Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation. This is the long-awaited proverbial ``China week'' on the House floor, so let me explain briefly why this legislation pertains to the PRC.

In February 2022, as the world turned its attention to the winter Olympics in Beijing, Vladimir Putin visited China to meet with President Xi where the two publicly declared what they called

a ``no limits partnership'' between Russia and China.

Just weeks after that declaration, Putin unleashed his devastating invasion of Ukraine, aimed at toppling the democratically elected government in Kyiv.

Since that time, China has played a crucial role in keeping the Kremlin's war machine running. By purchasing Russian oil and gas in massive quantities, Beijing has funded the Kremlin coffers and the illegal invasion machine it operates. By exporting semiconductors, drones, telecommunications gear, and other strategic electronic equipment, the PRC companies have provided the technical know-how to backfill U.S. and European providers that have exited the Russian market.

Though the PRC has deepened its economic trade with Russia, including in dual-use items, it has thus far avoided directly arming Russia's criminal war effort.

Recent reports have emerged about Russian officials meeting with leaders of major Chinese state-owned construction firms to discuss building a tunnel from Russia to Crimea. Of course, Crimea is of enormous strategic importance. Ukrainian forces have rightfully targeted this bridge multiple times, demonstrating their resilience and their determination to disrupt Russia's illegal occupation. The construction of a tunnel linking Russia directly to Crimea would only further entrench Putin's control over the Crimean Peninsula and bolster his war efforts.

Mr. Speaker, we have a duty to use every tool at our disposal to support Ukraine's struggle for sovereignty and freedom. I will thank my colleague, Representative Wilson, for his partnership on this important bill. I also extend my gratitude to Chairman McCaul for his leadership in advancing this legislation, both at markup and now on the floor, and I thank all Members who have shown their support by cosponsoring this measure.

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

Mr. Chair, I thank Ranking Member Lee for all the hard work that she does on SFOPS and her global leadership, which is tremendously important.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to this legislation.

On this very floor, my Republican colleagues have claimed that America is falling behind its competitors like China, that we must counter its spreading malign influence that it has commanded through foreign investments and other coercive measures.

While Beijing has increased its diplomatic budget over the last decade to surpass even what we afford our own diplomatic posts and personnel, what is the Republicans' strategy to grow our own influence and to outcompete China, Russia, and other national security competitors and adversaries? What is their plan? They propose this legislation, a partisan chain saw to our international affairs budget, which would impose a 12 percent cut on top of the cuts they imposed in last year's budget. This bill is a white flag of surrender in the competition for global influence.

I believe there is still a bipartisan majority in this House that is serious about meeting the national security challenges we face. Unfortunately, the majority is not being allowed to work its will today. Instead, this legislation caters to the fringe MAGA wing of the Republican Party with extreme riders on abortion and family planning, climate change, and DEI.

The bill cuts funding to international organizations, including the U.N., where we must demonstrate stronger leadership to advance U.S. interests.

This bill has sharp cuts to the personnel accounts for both the State Department and USAID. How are we going to implement programming without the staffing needed to manage it, or retain the skilled diplomatic workforce?

Amendments proposed today zero out funding for Ukraine, USAID, humanitarian and international disaster relief, educational exchange programs critical to promoting America's standing around the world, and democracy and human rights programs. This is irresponsible policymaking.

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

Mr. Speaker, too often in our foreign policy, we turn to sanctions as a first choice rather than a tool of last resort. Sanctions should not be our only go-to punishment to express our displeasure because they have real consequences.

That being said, I will say that on the Foreign Affairs Committee, we do try to work together and get a bipartisan bill. I thank the chairman for that. Unfortunately, we could not get to a final conclusion.

As I review the bill that we are about to vote on today, the bill that is on the floor, in this instance, this bill would have a chilling effect on the ICC as an institution and hamper the court's efforts to prosecute serious atrocities that have been perpetrated in many places around the world from Ukraine to Uganda. We can't forget that the ICC is a venue through which we can hold accountable bad actors.

I know many of us celebrated in March of last year when the ICC judges issued arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and other senior Russian officials for abducting thousands of Ukrainian children.

In fact, in the wake of Putin's renewed war in Ukraine, Congress passed legislation to enable the United States to provide financial support to and share information with the ICC to investigate and prosecute Putin and his regime for their heinous crimes.

Put simply, we leaned in on engagement with the ICC because it was in our interest and because it reinforces the prospect that the justice we want to see will be delivered.

Let me also be clear that President Biden has said from the very start that the ICC prosecutor's application last month for arrest warrants against Israeli leaders is clearly outrageous. In doing so, the ICC prosecutor has attempted to equate the self-defense decisions made by Israel's democratically-elected leaders to those of Hamas' terrorist leaders.

There is no, and I repeat, there is no moral or legal equivalence here. This is one reason why we try to work together and continue to figure out a way we can get to a bipartisan deal. Chairman McCaul and I will continue to do that.

Furthermore, let me just say that the United States has, since its inception, opposed, and we continue to oppose in the strongest terms, this investigation as an overreach into a matter for which the ICC has no jurisdiction.

That said, if our goal is to change the ICC's actions, sanctions is the wrong tool. They are simply not going to work here. They are not going to convince the ICC to back down and could, in fact, push the ICC to pursue this case with even greater vigor.

This bill will bluntly curtail the United States' ability to engage the court to advance our interests in supporting justice and accountability processes and, critically, to share relevant information that can impact the outcome.

The sanctions will have a chilling effect on States who would otherwise be inclined to align with us in ensuring the court delivers justice and avoids overreach.

Not only that, this particular legislation is overly broad. It would sanction our allies around the globe who support the ICC through resources and personnel.

Per the proposed text, anyone who has offered financial, material, or technological assistance to the court shall be sanctioned.

Let's look at what that means when we break it down. If you wrote a list of the largest funders of the ICC and a list of America's closest allies in Europe and in Asia, they would be virtually identical: the U.K., France, Germany, Italy, and Japan.

As drafted, the leaders of these countries would need to be sanctioned for providing material assistance to the ICC. The legislative bodies of the countries would also need to be sanctioned for appropriating funds to go to the ICC. Interparliamentary travel to Europe could become a sanctionable activity.

Is sanctioning Rishi Sunak, Emmanuel Macron, or Giorgia Meloni smart policy? To me, that is absurd on its face.

This bill would further risk sanctions on the over 900 staff members from approximately 100 countries at the court, from judges and prosecutors to administrative staff, including nationals of close U.S. allies and partners who collectively work to prosecute war criminals around the globe.

The language in this bill is so broad that even a cafeteria worker or janitor, even their families, could be construed as having supported or materially assisted in these prosecutions by providing services to the

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Ramirez).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

I think it is important for me to say, Mr. Speaker, at the outset that I really do appreciate the efforts that were made to make this legislation bipartisan. Trying to get to good in a bipartisan way is always my goal on the Foreign Affairs Committee, and Chairman McCaul has, indeed, been a partner in that effort. I thank him for his partnership.

That said, the bill as it is on the floor, I can't support because I believe it will be counterproductive to our interests, harm our relations with allies, and undermine American global leadership. Unfortunately, I believe the bill on the floor will do exactly that. Sanctioning the court and all those who support it will backfire badly on us, and I must oppose this legislation and urge my colleagues to do the same.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I strongly oppose H.R. 8369, which is a cynical, political exercise by my GOP colleagues to attempt to sow division and use the United States-Israel relationship and American security assistance to advance their own political agenda.

Despite what you have heard and will hear from the other side of the aisle today, Madam Speaker, there is no bigger champion for Israel's long-term security as a Jewish state than President Joe Biden. As I am, the President is committed to eliminating Hamas, and that is clear by what took place recently when he defended, along with other allies, Israel from an Iranian attack.

He visited Israel during wartime, and he has delivered unprecedented aid. To suggest that he is abandoning or harming Israel is absurd. He has been with Israel as a Senator, as a Vice President, and as a President. To insinuate that now, all of a sudden, he is not with Israel is not true at all.

Now, I hear my Republican colleagues argue that leveraging 2,000- pound bombs should not have been

done publicly. That approach has not worked. For months, the Biden administration publicly and privately urged Israel not to launch a major offensive in Rafah without credible plans to avoid mass casualties and to try to evacuate Palestinians to a safe space.

The United States has also repeatedly pressed Israel to cease using large warhead ordnance that results in excessive civilian casualties in densely populated civilian areas. Our humanitarian values are to try to save innocent lives, not saving Hamas, but trying to save innocent men, women, and children while we pursue Hamas--not cutting off all weapons, cutting off these huge bombs that kill innocent individuals--by utilizing munitions that are more appropriate for urban warfare to get Hamas.

To date, Israel has presented no plan to mitigate civilian harm or commitment to not using the 2,000-pound bombs in Rafah. To the contrary, what we heard from Prime Minister Netanyahu last week was that he repeatedly affirmed Israel's plans for an all-out assault on Rafah. That is when the Biden administration confirmed it would temporarily withhold a small number of large warhead bombs so that they would not be used in Rafah.

My Republican friends also seem to think that President Biden's actions are unprecedented, but there is a history of the United States withholding certain security assistance to Israel. Many of my GOP colleagues call themselves Reagan Republicans. Recall that President Reagan did the exact same thing based on concerns with Israel's military actions on two occasions in 1981 and 1982.

These 2,000-pound bombs in question can create a crater up to 50 feet wide and 36 feet deep when dropped. They have a lethal fragmentation to a radius the size of multiple football fields. Such bombs have no place in urban combat, not in Gaza and not in Rafah, one of the most densely populated areas on the planet. The United States has a duty and obligation under law to make sure our weapons are not disproportionately killing civilians.

This bill, H.R. 8369, prohibits the Biden administration from exercising its executive branch prerogative in holding or suspending U.S. arms transfers to Israel, including these large warhead munitions and any other defense article.

It also forces the administration to deliver any such item to Israel within 15 days of enactment and, if the administration is unable to comply, it freezes significant parts of the Defense Department, the State Department, and the National Security Council budgets. According to the Defense Department itself: Withholding defense-wide operations and maintenance funds would jeopardize DOD's ability to fulfill its constitutional obligation to defend the United States which could cause significant harm to United States national security.

Further, these budgetary freezes would undermine U.S. defense leadership when we are simultaneously competing in the Indo-Pacific, supporting Ukraine in its fight against the Russian war of aggression, and working with our partners in sub-Saharan Africa on security challenges. Again, this is all tremendously dangerous for our own national security.

The bill also includes a blatantly political attack on military officers, hardworking civil servants, and U.S. Government employees by mandating Inspector General investigations into individuals, not agencies or departments, and orders the withholding of their salaries in a brazen and politicized witch hunt.

All of these concerns would have been made clear had my Republican colleagues not rushed this bill through without any kind of regular order. Had it been marked up in the Foreign Affairs Committee, we would have been able to highlight that this legislation undercuts a number of crucial existing United States laws that are in the Foreign Affairs Committee's jurisdiction, including the Arms Export Control Act, the Leahy Law, and executive branch policies including the Conventional Arms Transfer Policy and National Security Memorandum 20.

Let me repeat: President Biden paused one arms shipment. One. The President continues to focus on freeing the hostages, to put the onus on Hamas to reach a deal, and supports Israel's right to eradicate Hamas.

That is the position of President Joseph R. Biden. Let's be clear about it.

In conclusion, consider the facts and the context. We should oppose this bill moving forward because it is not good for Israel, and it is not good for the United States of America.

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

Mr. Speaker, to correct the record, President Biden never said, as I hear my colleagues saying, that he is suspending all weapons to Israel. He said specifically the 2,000-pound bombs that cause death to innocent Palestinians are the only things that were paused here, not all weapons.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schneider), a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say this really quickly. One of the speakers before him said Democrats and terrorists are against Israel. That just shows how political this is.

Democrats and Republicans have always been with Israel. To try and distort it and say Democrats are against Israel shows that it is just a partisan argument and not for the benefit of Israel. It is for trying to play politics with this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro), the ranking member of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Goldman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 20 seconds to the gentleman from Texas.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have said from the beginning that today this debate is a cynical, partisan exercise by my Republican colleagues to attack the Biden administration and advance their political agenda.

Mr. Speaker, I have been here for 26 years, and any time Israel came up previously, we didn't play politics with it. We tried to sit down and work it out and come out unified, Democrats and Republicans. Especially in any foreign policies, one of the things we have done, especially on this committee, is try to work together so that the other countries of the world did not see a divided America but rather a unified America with our allies.

This is true with, for example, Ukraine. After many of my colleagues talked about the delay that took place to pass the supplemental, the whole idea even then was to negotiate together to try to come out with a bill that showed unity; not play politics with it; not try to say, as we have heard in this debate by some on their side: Oh, the Democrats are in cahoots with the terrorists.

That is not who we are. That is not who we should be. We should be the United States Congress talking and working. We are not going to always agree on everything, but to have dialogue and conversation on an issue in a matter that is so serious as this, as we did, as Mr. McCaul said correctly.

On October 8, we wanted to make sure that we put a resolution on this floor that over 400 Members of the House of Representatives, Democrats and Republicans, could support. We didn't start out agreeing on everything in that resolution. We sat down, and we worked and debated. We went back and forth, and then we came up with a resolution that we could proudly put on the floor to say that the United States Congress is together, that we are not divided.

Mr. Speaker, that is not this bill. We didn't do that on this bill. We didn't even try. Why? Politics--politics in such a crucial time as this, with all that is going on.

We were together and made sure that we were working together. We were talking to our Arab colleagues about normalization with Israel. Why? It is because that makes for a better Middle East. It is good for Israel. It is good for our allies in the region. It is good for the United States of America.

That is not what this bill is all about. This bill is not good for Israel, and it is not good for our allies in the region. Chairman McCaul is correct when he said that we want to make sure that Saudi Arabia plays and has normalization with Israel as well as others in the Gulf area.

Speak to them and ask them if this bill will make the area better. Speak to them and include them in that dialogue. Because if we want a better Middle East, peace for Israel, and the Jewish state to move forward where they don't have to worry about a threat, we need to work together, not alone.

That is the dialogue and conversation we should be having. That is who we should be as leaders. That is who we should be as the indispensable nation. Those are our values.

We should value every human life. We should be concerned when we see people starving, innocent individuals. That shows who we are. That is leadership. That brings people together. That is good for Israel, and that is good for the United States of America, not this.

People are watching all over the world. Who are we? Are we just going to continue to divide? Are we going to be a nation divided? We can't sit down to talk and work things out? I know we can. Mr. McCaul and I do it all the time.

We are having a markup right now, 14 bills in the House Foreign Affairs Committee. We didn't start out agreeing, but we worked it out. We have 14 bills today, all of them bipartisan. That is who we are. That is who we should be.

You heard Mr. Sherman say he is working now on another bill that we can work on together. That is who we are. That is who we should be.

Let's make a difference. Let's not play politics on the House floor. Let's make a difference. We can do this. We are better than this. We are better than this.

I saw today on our committee--and I am proud of this committee-- Democrats and Republicans talking back and forth on their differences, trying to figure out how we can change this and move so that we can pass a bill in the committee. I was listening as we were doing certain things, and truthfully, it made me proud to see how we were working together.

I say to my colleagues on the other side: Let's not do this. We are better than this, especially on foreign affairs. I mean, we are going to have our political domestic issues, but not on foreign affairs. Let's not play politics here. There is too much at stake, just too much at stake for us, for others.

They expect more from us. Let's give them more. Let's show them we can work together. Let's show them why we are the greatest country that this planet has ever seen. We are the United States of America.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

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

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

Madam Chair, this is indeed a historic moment. Sometimes when we are living history, as we are today, we don't understand the significance of the actions, of the votes that we make on this House floor, and of the effect that it will have down the road for children yet unborn. This is a historic moment.

Yesterday, one of the rarest things that has ever happened on this floor took place. Generally, in this body, it takes the majority party to pass its rule, and the minority party never votes for it. However, this moment is so big that House Democrats said: We are not playing politics with this. This is too important for our Nation's security. This is too important for our allies' security. This is too important for the free world's security.

Therefore, we did something that we have never done before. We voted in a bipartisan way to pass the rule to get these bills on the floor. Quite frankly, I would have loved to have done this 2, 3, 4 months ago. However, this is a historic moment. Ukraine is now on the brink. The humanitarian catastrophes in Gaza and Sudan and Haiti and elsewhere require immediate aid.

Israel faced an unprecedented, direct attack from Iran less than 1 week ago, and we need to rebuild our industrial base and support a free and open Indo-Pacific.

We stand here today, finally, doing the people's work; doing, as I said just a few minutes ago, what we should have done months ago-- supporting our friends, supporting our allies around the world, and quieting the doubts about whether America is a reliable partner or not; whether the United States will continue leading on the world stage or not. I am so proud of President Biden because he has displayed that leadership time and time again.

Now, today, we have a number of bills that we need to pass for our national security. On REPO, pertaining to the seizure of Russian sovereign assets, there is no doubt that Russia should pay for its crimes against humanity in Ukraine, as Vice President Harris has termed it. This bill, importantly, irons out legal questions that make sure that the United States does not act alone, but rather in coordination with our G7 and other partners, and we have seen President Biden pull them together immediately. Coordinating with our allies on this issue is important, not just for our standing as a paragon of the rule of law, but for our long-term economic interests.

There is an array of Middle East sanction bills included in this package, including several we voted on this week.

Importantly, the majority agreed to add a humanitarian exception in three of those bills. I had been requesting that for a while. Fortunately and thankfully, we got it in now.

I hope that, going forward, including these exceptions is a matter of course rather than something added via last-second negotiation, but I thank my friend, Chairman McCaul, for the good-faith negotiations on the Middle East section of this legislation.

The Foreign Affairs Committee sanctions section is not perfect, but it does provide important humanitarian exceptions and waivers throughout the bill. Given the focus on the REPO bill the last few days, I will highlight that a key authority in the bill is permissive.

I do not think that a sanction should be the opening salvo of diplomacy. Many may have heard me talking about how I believe in diplomacy so strongly, but sanctions are an important instrument of economic statecraft that can, on occasion, deter bad actors, curb human rights abuses, and promote diplomatic outcomes. I believe we lose our moral credibility if American sanctions are seen as causing indiscriminate deprivation, and we lose our policy flexibility if we tie the executive branch's hands instead of giving it useful tools.

Yet, it is important that would-be invaders and dictators around the world

see they will face real consequences if they undermine the international order.

This legislation also contains several bills in the Financial Services and Energy and Commerce lanes. Important changes were made to these bills.

I had voted against H.R. 7521 on the floor out of concern that it would be a broad authorization that could be misused far beyond what we in Washington are currently debating, beyond just TikTok. However, I think the bill took a step in the right direction with a more realistic timeframe for a complex divestiture process.

Let me say for the record that I believe this bill is about one company and that additional authorities provided to the executive branch are to be interpreted narrowly.

Let me also take a moment to speak to those who oppose this legislation and say we can't support Ukraine in its fight against Russia's invasion because, to use their words, we are facing an invasion here at home. That is an absurd comparison.

Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine because he wanted to topple the democratically elected Government of Ukraine and reconstitute the Soviet Union. He launched his unprovoked war of aggression with a willingness to kill millions of Ukrainians, not to mention his own forces.

By contrast, people come to our border because of the tumult in their home countries or in search of a better life for themselves and their children. They do so because this is the greatest Nation, the greatest country, in the history of this planet.

With all of our ills, with all of our faults, with all that we need to do, we come together. There is no question that the example that we show, by the people and the citizens of this great country, it is the greatest Nation on this planet.

Today, once again, on this House floor, where we are right now, we are proving that fact by overcoming, by proving that this is the greatest country in the world, and by proving that we are the leaders of the free world. We are doing this by overcoming our partisan divides, by showing that we will work together and stand together, Democrats and Republicans, for the right thing and for our country.

We are passing a historic bill, a bill that our children and grandchildren will be reading and looking at in the years to come. It promotes not just U.S. national security but the security of democracy over authoritarianism, law over lawlessness, and prosperity over chaos or famine.

Madam Chair, the camera of history is rolling, and when they play it back, they will see we stood together. When they play it back, they will see that we stood for freedom, justice, and equality.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly), a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro), the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere.

Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Madam Chair, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Krishnamoorthi), the ranking member

on the Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party.

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

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.

Madam Chair, the Treasury opposes this amendment because they believe the reporting time is so short, and the requirements are so onerous. They believe it is so onerous that they will have to pull people away from doing the important work on finding illicit actors that should be sanctioned and make them work on this report.

There are also concerns about business confidentiality here. I am guessing, if there were more time, we could make changes in this bill. We could work together to make it more workable and strike a deal here. But given that this is an up-or-down vote on the floor for an amendment now, I must oppose.

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

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the gentleman from New Jersey's resolution, H. Res. 1143, condemning Iran's unprecedented drone and missile attack on Israel.

Like every Member of this body, I am horrified by Iran's direct attack on Israel.

In retaliation for Israel's targeted strike against two Iranian military generals in Damascus on April 1, Iran launched more than 300 drones and powerful missiles at Israel's population--Jews, Muslims, and Christians alike.

The great success of Israel's missile shield, codeveloped by the United States of America, and the combined forces of the U.S. military, France, the U.K., and Jordan, prevented significant death and destruction.

Our thoughts and hearts are with the young Israeli Bedouin girl, who is recovering today from injuries she suffered due to an Iranian projectile.

I stand strongly with the people of Israel and their defense against both direct and proxy Iranian attacks, and I support this resolution being offered by Representative Kean.

Israel, of course, has the right to defend itself like any other country, but as a true friend of Israel, I encourage the Israeli Government to be smart and strategic as it considers its response, and I urge this body not to beat the drums of war.

As Secretary Blinken recently said, an escalation of the conflict is not in the United States' or Israel's interests.

Believe me, I really understand the rage felt by Israel toward the Government of Iran, a government hell-bent on wiping Israel off the map. The two generals whom Israel eliminated worked day and night to provide Iranian proxies the lethal materiel and strategy necessary to significantly harm the State of Israel.

I also understand the need for Israel to maintain strategic deterrence. Iran needs to know there will be serious consequences if it attempts to harm Israel. Deterrence serves to prevent an expansion of conflict.

I also understand the massive consequences of Israel and Iran descending into a broader war and what that would mean for the United States and the rest of the entire world. An expanded Israel-Iran war would distract from the ongoing conflict in Gaza, a conflict that must end, while ensuring the elimination of Hamas' military capabilities.

We still have challenges. We must free the hostages remaining in Gaza and achieve a humanitarian cease-fire. Famine and the current humanitarian catastrophe must be reversed at all costs. There must be a realistic plan for the future governance and reconstruction of Gaza, one that results in Palestinian control of the strip.

An expanded Israel-Iran war could also serve to drag the United States of America deeper into the conflict. As the ongoing debate on the supplemental should make clear, the United States already has a lot on its plate.

Madam Speaker, please remember that Russia's war of aggression in Ukraine remains unfinished business and that Ukraine is losing ground to Russian forces due to Donald Trump's interference in our emergency supplemental process.

The future of Europe is urgently--urgently--at stake. Already, there are dangerous conflicts simmering throughout the Middle East region, including continued attacks by the Houthis in Yemen against international shipping and U.S. military forces. China still has its sights set on Taiwan as China strengthens its relationship with both Iran and Russia.

An expanded war in the Middle East would put American soldiers deployed in the region in greater danger. It would harm the American middle class and global economies still clawing back pandemic-spurred inflation, just as our economy is beginning to rebound.

Are there those amongst us who think it is wise to open a broader war in the Middle East this week? Do we want to further encourage Iran to rush to build and test a nuclear weapon? Do we want to give Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping the satisfaction of the United States being bogged down in war?

China and Russia would love to see the United States embroiled and distracted in the Middle East as they continue their nefarious destabilizing objectives in Europe and the Indo-Pacific. We should not let that happen.

Madam Speaker, I conclude my remarks where I started. We stand strongly with the State of Israel and its right to defend its people. Israel, without question, has the right to defend itself, and I hope that strategy and thoughtfulness rule the day, not rage and revenge. There is too much at stake.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean) and ask that she may control that time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 6046, which would force the administration to designate the Houthis a foreign terrorist organization, an FTO, a designation that risks jeopardizing the very lifesaving assistance Yemeni civilians are dependent on for their survival.

Let me be clear. Everyone in this body recognizes the threat the Houthis pose both in Yemen and the Red Sea. We have seen the Iran- backed proxy launch a campaign of missile attacks on commercial vessels in the Red Sea, attempting to halt global trade, violating international law. Their disruptive campaign has not only endangered merchant vessels, but also United States personnel with the clear- stated intention of harming Israel and any of its allies.

That said, I believe that this legislation is the wrong approach. The Biden administration has undertaken the correct approach. In response to the Houthis' unprecedented attack in the Red Sea, the administration, rather than unilaterally, worked multilaterally with more than 40 countries to curb the Houthi behavior while not escalating tension in the Middle East.

The administration has targeted military strikes on Houthi targets and implemented, specifically, specially designated global terrorist sanctions with appropriate humanitarian provisions.

Working collectively with our allies, not America alone, is the way that we win this battle. That is the correct route instead of this measure, which does not address the Houthi threat.

Instead, it undermines the United States' national security objective in the region and endangers innocent Yemenis, who are already on the brink of perishing.

First, the H.R. 6046 mandate does not include humanitarian provisions, thereby unnecessarily punishing millions of Yemeni civilians. This would create a scenario in which commercial vessels and humanitarian organizations would not be able to continue to provide lifesaving goods to many Yemenis due to severe criminal penalties they would incur for doing so.

After nearly a decade of brutal war, the majority of the Yemenis, nearly half of them children, face serious malnutrition, and millions more Yemenis remain on the brink of starvation. This legislation would only deepen the humanitarian crisis at a time when aid is

most needed. That is why a broad coalition of NGOs and humanitarian organizations oppose an FTO designation without humanitarian provisions.

While some may point to existing general licenses or provisions as a mitigating factor, the legal implications of an FTO designation and the sweeping consequences it entails, without regard to type of activity or transaction, renders such licenses moot without any such new statutory authorizations or exemptions.

Secondly, this designation would also undercut important ongoing diplomatic efforts by the United States, the U.N., and European countries to achieve de-escalation in the region, the world, together. That is the right thing to do.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill is theatrical. It will have no real- world impact on the Houthi behavior, but would likely serve as a public relations win and recruiting fodder for the movement while, at the same time, the people that would be punished are the Yemenis, those innocent children and women and men. It is unnecessary.

This and any future administration already has the authority to implement such a designation per section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Mr. Speaker, for these reasons and others, I urge my colleagues not to support H.R. 6046, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6046 would force the administration to designate the Houthis as a foreign terrorist organization without humanitarian provisions and, consequently, make the humanitarian crisis in Yemen even more dire.

Now, Mr. Clyde says that the Biden administration doesn't want to call the Houthis what they are, but let me read what they are and sanctioned already. They are a specially designated global terrorist. That is what the Biden administration issued. The difference between the two, being an SDGT as opposed to being an FTO, is one allows humanitarian aid in, and the other doesn't.

This bill would have significant adverse impacts, creating a situation in which humanitarian organizations and commercial shippers would be reluctant to provide food, aid, and medical equipment to Yemen out of fear of the severe criminal consequences this bill would impose.

It does nothing really to change the Houthis' behavior. It just hurts innocent Yemeni people. Therefore, I support the administration's efforts to counter Houthi actions with targeted military strikes and the implementation of that specially designated global terrorist sanction, which includes the humanitarian provisions that this bill

lacks. This is, by far, the better path toward ceasing hostile Houthi actions.

The Biden administration's approach holds the Houthis responsible for their violent, destabilizing actions without deepening the crisis for innocent Yemeni citizens.

I am going to stand with a broad coalition of NGOs, humanitarian organizations, and those that understand the wealth and the need and the richness of human life, trying to save human beings, not turning our backs on them with a piece of legislation that will do nothing really to the Houthis or change their behavior.

All of these NGOs, all of these humanitarian organizations, oppose an FTO designation without humanitarian provisions.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to do the same. We should make sure that the NGOs and humanitarian organizations are able to help save innocent lives.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill and ask my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4691.

As I have explained during committee consideration, I have serious concerns about what this bill means to the overall practice of American foreign policy and, therefore, must oppose it.

Some think that diplomacy is weak and that the only way you show strength is to go to war. We have heard from generals that if war was the only option that we had on the table, it would cost us much more in bullets and armor, and that diplomacy helps deter military.

In fact, I would say it is strength. Anybody can say I am going to fight. It is strength in trying to negotiate, in dealing with diplomacy. If that should fail, going to war should be your last alternative.

Diplomacy and people in the State Department who exercise it are absolutely essential. It brings others with us so we are not out there by ourselves but working in a multilateral way.

It is hard for any Member, particularly me as a ranking member, to be opposed to a bill that is meant to increase congressional oversight of sensitive foreign policy issues. However, in the specific case of this bill as drafted, were it to be signed into law, I believe it would damage America's ability to conduct effective diplomacy.

Here is why. When dealing with our enemies, a strong diplomatic corps and a strong military are both necessary to achieve our goals. In the specific case of Iran, they can clearly see from our consistent joint military exercises, regional deployments, and last weekend's missile defense that we mean business.

Our diplomatic efforts have also proven very effective. Case in point was the successful implementation of the JCPOA, which verifiably cut off all pathways to an Iranian bomb. The dangerous nuclear moment we now find ourselves in, where Iran has stockpiled highly enriched uranium and is limiting the access of inspectors is the direct result of the shortsighted cancellation of that diplomatic agreement. The Iranian nuclear threat has never been more dangerous than it is right now.

Again, when we had the JCPOA, working in a multilateral way with our other allies, and even at that point, two who are not allies, and when you speak to most individuals, IAEA included, who had eyes on what was taking place in Iran, once we pulled out and stopped using diplomacy, they have no eyes now, which is why Iran is more dangerous today than it was when they were in this agreement.

The United States must keep diplomacy on the table as a tool to address the Iranian threat. If this proposed bill is set into law, Iranian negotiators will know and allied negotiators will know that the executive branch officials in the negotiation room cannot independently make decisions. Our negotiators will be at an acute disadvantage. Other parties, friend or foe, will know any adjustment in sanctions implementation would become subject to a joint motion of disapproval. Carefully negotiated multilateral agreements risk becoming subject to partisanship right here in the United States House of Representatives, in Congress. Such an action is worrisome and also without precedent.

I also believe that this bill directly interferes with the INARA process, the bipartisan agreement currently in statute to provide Congress the ability to approve or disapprove a negotiated nuclear agreement.

Diplomatic agreements with Iran are already subject to congressional review as a whole. This bill goes far beyond

that statute. Even if the United States Congress cleared an Iran deal through a comprehensive INARA process, sanctions implementation would once again become subject to binding congressional review, risking the agreement itself.

This legislation could also harm efforts to deescalate tensions with Iran shy of a comprehensive agreement. If this or a future administration tried to negotiate a short-term diplomatic agreement on nuclear or other issues, such as regional troop protection, this legislation would interfere with that process.

I would also like to make a more general point about sanctions that I believe this Congress sometimes forgets--one I feel that I have to make over and over and over again nowadays in this Congress. Sanctions are meant to be lifted if they achieve our goals. You don't keep a sanction if the goal has been achieved. Our nuclear sanctions were not passed to foment regime change in Iran, no matter how much we hoped they were. They were designed to drive Iran to the table to negotiate an end to their nuclear weapons program. If we reach an agreement that clears INARA, one that verifiably cuts off pathways to a nuclear weapon, we have to live up to our end of the agreement.

Legislation like this one is designed to thwart our obligations, damaging our diplomatic flexibility and trustworthiness if we care about diplomacy. Now maybe we don't care about diplomacy; I think that is the wrong way to go. I think that we should very much care about diplomacy.

Finally, some will argue that there is precedent for such a policy vis-a-vis Russia. That is inaccurate. The scope of Russian sanctions in CAATSA is much smaller. For instance, national emergencies past and present are included in this proposed bill but not in CAATSA. The new Russia sanctions EOs aren't covered in CAATSA, and any new Iran EO would be. There are also many sanctions in CAATSA where there is no congressional review. This bill, however, would apply to the entire universe of Iran sanctions. Finally, CAATSA mechanisms were established specifically to deal with Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election. It wasn't about trying to prevent legitimate diplomacy, as this bill will do.

My friends and colleagues, we must look beyond Iran before going down this road. I have been around here 26 years, and I know that if passed into law, this type of policy will not stop with Iran. If this were to become law, it would only be a matter of time before the lifting of any sanction, no matter how small, would be subject to a congressional vote. It is our duty to provide the authority and the appropriations for effective foreign policy, not to undermine diplomacy in this manner.

We cannot have 535 Secretaries of State in a negotiating room. It never happens that way. You do not negotiate that way. Diplomacy does not work that way. I say: Please think. Think carefully before steering us down this road. Think what it means if you think diplomacy is important. If you don't think diplomacy is important and the only thing that is important is going to war, then we have a difference of opinion.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I think everyone has heard by now how important diplomacy is. I think that we should show it in our budget. I am a firm believer in diplomacy. The fact of the matter, the direct quote from General Mattis was: ``If you don't fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition ultimately.''

I guess my friends and colleagues from the other side of the aisle just want to buy ammunition, and that is why the State Department is continually being cut, because they don't really focus on or put diplomacy on the same level, and that is what is happening here with this bill.

This bill would significantly impede America's ability to conduct effective diplomacy with Iran. By requiring that any adjustment in sanctions implementation be subject to a joint motion of disapproval, the bill would undermine diplomacy and U.S. negotiators, and makes that clear to anyone sitting across from them at the table. That is the negotiating table, not the battlefield, where we hope we don't have to go, but we are prepared and have shown that we are ready to do it if we must, and that is discussed first at a negotiating table.

This would also let them know when we are at the table--those that are sitting across that table--that they have no authority to relax or adjust sanctions. It would subject any negotiations to undue congressional partisanship.

Can anyone deny that what we see happening on this floor--and what is happening in this 118th Congress--partisanship plays a huge role? In fact, we can't get anything done because of partisanship. Iran would know this. In fact, our allies would know this.

We are tied up in partisanship. This would only weaken our position. This only compromises the agility required

to address urgent international threats and opportunities.

Moreover, the stipulations of this bill undermine the very purpose of sanctions which are intended as tools to bring nations like Iran to the negotiating table--not as a permanent punitive measure. But if they do something where they are disregarding, and we are not working together and are aggressive at that negotiating table, we also are letting them know that we are ready or what we have the capability of doing.

This bill hurts diplomacy. It hurts trying to make sure that we are driving others to the negotiating table. As General Mattis said, he doesn't have to buy more bullets. Let's fund the State Department. Let's promote and speak good will of diplomacy. It is the best way to move forward in a multilateral way with our allies.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5947. This legislation may be short, but it is equally shortsighted with considerable long-term consequences.

Let's start with the impact this would have on Iraq. This bill would rescind a waiver that currently allows Iraq to pay for electricity from Iran.

This waiver is what allows the Iraqi Government to keep the lights on. Without it, massive blackouts would leave millions without electricity and cause precipitous chaos. It would hamper the fragile stability that Iraq has achieved over the past several years.

I don't believe anyone in this body wants to see a return to Iraq of the past, where Iraqis from previous decades suffered from never-ending wars and repression like that of the Saddam Hussein era.

Mr. Speaker, the impact of this bill goes even further than that. It would harm and cause the Iraqi people terrible consequences. An Iraq without electricity serves no American interest and would do nothing to promote our, the United States', national security.

Let's not forget, ISIS emerged from a chaotic Iraq. ISIS, I will repeat, emerged from a chaotic Iraq--long-term consequences, shortsighted bill.

When ISIS emerged, the result was not just widespread disorder, destruction, and violence in the Middle East but the growth of a global terrorist movement that struck my home city and State of New York, Orlando, San Bernardino, as well as Paris, Brussels, and Barcelona.

I agree that we absolutely need to help Iraq find alternative sources of energy besides Iran, but it is simply not true that Iran is filling its coffers with payments from Iraq. There is roughly $10 billion in Iraqi payments for Iranian electricity being held in escrow. Only very small portions of the money have been transferred to an account in Oman, into which the United States has oversight. Iran can only access that account to purchase humanitarian goods, like food or medicine. None of the funds--zero, nada--are going to nefarious purposes.

Maybe we have a difference and some don't care about humanitarian causes, humanitarian aid, and things of that nature. I know my side of the aisle does.

Human life, innocent human life, is very important, and it is also how we show what our values are.

This bill would risk our ability to have oversight and control of the $6 billion in Iranian funds we are monitoring in Qatar, and much more. This measure would have the opposite effect of what it intends to do, leading to less control of Iranian assets.

I am deeply concerned that this bill removes all flexibility from our current Iran sanctions program. The point of sanctions, again, is to bring Iran back to--as I have said over and over on the various bills we have seen today--the negotiating table.

Sanctions are not an end but a means to an end. A diplomatic path, I say again, is the best path, and this measure removes the flexibility necessary for that strategic objective and the utilization of diplomacy.

Let me also say a quick word about process. Yes, we need to respond to global events, and that is why I supported seven Iran-related measures on the floor just yesterday. While I disagree with some of the other bills on the floor today, at least those pieces of legislation received proper committee consideration.

Yes, we do, on the Committee on Foreign Affairs, practice what I believe is some diplomacy. My friend and chairman, Michael McCaul, and I talk. We give a chance to trying to work it out first. Sometimes we do; sometimes we don't. These bills never gave us a chance to do that.

This bill did not follow that process. It has not been marked up by the Committee on Foreign Affairs or, for that matter, the Committee on Financial Services or, for that matter, the Committee on Ways and Means or, for that matter, the Committee on Oversight and Accountability, even though every single one received a referral on this bill--process.

Mr. Speaker, in my tenure as the former chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, now the ranking member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, this week is the first time ever that we are considering a bill under a rule that

had not gone through the committee process--not only in my time as a chair or ranking member, but almost an entire 25 years that I have been on the committee.

This is, I believe, a very unfortunate precedent that we are setting here. If we actually want to support--I know I do fully--our ally, Israel, what we should be doing is passing a bipartisan Senate national security aid bill that would send important funds to Israel so that they could defend themselves against Iranian aggression, as well as, of course, supporting our friends in Ukraine and Taiwan, and providing necessary humanitarian assistance.

I know we have been negotiating, which is okay. We know that, and we are going to try to figure out some of the things, from what I am hearing. What we should be doing, what really is necessary right now, given the needs of our allies, is just pass a bipartisan bill. Seventy Members of the Senate in a bipartisan way passed it. It is waiting for us to vote on it.

Many of us, I think at least over 300 of us, will agree that if that bill just had the light of day on the floor, because our Ukrainian friends are at a desperate end--they need assistance right now. What took place in the Middle East, the strikes against Israel, they need the money right now. Our Taiwanese friends need the money right now. The innocent individuals in Gaza, in Sudan, and around the world need the assistance right now.

If today, we put that bill on the floor and let Congress do its will, it would be on the desk of the President of the United States either later this evening or first thing tomorrow, signed into law, and our allies that we claim we care for would get the aid and assistance that they need now.

That is the bill we should have been debating in February. That is the bill we should have been debating in March. That is the bill we should be debating today, really, not this bill, which will have a far greater impact on innocent Iraqi civilians than any minuscule impact on Iran.

Mr. Speaker, I guess you know that I oppose this legislation, and I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Khanna).

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

I strongly oppose this measure, which would remove all flexibility from our Iran sanctions program and thereby strike a fatal blow to our ability to conduct nuclear diplomacy with Iran.

Now, I have heard several times during the course of this debate about the failure of the JCPOA, of which at the time the IAEA had oversight, individuals were knowing what and where the nuclear material was. Most of it, as it has been said now, was moved out of the country.

The fact of the matter is, if I recall correctly, General Mattis, who was initially an opponent of the JCPOA, after seeing what it was doing and how it was functioning, became a proponent of the JCPOA. He said it publicly, that it was a way through diplomacy to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say with joy that the former President pulled us out of the JCPOA.

I ask: What was accomplished by pulling us out? Are we safer? Is that what it did? If we are safer by being pulled out, what are we talking about now? Are we in more danger?

Does Iran now have a greater opportunity to get a nuclear weapon? Do we know where the materials are now, since it was a good thing to pull out of the JCPOA, or do we know less? Do we have more access now, since we pulled out of the JCPOA, or do we have less? Why was this thing about pulling out of the JCPOA such a great thing?

I am more worried today about Iran getting a nuclear weapon than I was when we were in the JCPOA. I ask my colleagues: Were you more worried when we were in the JCPOA than you are right now?

I hear that you are worried right now about where Iran is with a nuclear weapon. Back then what we were talking about was diplomacy to try to prevent them from having a nuclear weapon. Are you telling me now, because we don't know, that we should just go to war?

There are choices to be made here. I think we were much better off using diplomacy, getting access to what was going on, watching them move nuclear material outside of the country, than just saying we are going to blow you up.

No oversight, nothing; no contact; no one looking in; no information other than that and they are free to do whatever the heck they want to do now. They are free to do it because they no longer have to be at the negotiating table.

Are we safer now or were we safer under the JCPOA?

Additionally, let me say this bill would have greater consequences across the entire Middle East, particularly in Iraq, which this bill would restrict from purchasing Iranian energy.

I will remind us again, let's not be shortsighted. With no energy, there is chaos in Iraq. What happened before? ISIS was created. Blackouts across Iraq would sow societal chaos in Iraq.

Does that help serve our national security objectives in the region? I don't think so.

If implemented, this bill would undermine the tenuous stability Iraq has worked to establish after decades of war. Are they perfect now? No. Four years is a short period of time when we are trying to do some major accomplishments here.

Importantly, this measure may also cost us our ability to do what we say we want to do, to monitor and control the Iranian funds in Qatar and elsewhere. Do we want to lose control, not have oversight of that either? Then you want this bill.

A smart sanctions policy has a purpose. It is not a blunt tool to wield in an effort to induce regime change. That does not work. It has never worked when it was used just to try to have regime change.

Our sanctions policies must be flexible and allow for United States national security objectives to be realized through thoughtful--and I will use this word one more time--thoughtful diplomacy.

A waiver is always necessary for that purpose.

Our Middle East national security objectives should be about providing Israel aid as part of our national security supplemental and providing humanitarian aid to starving individuals. That is what it should be about. That is what we should be voting on. That is what we should be debating on, not just today. We should have done it months ago.

It shouldn't be about cutting off Iraqis from electricity and creating chaos and the possible rise again of another terrorist group similar to ISIS that killed Americans and allies abroad.

This bill should be opposed. This bill is shortsighted. This bill doesn't accomplish what we needed to do and what we need to do. Let's vote it down.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5917, the Strengthening Tools to Counter the Use of Human Shields Act, and I thank my colleagues, Representative Gallagher and Representative Sherman, for introducing this legislation.

As we all know, Hamas regularly uses people as human shields, hiding behind them and thereby endangering innocent Palestinian civilians. We have seen this clearly in the months since October 7, but this behavior is not new. It is and has been the de facto policy of Hamas for many years.

Hamas has operated from under, inside, and adjacent to hospitals, schools, and other civilian structures. Within civilian buildings, they have stored weapons caches and ammunition, built miles of tunnels underground, and launched attacks from behind women and children.

When Israel instructed families in Gaza to flee to the south for safety, Hamas demanded people stay in Gaza City, to remain in place, saying that it was beneficial to their strategy.

Hamas does not care for the Palestinian people. They never have. They never will. Hamas only means to exploit them as human shields.

This behavior of hiding behind noncombatants is a clear violation of international law and has been an unconscionable contributor to the deaths of too many innocent Palestinian people.

This measure, H.R. 5917, amends the Sanctioning the Use of Civilians as Defenseless Shields Act, adding additional terrorist entities, bolstering congressional oversight and reporting requirements, and extending its sunset provision.

This legislation will renew and strengthen existing law, and I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, Hamas has not only shown complete disregard for the Palestinian people. It has also used them as human shields as an intentional war tactic. It is unconscionable and in clear violation of international law, contributing to the deaths of innocent noncombatants.

This measure updates and extends the Sanctioning the Use of Civilians as Defenseless Shields Act by adding additional terrorist entities, bolstering congressional oversight and reporting requirements, and extending its sunset provisions.

The strengthening of this existing statute is timely, important, and necessary, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 5917.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4681, and I thank my friend and colleague, Congressman French Hill, for introducing this measure.

For years, the Assad regime has fueled its brutal and oppressive campaign against the Syrian people through the revenue of a drug trafficking network estimated to be worth billions of dollars.

Syria remains the largest producer of captagon, a dangerous and highly addictive amphetamine popular in the Middle East, and Assad's regime, affiliates, and criminal networks have used that trade to enrich themselves and fuel their war machine.

The Biden administration has taken significant steps to improve our coordination with allies and partners to interdict and disrupt the illicit network responsible for distributing captagon, but more can be done.

This measure builds on previous efforts to mandate sanctions on individuals and entities responsible for captagon trafficking as well as congressional reporting mandates to inform this body on what steps the United States is taking to counter these criminal efforts.

Disrupting Syria's narcotics trade is key to eliminating Assad's remaining financial lifeline, and this legislation is critical to that effort.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Under the Assad regime, Syria has turned into a narco-state, utilizing the proceeds from the illicit captagon drug network to fuel its brutal war on the Syrian people.

This legislation builds on the Biden administration's efforts to coordinate with our allies and partners to dismantle the captagon trade network, mandating additional sanctions on individuals and entities responsible for captagon trafficking, and requires reporting requirements to the United States Congress on the administration's efforts.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 4681, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in strong support of H.R. 6603.

This past weekend, Mr. Speaker, Iran launched more than 350 drones and ballistic missiles toward our ally Israel, an attack largely thwarted by the Israeli Defense Forces, alongside American, British, French, Jordanian, and other partner militaries. Nevertheless, the attack demonstrated Iran's airborne capacity and domestic drone and missile capabilities. Iran has not only launched its drones at Israel, but they have provided them to Russia for use in Putin's illegal war in Ukraine.

The administration has implemented numerous export controls to prevent American materials from being sent to Iran for use in their drone program. It has been an interagency priority to help ensure our technologies do not wind up in the hands of the enemy.

To that end, the Bureau of Industry and Security has imposed a foreign-direct product rule, BIS' most powerful tool, to prevent the production and proliferation of Iranian drones and missiles.

The legislation before us now, the No Technology for Terror Act introduced by my colleagues, Mr. Moran and Mr. McCaul, makes permanent certain U.S. export control restrictions on American-made drones technology, and would be the first instance ever of codifying a foreign-direct product rule.

During markup of this bill, the bill was improved to include exceptions to ensure it does not unintentionally prevent the sale of humanitarian goods such as food and medicine. The bill also contains a national interest waiver to provide the executive branch greater flexibility in minimizing the export control's humanitarian impact and maximizing our leverage against Iran. A waiver also provides Iran an incentive to stop its malignant conduct, cease its nuclear ambitions, and end its funding for terrorism.

While it is a big deal to codify a foreign-direct product rule, Iran's conduct and the flexibility built into the legislation warrant my support and the support of all the Members of this House.

So, Mr. Speaker, I thank Representatives Moran and Chairman McCaul for their good-faith efforts to make this bill a bipartisan bill, and I encourage my colleagues to join with me in supporting this measure.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, Iran's weaponized drone program is a threat to our allies, Israel and Ukraine, and to United States national security. This legislation codifies the Biden administration's export control restrictions to prohibit United States-made technology and software from being transferred to Iran, preventing that technology from being used in the manufacturing of Iranian drones.

I thank Representative Moran and Chairman McCaul for introducing this legislation and for working in the good-faith, bipartisan manner that we often do on this committee so that we can make this legislation as effective and flexible as it needs to be.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 6603, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5826, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I appreciate the intent of this measure brought to the floor by my friend and colleague from South Carolina, Representative Wilson, which is to help better prevent hostile governments such as Iran from taking Americans hostage or wrongfully detaining them overseas.

I believe Democrats and Republicans must work together and ensure the State Department has all the resources and authorities from Congress that it needs to bring Americans home who have been unjustly held abroad and to offer them the support they need when they return home.

I understand and agree with my colleague's intent to disincentivize bad behavior by hostile actors, and to make clear to anyone who would wrongfully detain any of our citizens that it will not be tolerated.

However, I am concerned that some of the messages sent in this bill risk undermining our key partners in the battle to protect American citizens. I want to make sure the State Department's Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs is given the latitude to negotiate and get the job done.

I would like to offer my appreciation to the SPEHA team for the hard and difficult work it continues to undertake on behalf of the American people. We need to empower that office and the families of wrongful detainees that rely on its vital assistance and advocacy, not inadvertently burden it with extensive reporting or overly restrictive policy prescriptions.

I also want to be certain we do not restrict the freedom of movement of

Americans, something that is fundamental to our liberty and, specifically, the impact such a move would have on hundreds of thousands of Iranian Americans who expect our government, unlike the regime in Tehran, to respect their fundamental rights.

That is why I am glad the language on the issue has been made nonbinding, and I really appreciate Representative Wilson working with us on this bill and the effort to make sure that the United States Government's approach on hostages and wrongful detention is smart and effective. We have worked together to achieve this.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I encourage my colleagues to join in supporting this measure. Again, we must do everything we can to prevent Americans from being illegally detained abroad.

Mr. Speaker, again, I thank Mr. Wilson from South Carolina for introducing this bill. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 5826, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3033. For the past 26 years, Congress and the executive branch have worked together to put pressure on Iran's energy sector to deny Iran funds for implementing its nefarious nuclear program and state-sponsored terror activities.

The Iran Sanctions Act, or ISA, originally passed into law in 1996 and has been the key statutory element undergirding our sanctions infrastructure.

Since 1996, Congress has built upon this legislation multiple times and has expanded the list of transactions that are considered violations of the ISA. These sanctions, combined with sanctions on Iran's financial system and petroleum transactions, and together with aggressive diplomacy, are what drove Iran to the negotiating table to finalize the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

The JCPOA effectively shut off every pathway to an Iranian nuclear weapon before it was unwisely torn down in 2018, leaving us in the dangerous position we are now in.

The ISA is the only major Iran sanctions statute that contains a sunset provision. In general, sunset provisions have value. They force Congress to re-evaluate and reconsider sanctions to adjust to new situations.

Therefore, we must all ask ourselves an important question: Under what circumstances can Congress envision the necessity of abandoning our sanctions infrastructure while this regime is in power? Even in the instance a new Iran deal is reached and successfully implemented, I believe we would want this sanctions infrastructure in place, just as it was under the JCPOA, so that Iran and the international community knows what awaits them if progress is not made.

Furthermore, if Congress loses this sanctions infrastructure, we will be ceding even more of our authority to the executive branch of government, who will solely rely on its executive powers to implement sanctions unbound by the program developed by the United States Congress.

This legislation sends an important message. It protects an important statute, and it serves the interests of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3033 reinforces our existing sanctions infrastructure, eliminating the sunset provision of the original Iran Sanctions Act of 1996.

Although I believe that sunset clauses are important, previous provisions in U.S. sanctions-related legislation compelling Congress to reassess sanctions, the ISA is the only major Iran-related sanctions statute with a sunset clause.

Even if the United States does manage to negotiate a new Iran deal to end Tehran's nuclear weapons program, the ISA is an important deterrent and reminder to Iran what awaits should they rescind the deal.

Additionally, losing the ISA at any point would only further cede more

power to the executive branch of government with its executive powers to implement sanctions.

Therefore, I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 3033, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, the United States designated the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or the IRGC, as a foreign terrorist organization, an FTO, in April 2019 because of its record of terrorism, violation of the laws of armed conflict, assassination attempts, and significant support for regional terrorist groups. Our designation has helped limit the IRGC's ability to access the United States' markets.

Unfortunately, EU markets, absent a similar terror designation, remain viable sources of IRGC income.

The IRGC clearly represents a threat to both American and European security. We must join forces to limit the IRGC's access to capital. It is long past time for the EU to act, as a combination of U.S. and EU designations would have a major impact and will help save lives.

This resolution calls on the EU to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps of Iran as an addition to the EU terror list. Amidst IRGC's ongoing support of Russian war crimes in Ukraine, EU's reluctance risks emboldening the Iranian Government's goal of sowing terror and chaos in the West.

The IRGC clearly presents a threat to the EU and our collective security. It is long past time to cut off its resources and hold Iran accountable. Working together, we can contain and diminish Iranian terrorism and make the world safer for Americans and Europeans alike.

Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, once again, it is overdue for the EU to designate the IRGC as a terrorist entity. They are nothing but that. By shutting the IRGC out of both the American and European markets, we will be starving them of important resources of funding they rely on to conduct their terrorist and other destabilizing activities.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Res. 288, and I yield back the balance of my time.