that.

Witnesses also told us that the dynamic situation on the ground changed dramatically when Afghan President Ghani fled the country, leading to the collapse of the Afghan Government and the military.

I remind my colleagues that President Ghani was here in Washington, D.C., in a meeting with leaders. I was there, and the Republican leadership was there, where he had said that he and the Afghan Government would stay and that they would be there to monitor things. Just a week later, they fled.

Witnesses of the GOP investigation repeatedly told us that while the situation in Kabul was chaotic, the administration's response was not. Our military and diplomats adapted quickly to facilitate the largest airlift in U.S. history to relocate over 120,000 people, and that is why President Biden said it was a success and pulling out of Afghanistan was the right thing to do.

Despite what my Republican colleagues say, our withdrawal did not begin the moment that President Biden took office, though planning for it did.

It was the Trump administration's flawed deal with the Taliban that Republicans don't want to talk about. It is called the Doha deal. It is the deal that initiated our withdrawal and forced the Afghan Government to release 5,000 Taliban prisoners back into the battlefield, which the Republicans don't want to talk about either. This fundamentally changed the power dynamic in Afghanistan. That is not in their report. They don't want to talk about that.

Testimony reaffirmed that Trump's troop drawdowns were not conditions based, but that he even erratically ordered a full withdrawal in his last days of office, a decision that the military leaders essentially overruled. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't want to talk about that.

Trump had also frozen the SIV program, leaving the Biden administration with a backlog of more than 17,000 cases to start addressing, and they did. That is not in the majority's report. The majority doesn't want to talk about that either.

Republicans are trying desperately to clean up a candidate who clearly has a flawed record, Trump's record, on this withdrawal, but President Trump himself has bragged that the Biden administration couldn't stop the process if they wanted to. In this case, President Trump, a rarity, was accurate.

Witnesses said that if the withdrawal was reversed, then the only condition in the Doha deal that the Taliban had honored, to stop firing on U.S. troops, would be broken. We would be back at war, and we would have had to send more troops back into Afghanistan.

The President had two options upon taking office: End America's 20- year war in Afghanistan, or massively surge troops for an undeterminable amount of time. As President Biden has said, yes, he made the right decision not to send another generation of Americans to spill blood in Afghanistan. That was the right decision.

Our country owes a deep debt of gratitude to the 2,461 Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice in Afghanistan, including the 13 servicemembers tragically killed in the ISIS-K attack at Abbey Gate.

They deserve honest oversight of our longest war, which spanned four administrations. An honest oversight would look over all four, as we thought on our side of the aisle, was the appropriate thing to do if we really wanted to get the facts and make sure that we correct things that took place over that long 20-year time.

This resolution and the report it affirms are not oversight or accountability, they are really election season props to use for political gain.

Thankfully, the nonpartisan Afghanistan War Commission will provide that serious oversight that is necessary, and there is legislation that Congress can pass now to move forward with something impartial and something that will have real credibility. It is something that I believe could really console all of the families of those who lost their lives for our great country in Afghanistan.

We reported bipartisan legislation by Representative Titus to authorize the coordinator for Afghan relocation efforts. I know negotiations continue on legislation by Representative Crow to improve how the State Department responds to crises. It is responsible legislation.

The Afghan Adjustment Act and the Afghan Allies Protection Act, which are longstanding, bipartisan proposals, would keep the faith with the Afghans who fought and worked alongside us. If we are going to do these kinds of reports, they should be bipartisan.

I deeply regret that this is one of the final bills we are likely to take up before election. I don't think it is by accident. We are getting out of here tomorrow. The last thing we are going to be doing is this. I know Republican leadership wanted to make sure of that-- politics.

Even before we voted to keep our government open, this is what my colleagues want to do. This is an unfounded, partisan attack. We should be focused on and at least have the vote on the CR to keep this government open. The American people deserve better.

Let's reject this resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let me quickly rebut my dear friend before I yield to Mr. Sherman.

Number one, it sounds like nothing was done by the administration or anyone else for the last 2, 3 years. The administration has provided over 20,000 pages and made over 15 witnesses available over this entire Congress.

Secretary Blinken has said he did not want to testify. He said he is willing to testify. The first time he was subpoenaed to come was when he was in Egypt negotiating a cease-fire and return of hostages. I think everyone has known that this particular week is U.N. week, so that is not something that is secret. The record is clear on that.

The fact of the matter is, Secretary Blinken has testified over 14 times in Congress to Members of Congress, four of which were in our committee. Delay the investigation? I think not.

Then he is questioning whether or not our memo doesn't cite transcripts. In our memo, 43 of 59 total pages were cut and pasted directly from witnesses' testimony.

What we asked for was transparency for the people, and for some of those transcripts, I had to almost beg for them to be made public. It wasn't automatically made public.

Lastly, Jen Psaki had nothing to do with these decisions. That is just politics.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from California.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, let me just say this because I heard this at the hearing the other day.

When we were in charge, we held the first hearing after the withdrawal for a Cabinet Secretary on September 21. Who was that witness? Tony Blinken. The administration sent several Cabinet officials to Congress to discuss the withdrawal. We held hearings with Members because our position was trying to work in a bipartisan way and trying to make sure that we were going to get to the facts and understand so that we would never have this situation again after 20 years.

What did we do? We had hearings with people from the Bush administration, from the Obama administration, and from the Trump administration to look at the entire 20-year period of time, not playing politics, not looking at a month or two because they all were interconnected. It wasn't about politics for us.

As clearly stated here, there was no delay. The administration was cooperative. The fact of the matter is, this Congress, the 118th Congress, doesn't end until December 31.

If it is about the facts, if it is about learning the lessons, the Secretary has already said he is willing to testify.

He didn't want to turn his back on his responsibility as the Secretary of State, where he is now in a meeting, unfortunately.

I know maybe some of my Republican colleagues don't want him to talk to President Zelenskyy about what is going on in Ukraine and Russia's invasion into Ukraine. That is what he is doing. Maybe some of my Republican colleagues don't want him to have that discussion.

Well, I think my side of the aisle wants him to have that discussion because that is his job; to have a discussion to try to have a cease- fire and return of hostages, to talk to our allies in the Indo-Pacific and NATO that is now stronger than ever because of Joe Biden. That is his job. That is what he is doing. Maybe some don't want him to do that.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

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

Mr. Speaker, the first question in closing is the decision that had to be made because of what the Trump administration had done, was whether to withdraw, as Mr. Sherman has indicated, or to escalate or to stay or to try to bring in more troops. As the generals have testified, if we were going to stay, we were going to need more than the 2,500 that were there.

How long would we stay there?

How many more lives would we lose?

Because the fighting, the generals did say, would resume after the deadline. Yes, Joe Biden decided no more American lives are we going to lose. He made the right decision.

This resolution, as I have said all along, is nothing more than political theater designed to score cheap points rather than address the real issues at hand, the real issues.

It is a distortion of the facts and a disservice to the American people, a disservice to our servicemembers, a disservice to our diplomats, all of whom put their lives on the line during our 20-year war effort there, and their sacrifices should not be used as a political football.

We should be working on real solutions, supporting our Afghan allies, ensuring that we learn the right lessons, and providing accountability that is based on truth, not partisan narratives. There is time for us to still do that.

I urge my colleagues to reject this resolution. Reject it, but let's commit to the American people. Let's commit to those servicemembers and the Gold Star families who have lost their loved ones.

Let's commit to them that today, we are going to work together in a meaningful way that honors their sacrifice, that honors those who serve and uphold the values that we all stand for.

Let us commit to come with a real report, not a partisan one. We can do that. We can do that today. We can stand together today on behalf of the people of the United States of America and those great soldiers.

How do I know that we can do that?

Because the United States of America is the greatest country that this planet has ever seen. It is that when we do things together.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a partial minority staff report.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Foreign Affairs,

Washington, DC, September 9, 2024.

Dear Democratic Members of the Committee:

I am transmitting the attached memorandum prepared by

Committee minority staff summarizing the findings of the

Committee on Foreign Affairs' investigation in the 118th

Congress into the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.

I have long voiced my concerns about Republican attempts to

politicize the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. In keeping

with the partisan tenor of this investigation, Committee

Republicans have indicated they will soon release a partisan,

majority report

on the Afghanistan withdrawal. The Majority did not involve

the Minority in this report, nor have they even provided a

draft copy to us. This comes on the heels of former President

Trump using a ceremony to honor 13 American servicemembers

killed in an ISIS-K terrorist attack as a campaign event to

call the Biden-Harris Administration culpable, though

Republicans knew for months that the attack was not

preventable and that, even though a witness told our

Committee he thought he had the ISIS-K bomber in his sights,

he did not. And it follows the Chairman's subpoena to

Secretary of State Blinken this week compelling testimony

Secretary Blinken has already provided to us, including as

the first cabinet official to publicly testify about the

withdrawal in September 2021. The majority has also

threatened to subpoena National Security Advisor Sullivan

after baselessly accusing him of misconduct and, for months,

has cherry-picked witness testimony to exclude anything

unhelpful to a predetermined, partisan narrative about the

Afghanistan withdrawal.

The Republican majority has taken particular pains to avoid

facts involving former President Trump--including his

committing the United States to a full, date-specific

withdrawal in a deal he negotiated with the Taliban that

excluded the Afghan government or any reference to the rights

of Afghan women and girls; his unilateral announcements to

withdraw troops, often a surprise to many of his own senior

officials, which undercut U.S. leverage because those

announcements were divorced from Taliban compliance with the

deal; and his forcing the Afghan government to release 5,000

Taliban fighters back to the battlefield before a final

Taliban offensive ultimately took Kabul. When former

President Trump took office, there were approximately 14,000

American troops in Afghanistan. Days before leaving office,

the former President ordered a further reduction to 2,500.

President Trump initiated a withdrawal that was irreversible

without sending significantly more American troops to

Afghanistan to face renewed combat with the Taliban. All

witnesses who testified on this issue agreed that the United

States would have faced renewed combat with the Taliban had

we not continued the withdrawal. Rather than send more

Americans to fight a war in Afghanistan, President Biden

decided to end it.

Republicans' partisan attempts to garner headlines rather

than acknowledge the full facts and substance of their

investigation have only increased with the heat of an

election season, and after recent public criticisms about the

investigation from former majority staff. With the ascendance

of Vice President Kamala Harris to the top of the Democratic

presidential ticket, the GOP performance has reached a

crescendo--Republicans now claim she was the architect of the

U.S. withdrawal though she is referenced only three times in

3,288 pages of the Committee's interview transcripts.

American taxpayers have funded this Committee's oversight,

and American people deserve the truth. We owe it to them to

highlight the facts elicited in this investigation without

undue spin and with respect for the seriousness of the

subject and the witnesses who have voluntarily testified to

us about it. If information we receive is hidden, twisted, or

used as a political cudgel it will undermine the Committee's

ability to undertake credible oversight going forward. This

is why I pressed the Chairman during a November 2023 hearing

to release all closed-door interview transcripts from this

investigation--five of which remain unreleased--and why I am

now transmitting the attached memorandum to complete the

picture on what this investigation has yielded.

In the September 2021 Committee hearing I referenced with

Secretary Blinken following the U.S. withdrawal from

Afghanistan, I called to mind some numbers to help us find

perspective on the work we were undertaking then and now:

800,000--the number of Americans who served with the U.S.

military in Afghanistan since 2001.

2,461--the number of American military personnel who died

in Afghanistan, including the 13 brave Americans who were

killed by ISIS-K as they facilitated the evacuation of more

than 120,000 people from Afghanistan over the course of 17

days.

66,000--the number of Afghan National Security Forces

killed in the conflict.

47,245--the number of Afghan civilians killed since 2001.

And finally, 20--the number of years we sent our brave men

and women to fight a war in Afghanistan, from which

disentangling ourselves was never going to be easy.

It strikes me now as it did during that hearing that many

of those critical of withdrawal effort simply have a

fundamental objection to President Biden fulfilling his

pledge to be the last Commander-in-Chief to preside over the

war in Afghanistan. They are masking their displeasure with

criticisms but have failed to offer feasible alternatives. We

must continue to wrestle with these matters not to rewrite

the past or assign partisan blame, but to identify lessons

that can help us better fight and end wars in the future.

Sincerely,

Gregory W. Meeks,

Ranking Member.

Mr. Speaker, this is a link to the full report summarizing the findings of the Committee on Foreign Affairs' investigation in the 118th Congress into the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. Https:// democrats-foreignaffairs.house.gov/_cache/files/a /0/a05d09c4_4b27- 4382_9818_0227a0156896/70CCFC2998DF 868322F60057FF59079D.hfac- democratic-staff-memo-afghanistan-investigation-final-for-posting.pdf.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is clear, concise, and available.

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

I include in the Record that statement of administration policy.

Statement of Administration Policy

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

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

Pandemic preparedness was a day one priority for the Biden-

Harris Administration. Under this Administration's

leadership, the United States has coordinated global efforts

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

the international community is better prepared to respond to

the next pandemic.

The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 1425, which

provides that any international instrument on pandemic

prevention, preparedness, and response reached by World

Health Organization (WHO) member states pursuant to the

recommendations, report, or work of the International

Negotiating Body (INB) established by the second special

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

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

Presidents have historically taken a variety of approaches to

making and carrying out international agreements, and this

bill would improperly purport to constrain the President's

authority to do so in furthering the important work of

achieving advancements, with the international community, to

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

this bill would undermine efforts by this Administration and

future Administrations to better protect the United States by

preventing international public emergencies like COVID-19

from happening again. The Administration will continue to

engage with the Congress and adhere to well-established

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

these negotiations continue.

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

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

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

So what happened?

What did Donald Trump say?

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

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

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

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

He goes on, and on January 29 he said:

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

That is the former President of the United States.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this amendment as we need to expand Taiwan's international space and enable its participation in international forums.

Taiwan is a friend, a democracy, and a critical part of the international community. As such, Taiwan should be contributing its expertise and participating as an observer in the World Health Assembly.

This is why last Congress, when I was chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, I helped get S. 812 signed into law to direct the State Department to support Taiwan's participation at the World Health Organization and obtain observer status for Taiwan at the World Health Assembly.

As a result, the Biden-Harris administration has consistently pushed for greater participation by Taiwan at the WHO. This amendment sends another signal to the WHO as to where the U.S. Congress stands.

I agree with Mr. Ogles' amendment, but I do think that we should be precise and careful in how we talk about important policy matters.

I want to emphasize that I read this amendment as being consistent with the spirit of current U.S. policy, which supports Taiwan's meaningful participation in the WHO's World Health Assembly.

Supporting Taiwan's full membership in the WHO, however, is inconsistent with U.S. policy and would undermine our longstanding One China policy, given Taiwan is not a U.N. member state.

Taiwan should, as I believe this amendment properly states, have full observer status in the WHO, so I urge all of my colleagues to support Mr. Ogles' amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. The draft pandemic agreement advances global health security without impacting the United States' international sovereignty. The draft agreement explicitly states that it does not give the WHO any power to dictate specific policy to member nations and that member states may implement the policies according to their own sovereign laws.

Many of the issues the United States delegation in Geneva is currently negotiating in the draft pandemic agreement are to ensure a final agreement is in compliance with U.S. laws rather than subverting them.

Mr. Chair, for these reasons and others, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this misleading amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, it is explicit in the agreement that our sovereignty is not threatened, so this is duplicative, and that is why I oppose it.

Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment because it is within the President's authority to negotiate treaties and agreements without Senate ratification. While inserting findings clarifying the role of Congress and ratifying treaties would be entirely appropriate for a treaty under recognition, the draft pandemic agreement is not a treaty.

As I have previously stated, the United States President has the option of acceding to a treaty or agreement through executive action alone without the advice or consent of the Senate.

Over 90 percent of all U.S. international legal agreements have been approved via executive action rather than normal or formal Senate approval. These findings insinuate that the Biden-Harris administration is attempting to sidestep the Senate in these pandemic agreement negotiations. This is absolutely, 100 percent wrong.

Mr. Chairman, it is for these reasons that I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1157, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

There is strong bipartisan support in Congress for the Countering the People's Republic of China's Malign Influence Fund because it is the primary pool of funding for USAID and State Department projects to compete with China on the global stage.

Given this bipartisan consensus on the importance of the fund, I had hoped we could engage in a bipartisan process for this bill. Instead, most of our recommended changes to the bill were not accepted when this bill was rushed to a markup at the very start of this Congress. When offered an amendment to increase the fund's authorization from $325 million to $400 million per year--the same amount requested by the Biden-Harris administration--every Republican on our committee, unfortunately, voted against it.

Is that being tough on China? I don't think so.

In briefing after briefing, our committee has learned that the administration is laser-focused on addressing the China challenge and is utilizing the funds effectively to counter PRC disinformation, build resilience against the PRC's malign influence, and provide nations around the world with alternatives to China's extractive development framework. The administration is doing this work, and they are doing it very well.

As drafted, I believe H.R. 1157 could constrain the State Department and USAID in competing effectively. To compete with China, the fund and our institutions need to be nimble so they can adapt to Beijing's constantly evolving tactics and policies. While I support this bill, as it moves forward, there needs to be a real bipartisan consultation with the administration on how best to achieve our objectives and ensure the fund is effective for the long term.

If we are serious about the threat that China poses and if we are truly committed to winning this competition, then we need to put our money where our mouth is. We can hold all the China weeks we want, but if House Republicans keep cutting funding for the State Department and USAID, then we are not going to win the competition with China.

Mr. Speaker, we are in a global competition for influence with China, and if you want to win it, then you cannot do it on a middle power budget. China is putting its money up. We want to compete; we don't want to just talk about it. We need to put ours up so that we cannot just compete; we can win.

The stakes in our strategic competition with China are high. To come out ahead, we cannot spend our time playing whack-a-mole, reacting to every move China makes around the world. We have to proactively compete. That means sticking to our values because they are better than the values of the Chinese Communist Party. It means listening to our partners, our friends, our allies, and their needs, not forcing them to choose.

It means building resilience to China's malign influence by strengthening governance and the rule of law; and crucially, it means providing real, sustainable alternatives to China's financing and China's infrastructure and development assistance.

To achieve these goals and to do it effectively, we need more than just

rhetoric. We need creative thinking, a willingness to experiment, and a commitment to sustain American engagement and diplomacy. All that requires a clear strategy, a nimble State Department, and a USAID apparatus, and, again, dare I say it, money, not just for this fund but for our broader foreign operations and assistance also.

As we move forward with authorizing the Countering the PRC Malign Influence Fund Authorization Act, we need to remember that this is a long game. This is a long game. The game is not in the fourth quarter. If America wants to win it, then we must sufficiently invest. We must invest in our strengths as well as our tools of competition.

We are the greatest nation in the world with the greatest resources in the world. Let's do something so that we can continue being the leaders of the world.

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 today in support of H.R. 1103, the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office Certification Act, as amended.

This bill recognizes that Beijing has ripped apart any credible notion of Hong Kong's autonomy and has undone the ``one country, two systems'' framework. In doing so, Beijing betrayed not only the people of Hong Kong but the commitments it made to the whole world.

Hong Kong is no longer a bastion of the rule of law, no longer a place of political freedom, and no longer a place where opinions can be voiced freely. Today, over 1,800 political prisoners sit behind bars. Trials are held in secret, and justice is sent to mainland China. The freedoms once cherished in Hong Kong are disappearing rapidly.

The bill in front of us today calls on the President to determine whether the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Offices in the United States should continue to get the privileges, exemptions, and immunities which were offered based on Hong Kong's distinct autonomous status. After all, why should we treat Hong Kong as different from China now when the Chinese Communist Party is tightening its grip over Hong Kong's political and governing system?

This bill is timely and necessary. As we move forward, it is critical the State Department has the ability to assist both the hundreds of U.S. businesses operating and the over 80,000 American citizens living in Hong Kong. We need to make sure that our actions aren't indirectly strengthening Beijing's grip on Hong Kong's politics or its governance.

I had proposed changes to this legislation during our markup to address some of these concerns, but, unfortunately, these were not accepted by the majority.

After this bill passes, I hope that the executive branch and Congress can consider these issues together in a bipartisan manner so that we have one voice and so that with that one voice we may hold Beijing and Hong Kong accountable and protect American interests with one voice.

Finally, I will thank Representatives Chris Smith for all of his hard work on the bill as well as Representative Jim McGovern for introducing this important piece of legislation. In that spirit, I encourage all of my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, over the last year alone, we have seen Beijing and Hong Kong authorities crack down further on dissent and free expression at home and abroad.

In March, they enacted national security legislation under article 23 of

the Basic Law to once again fundamentally erode the rights and freedoms of Hong Kongers.

I am also especially concerned about Beijing's use of transnational repression on our shores, where we have seen democracy advocates, including a U.S. citizen, charged under the national security law, with rewards offered for their capture.

This bill is necessary right now because we need to ensure that Hong Kong's economic and trade offices in the United States are not being used by Beijing to execute its transnational repression here in the United States against those simply standing for freedom and democracy.

I hope all of our colleagues will join all of us here on the floor in supporting this timely and important bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 8361, as amended, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, 2\1/2\ years ago, we saw an unprovoked and brutal invasion of Ukraine by Russia, an act that has destabilized Europe and challenged the principles of sovereignty and self-determination. This blatant aggression is a direct attack on the international order that has kept the peace for decades.

Though Russia's illegal behavior is uniquely indefensible, countries such as China that have aggressively done business with the Russian military-industrial defense base are certainly not blameless.

The United States Government, including the House Committee on Foreign Affairs in a bipartisan manner, has engaged in extensive diplomacy to discourage countries from providing financial and material support for the Russian invasion.

The Biden-Harris administration has also used economic statecraft, including expansive export controls, to prevent key dual-use electronics items from reaching Moscow. Full blocking sanctions are a particularly formidable economic weapon, and the Biden-Harris administration has begun to use this part of the arsenal.

Bipartisan support for this legislation affirms that position, and financial sanctions must be on the table.

Finally, by imposing sanctions on the PRC and other entities that are fueling Russia's military machine, we send a clear message: We will not stand idly by while Ukraine's sovereignty is trampled.

This bill underscores the importance of unity among nations in opposing tyranny and supporting democracy.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 8361, as amended, is a valuable bill that grants the administration important authorities with necessary flexibility to sanction the PRC and other foreign businesses in league with the Russian defense industry base. I think this is something we all agree upon, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yea'' on this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5245, as amended, and yield myself such time as I may consume.

First, let me thank Representatives Andy Barr and Dina Titus for their leadership in developing this bill. I also thank Chairman McCaul for his collaboration in bringing this bill to a bipartisan consensus, ensuring that we have the necessary oversight over any U.S.-China governmental science cooperation.

We all know the challenges posed by the People's Republic of China. The Biden-Harris administration and this body are clear-eyed that the PRC is the only competitor with intent and means to reshape the rules- based international order.

To advance our interests, we must manage this critical relationship with shrewd diplomacy, not fear. This is why we must continue to engage China and find areas of cooperation where possible, even as we vigorously compete with and, where necessary, confront Beijing.

Since the U.S.-China Science and Technology Agreement was originally signed in 1979, the first bilateral agreement following our diplomatic recognition of the People's Republic of China, it has benefited the United States, China, and the global community.

Research collaborations have prevented disease, reduced pollution, and deepened our understanding of the Earth's history. The agreement has been renewed every 5 years or so under both Republican and Democratic administrations.

Mr. Barr's bill allows Congress to address robust oversight over the current and any updated U.S.-China Science and Technology Agreement, and it requires the State Department to ensure the agreement benefits the United States and includes standards and safeguards to protect the United States' interests.

It also enables Congress to monitor and track projects taking place under the agreement to ensure that they are consistent with U.S. values and interests. Therefore, it is for these reasons that we must pass H.R. 5245. This bill will allow Congress to effectively monitor the limited joint projects we do have with China, assess whether Beijing is living up to its commitments as part of the agreement, and ensure that American researchers, intellectual property, and data are adequately protected.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to pass H.R. 5245, as amended, so that we may

strengthen oversight of any U.S.-China science and technological agreements. These are routine mechanisms that lay out the rules of the road for government-to-government cooperation, providing a set of bilateral accepted standards, rules, and protections that guide any collaboration and provide access and protection for researchers, for data, and intellectual property.

We must continue to modernize the safeguards for government-to- government cooperation to manage the heightened risks in the case of China, while preserving space for scientific inquiry and innovations that may benefit us all.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. 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 H.R. 5613, as amended.

The U.S. Government operates many lists of foreign companies run by different departments with different departments. This is entirely appropriate. A North Korean nuclear proliferation agency is not the same as an unverified South Korean company.

While we may want to place restrictions on both, at least temporarily, the penalties and consequences should differ accordingly. The purpose of this bill is straightforward.

When one agency, like the Department of Commerce, lists a foreign entity, it ensures that other agencies, such as the Department of Defense, are formally notified. The right hand simply needs to know what the left hand is doing.

We need smart and effective policies, not a one-size-fits-all approach, particularly when it comes to economic statecraft and especially in our competition with China.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this bill. Also, since the gentleman said that he was prepared to close, that is my closing. It is my opening and my closing.

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

Mr. Speaker, over the past 3\1/2\ years, the Biden administration has imposed unprecedented export controls against China and Russia. These measures have been highly effective in restricting Beijing and Moscow's access to critical U.S. technologies that could be used to enhance their military capabilities. We know these controls are working because both nations are now seeking ways to circumvent them through various loopholes, diversion tactics, and deceptive practices.

One such loophole could involve PRC companies accessing U.S. chips remotely. Right now, our export control laws do not explicitly cover the remote access of controlled technologies through a network connection, including the internet or cloud computing services. H.R. 8152 would close that loophole.

I thank the majority for working with me to reach a bipartisan agreement on this bill. Since the markup, we have incorporated additional feedback from the administration to appropriately scope the bill and specify that offensive cyber operations against the United States are another end use that our export controls should be addressing.

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