Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, the 10-word slogan ``from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free'' means different things to different people. For many well-meaning supporters of the Palestinian cause, it is a slogan calling for future Palestinian statehood and Palestinian dignity. I agree with those goals, and that is why I support a two- state solution.

To others, particularly to Israelis and Jews in the diaspora, the phrase is a threat, symbolizing the destruction of the Jewish people and the Jewish State of Israel, and I acutely understand that concern as well.

However, a basic truth is evident. If you consider the geographic area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea to be exclusively Palestine, you are taking the Jewish State of Israel off the map.

As clearly demonstrated by pro-Palestinian protesters following the horrific events of October 7, far too many people who boldly chant this phrase do not want Israel to exist. I know this because when asked, that is how they answer.

As someone steeped in America's civil rights movement, I clearly understand the First Amendment and the right of free speech. I support peaceful protest. I support what my dear friend and former colleague John Lewis taught us about good trouble. It is okay for supporters of the Palestinian cause or the Israeli cause to cause some good trouble.

When good trouble turns into calls for violence or, in this case, wiping the State of Israel off the map, the rhetoric has gone too far. It becomes dangerous, and it can cause people harm. That is why I support this nonbinding resolution critical of that phrase.

Let me be clear: There is absolutely nothing anti-Semitic about advocating for an independent Palestinian state. However, calling for the elimination of the Jewish state, praising Hamas who strives for Israel's destruction, or suggesting that the Jews alone do not have the right to self-determination is anti-Semitic.

I am a strong supporter of a two-state solution, which will result in the area between the river and the sea being the home to a Jewish State of Israel and an independent and prosperous Palestine. That is what we should be chanting for and what I will never give up hope for, a peaceful Middle East, two states side by side.

When I talked to some citizens of Israel right after intifada, all they said is they wanted to live in peace with their neighbors.

When I talked to some young Palestinians in the West Bank, all they said they wanted was to live in peace with their Israeli neighbors.

That is what we should be striving for.

While I am not really happy that we have to consider this resolution that I do believe, unfortunately, was brought here by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in an attempt to divide this House, I also know the danger of the phrase in question. That is why the resolution actually has my begrudging support.

In this institution, at times you have got to do what you think is the best thing to do, the right thing to do, and that is why I support this resolution, and I encourage my colleagues to join in doing the same.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I stated during this debate, I am a strong supporter of a two-state solution, which will result in the area between the river and the sea being the home to a Jewish State of Israel and an independent and prosperous Palestine.

This is what we should all be chanting for. This is what we should all be hoping for. This should be what we all are working for. It is in the best interests of the Palestinian people, the Jewish State of Israel, and the United States of America. Let's end hate. Let's end anti-Semitism. Let's bring people together. That should be what we are all looking for. Let's not put forth things that hurt and divide.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Res. 883, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, at this time, I am pleased to offer this bipartisan amendment with my friend from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner) along with the support of my colleagues Mr. Scott and Mr. Nickel.

This amendment would provide opportunities for enhanced exposure to private funds through closed-end funds, investment vehicles with comprehensive protections under the 1940 Investment Company Act. These rules include the mandatory requirement that the fund be managed by an investment adviser who is required to conduct due diligence on a fund's investments, answer to independent directors, and adhere to extensive disclosure and reporting requirements.

This amendment also makes clear that investors should be given access to the growth opportunities provided in the private markets so long as they have proper disclosures and risk mitigation.

I am happy to sponsor this bipartisan amendment primarily because it also broadens opportunities and increases access for people who have been left out in the past while ensuring that robust rules of the road are followed.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong support of my bill, H.R. 5375, Strengthening the Quad Act, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, in talking about the importance of this very bill, just a few minutes ago before coming to the floor, I had a meeting with the Ambassador of Japan, Ambassador Yamada, who talked about the significance and the importance of inter-parliamentary conversation. We talked about how today

freedom and democracy around the world are under threat.

According to the organization Freedom House, the world has experienced 17 consecutive years of decline in global freedom as a result of war, coup d'etats, attacks on democratic institutions, and the rise of authoritarianism.

To stem this illiberal tide, America must lead with our values and harness diplomacy like never before. This is especially important in the Indo-Pacific region where America's presence, engagement, and alliance system have maintained peace and stability for decades.

In fact, the Ambassador also talked about how much he appreciated America being in the region and staying there and working collectively together.

Today, China's growing global influence and authoritarian model is serving to undermine freedom in the Indo-Pacific and beyond.

We need to work with fellow democracies in the region to showcase the heft of open markets and open societies. We need to demonstrate to the region that democracies can deliver real results.

Consecutive U.S. administrations have utilized the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue with Japan, Australia, and India to enhance our diplomatic and development efforts in the Indo-Pacific.

The Trump administration restarted the Quad, and President Biden elevated it to the leaders' level, supercharging Quad diplomacy.

Today, there is a strong bipartisan consensus--I worked very closely with my colleagues on the other side, especially Chairman McCaul--that the Quad is integral for a free and open Indo-Pacific.

To ensure the Quad's success and its longevity, we need a clear, long-term plan, as well as political and institutional support in all four capitals.

This is why H.R. 5375 calls on the State Department to develop a Quad strategy that focuses on building democratic coordination in the region for the long term.

The strategy and report to Congress will allow successive administrations to chart forward-looking objectives and partner with Congress to best meet them.

The bill also establishes a Quad Inter-Parliamentary Working Group to facilitate engagement and cooperation among the legislatures of the four democracies.

Inter-parliamentary engagement will facilitate legislative input and strengthen oversight to enhance the Quad's effectiveness. It will also help to sustain political support and adequate resources for the Quad in all four countries.

Plain and simple, Mr. Speaker: The world has shrunk, and working collectively together, the four countries, sharing the values that we have here in the United States for the long term is better for the security of all of us, and I believe it will make the place that we call the planet Earth a better place, a safer place, for all.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume for the purpose of closing.

With growing instability in the Indo-Pacific and freedom under threat globally, the Quad is more important than ever for upholding regional rules and helping maintain stability.

Regional rules, high values, and standards--that is what this is all about. That is why I am thankful that we are able to work in a bipartisan manner, collectively together, speaking with one voice in the region and with our Quad partners.

I thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I am also thankful to President Biden for elevating the Quad to the leaders' level.

In less than 3 years, President Biden has held five Quad leaders summits with the leaders of Japan, Australia, and India.

In the past 3 years, the Quad has initiated cooperation in a whole host of new areas, from infrastructure development and critical and emerging technologies to maritime issues and climate change.

My bill, H.R. 5375, will ensure the Quad is effective and sustainable, not just for today, not just for tomorrow, but for the long term.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this year's NDAA.

I am pleased that we were able to work in a bipartisan fashion to finalize the Senate's State Department Authorization bill for inclusion in this year's NDAA. In late 2021, during my chairmanship of the Foreign Affairs Committee, we shepherded--through the House, into a conferenced NDAA, and ultimately onto the President's desk--the first comprehensive State Department Authorization bill to become law in nearly 20 years. The passage of this year's bill will make three in a row.

The bill includes many important provisions--including to: stand up a fellowship program in honor of our late colleague John Lewis and a transatlantic leadership institute; authorize support and economic diplomacy to public diplomacy and beyond.

The NDAA also includes important provisions related to the implementation of the AUKUS trilateral security partnership. By leveraging the shared capabilities of the U.S., Australia, and the U.K., the United States and its allies can shape a free and open Indo- Pacific for years to come.

The Foreign Affairs Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee painstakingly and carefully negotiated the AUKUS compromise text included in this NDAA. The compromise text includes support for the families of Americans wrongfully detained around the globe, and ensures that State Department personnel have the flexibilities and authorities they need to succeed in their work--from cyber helps advance this critical agreement and includes both Pillar 1 legislation to support the transfer of Virginia-class submarines to Australia, and shared financial and training efforts. It also includes bipartisan legislation supporting Pillar 2 of AUKUS, which provides a sound way forward for ensuring cutting-edge defense technology cooperation can advance while maintaining critical safeguards and regulations.

This year's NDAA was not perfect. I am disappointed outbound investment regulations were not included, and I support moving the McCaul-Meeks bipartisan bill to the floor immediately to address this crucial issue.

Nonetheless, the NDAA is once again the product of a serious bipartisan work accomplished during conference, so I support the legislation and urge all my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted YEA on rollcall No. 707, Bill Number H.R. 3224; NAY on rollcall No. 708, Bill Number H.R. 5378; and YEA on rollcall No. 709, Bill Number H.R. 6503.

Madam Speaker, I want to start by making clear that congressional support for Ukraine remains broad and bipartisan. We know, from previous votes on the floor amendments and the standalone bill on Ukraine funding, that assistance to Ukraine has overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress.

While I am especially proud of the work the United States has done and President Biden has done to build a global coalition in support of Ukraine, Congress' inability to pass a Ukraine supplemental is sending a dangerous message to the world that America cannot be relied upon as a partner.

The question for the Speaker now is: When will the House be allowed a vote to continue to support Ukraine?

In these times of crisis, leadership matters. Those of us who continue to stand against Vladimir Putin's aggression, who continue to stand with the brave Ukrainians fighting on the front lines defending their democracy and their people, history will judge us favorably.

How will history judge those who have cynically chosen to use aid to Ukraine as a wedge issue, to play partisan politics with assistance meant to support Ukraine's fight against Russia's aggression?

This is a critical moment for Ukraine and for this body. The administration's top national security officials have made clear that continued support is essential for Ukraine as it continues its fight. We know the consequences if we cannot agree to additional funding for the arms they need to win, to the economic and development assistance that has been critical to Ukraine's livelihood. All of this will be impacted.

I think it is also important we are all working from the same set of facts. In particular, I continue to hear from some of my colleagues who oppose Ukraine funding as they propagate misinformation regarding the management of our assistance.

The administration has instituted robust monitoring for all of the assistance we provide to Ukraine. The State Department, the Defense Department, and our Ukrainian partners are all ensuring this assistance is carefully tracked and accounted for. This misinformation both undermines Ukraine's courageous efforts while benefiting one person, Vladimir Putin.

The world is watching, and what we say in this body and what we are able to pass has consequences. Our allies, including Finland and Sweden, where I recently visited, are proudly joining NATO. They are doing their part. The EU and partners across the globe are increasing commitments to help Ukraine. What signal does it send if the United States of America, the country that has led this coalition, is the first to step back?

It is not only friends who are watching. Our foes are as well. Putin wants us to get tired, to get distracted. The Kremlin is active in supporting anti-Ukraine candidates of any political stripe, and China is strategically hedging its bets. The only person who thought this would be a small, victorious war and a quick war was Vladimir Putin.

There is no simple, predictable end. As long as Ukraine continues to push back Russia's brutal, unprovoked assault, our commitment to Ukraine should stand. If the large bipartisan majority in this House that I know believes in standing there and believes in this commitment, if we stay united with all of our allies, we will prevail.

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

Let me first start off by saying the President of the United States did the right thing. It is easy to say why we should vote against this bill.

My good friend, the chairman, has talked about October 7 over and over. Our committee has had several family members come before our committee where we have vowed to do everything we can to get their family members back home.

For me, it has been very personal. Yesterday, we talked to a group of family members. We told them we will not stop until we get their family members back home.

Negotiating to bring our hostages home is hard because you have to do it with bad people.

Guess what? Hamas committed the heinous acts on October 7, but who are we negotiating with to get the hostages home? Hamas. It is not easy, but we vowed in front of these witnesses.

I wonder what we would say to those five individuals and families, who are now safe at home, before they were released? Would we have promised them and didn't we promise them we would do everything we could to get them back home?

Yes, President Biden did the right thing. He brought five Americans home who were rotting in Iran's notorious Evan prison.

Every Member of Congress--I repeat, every Member of this Congress who was aware of these cases wanted our fellow citizens to come home. Now, they are saying they should not have come home.

This was done, wanting them to come home, with a bipartisan voice. President Biden thus succeeded in doing what his predecessors could not. He got them home.

Iran, of course, as is Hamas, is a murderous and corrupt regime. They are not pleasant, and this isn't easy. Thanks to this agreement, five American families are now whole again, and Iran has lost the leverage of holding these American hostages.

Now, H.R. 5961 would sanction parties that carry out the financial terms of the hostage agreement in question. These include three European commercial banks and the Central Bank of Qatar, who, by the way, has been very instrumental in working with us to get hostages home that were taken on October 7, but let's really talk about the facts.

Yes, I have been in classified sessions and nonclassified sessions and have heard it, as all of us have. Let's talk about the facts.

Billions of Iran's own profits from oil sales were sitting in a restricted account in South Korea. It was done by the prior administration. It was established by the Trump administration for Iran to make approved humanitarian purchases. This wasn't done by the Biden administration. It was sitting in South Korea, by the Trump administration, for humanitarian purchases.

The United States had no control over that account while it was sitting there. The agreement moved that $6 billion from the restricted account in South Korea, converted it to euros, and relocated it into the restricted account in Qatar, which now the United States has visibility over--not a single penny--facts, not conjecture, facts.

I don't think anyone can refute the fact that not a single penny has moved into Iran. Not one. Not a penny, much less a dime. Not a penny has moved into Iran.

Under the terms of the agreement, Iran can use the money in Qatar to make approved humanitarian purchases to acquire medicine, medical equipment, agricultural goods, and food. Iran's government physically will never touch this money. The entirety of the transaction occurs outside of Iran, and Iran only receives the vetted humanitarian goods.

By the way, that is consistent with our values, and that is why we, in all of this, are talking about humanitarian concerns for people who are just victimized by bad people.

Thus far, Iran has not made any requests of the humanitarian fund, and nothing has been gained by Iran. All of the money remains in the account, an account that the United States can watch.

We have leverage over that account due to our relationship with the correspondent banks in Europe that would help process any transactions. In other words, we know we now have more control over this money than we did when it was sitting in South Korea. In fact, this account provides us with leverage, not the other way around.

Furthermore, following the horrific attacks in Israel on October 7, the United States and Qatar froze the humanitarian fund, so it is frozen now in Qatar. No humanitarian purchases will be approved any time soon. Again, nothing has changed.

The money remains in the account and we continue to have leverage. Nothing has changed from when the money was sitting in South Korea.

The only thing that has changed is five American citizens are no longer sitting in an Iranian prison. They are back home with their families.

Madam Chair, if H.R. 5961 is passed into law, that leverage will be gone. It will disappear. We will also lose our ability to conduct diplomacy with Iran and others in the future. If we blow up this agreement by passing this bill, we, the United States, will be the ones breaking yet another sensitive negotiated agreement.

Our word and integrity will no longer be good in negotiations, whether it is with Iran or any other parties. The United States must continue to address--and here is where I think we agree--no one is saying that the United States needs to continue to address Iran's backing of groups like Hezbollah and Hamas.

The Iranian-supported Hamas terrorists unleashed pure evil when they broke a cease-fire in the attacks on October 7. The population of Gaza would not be engulfed in war right now if it were not for Hamas. But we must also remain sober and serious about the challenge of Iran's nefarious nuclear

program. None of the bad options we possess to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions are better than the diplomatic track, which has already proven successful.

It was the United States who actually violated the JCPOA, not Iran. Pulling out of this hostage agreement will be the second time we violate an agreement with Iran's leaders. Passage of this bill would mean potentially slamming the door closed on future diplomacy, leaving us only with dangerous and highly risky options of confronting Iran's nuclear program.

We all agree, Iran must not ever have a nuclear weapon, but guess what, since we pulled out of JCPOA, they are closer to getting a nuclear weapon than had we been in there.

Madam Chair, the prisoner swap confirms to the Iranian regime that the United States is a reliable negotiating partner, just as we see taking place right now.

As we bring the hostages home from Gaza, they have to deal with Hamas. Both sides have to keep their word. We have warned Israel, who is a strong, diplomatic, honest country moving forward, fighting for its existence but have to deal with Hamas. They made an agreement, and they are living by that agreement. Hostages are coming home, and we want that to continue for each and every one of them. They are not just simply being released, Israel is giving something back in return.

In our case, Iran is actually not getting anything because they are not getting a dime to be utilized for their nefarious purposes.

Madam Chair, let me conclude with this: The agreement has freed five Americans--I repeat, five American citizens--who were suffering in an Iranian prison, who we all, in a bipartisan way, said we would do anything to get them home. We wanted them to be home.

It shifted Iran's own money from an account in Korea that we did not control, to one where we play a role and have control that we didn't in South Korea.

Not a single penny has left the account. I don't think anybody can refute that. Not a single penny has left the account. Not a single penny has entered Iran. Not a single U.S. taxpayer dollar has been involved.

This fund remains frozen indefinitely by the United States in Qatar, which has been working closely with us and Israel.

There is no reason to jeopardize future negotiations or further inflame an already dangerous situation by passing this bill. The fact of the matter is, I don't see why we would want to pass this bill. We know that diplomacy is the first thing we need to move forward in bringing our people home.

Lastly, let me just say this because I want to be absolutely clear: I don't want Iran's leaders to benefit from our actions in any shape, fashion, or form. This hostage agreement that stands today, they have not benefited from it and will not benefit from it.

Unfortunately, this legislation will shoot American global credibility in the foot without even touching Iranian regime leaders. We encourage this House not to rush into passing this bill. Let's keep the door open for diplomacy.

This stands as an example with Iran and others because we have adversaries, but you always have to deal with those adversaries and negotiate and talk to try to figure out how we can live in a better place.

Let's think ahead. Let's not play checkers. Let's play chess. That is what this is all about.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Let me just say that I keep hearing this demonstrates weakness. The Biden administration demonstrated strength in being willing to stand with your enemies and negotiate.

I can recall, for me, even in our own country, what I learned to live by. Many folks were thinking that when Dr. King was moving forward with nonviolence, he was demonstrating weakness and that we should go back and fight. He demonstrated strength. Sometimes when dealing and negotiating, that is where strength comes from, and if you just go out swinging, you demonstrate weakness.

What Joe Biden has done was kept his word, number one. He said that he would bring, whenever he could, American hostages home. This body has said to American families that we would do everything and anything to bring their families home. We should keep our word.

President Biden kept his word to those five American hostages, and the United States House of Representatives should keep its word and not challenge the agreement that the President made to return those five American hostages.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Again, I haven't heard a reply. Not one penny has gone to Iran. If I am wrong, then someone tell me. Not one cent. The money is frozen in Qatar. Not one penny.

None of this could have been used by Hamas, Iran, or anyone for October 7. They didn't have a dime.

The money was there already, put there for humanitarian purposes by the Trump administration. It was in South Korea, but we didn't have any control over it.

I didn't hear anybody talk about that when the Trump administration was there, that he should not have sent the money to South Korea. This should not be something that we are playing politics on.

The money shifted from South Korea and was changed into euros and sent to Qatar, where we have now more visibility than ever. Not a dime is going to Iran. We have five American hostages home, and then we are going to question the deal.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Let me say this: The United States has values. What is taking place and what took place in Israel and is taking place in Gaza right now is why we are fighting so hard to make sure that we have a supplemental that includes humanitarian aid.

We know that there are people in Gaza, Palestinians, who are not part of Hamas. Everyone wants to make sure, as we are doing in this pause, that humanitarian aid is getting to them. It shows the best of who we are as Americans.

It is also so in Iran. Every Iranian is not part of the regime. In fact, the regime is cruel and does not provide humanitarian aid to many of its citizens.

We don't want to be like the regime. We want to show our humanity. Yes, when human beings are suffering, we want to make sure that we get in humanitarian aid so that we can take care of them. That is what is happening right now. That is why we are having the pause in the Middle East, in Gaza.

Doing the hostage exchange, bringing people home, is what we should be doing. What we are also doing is bringing in humanitarian aid to those individuals who Hamas would never aid.

So people around the world will respect and know who we are, we should never give up on our values. The money that we are talking about is not going to be used or getting into the hands of the Iranian regime. We are talking about trying to show that we have care and humanity for those who are the victims of the regime.

Humanitarian aid. That is who we should be. We should be proud of the fact that we want to try to take care of those who are a part, unfortunately, of dictators and authoritarian regimes who will not take care of their people. That is not who we are.

If, in the future, through the constraints that we have and the approval that needs to take place we can help somebody that has been victimized, I think that is the right thing to do.

To say that we don't care is the wrong thing to do. I just wonder if we would invite those five families of those who have now returned home, what would we say to them?

We wish your folks would have stayed in the prison because the President should not have made this deal because of humanitarian aid?

What would we say to them?

What can we say to them now? They are listening to us.

We should renege on the deal and let their loved ones stay in prison?

Thank God President Biden understands being a humanitarian, bringing our folks home, and at the same time having a hard line against Iran and Hamas and its affiliates.

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

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

Mr. Chair, one question that I think remains unanswered to my colleagues on the other side: Are you willing to go and tell the family members of those five hostages that are now home that they should still be in that prison?

Are you willing to tell them that we should not have worked out a deal with the $6 billion frozen for humanitarian

concern and that we should renege on the deal and they should go back to prison?

The one thing that is missing is that we got these hostages home, and that can't be held over our heads by Iran anymore.

I don't hear an answer to that.

What do you say to those families?

We have talked to families who have loved ones that are hostages. What do you say to them? You should still be there? We should not have made the deal?

Is that what you are saying? I think that what I am hearing is that this deal should not have been made and those American hostages should still be sitting in that Iranian prison?

I ask my colleagues on the other side: What do you say to those five families?

Do we renege on the deal?

Do you tell them they should not be home, so we should not have made the deal?

We have hostages before us all the time. What do you say to them?

I know what I am going to say to them. I am glad their family members are home and I am glad Joe Biden made the deal to get them home. He is not threatening and not using any U.S. dollars. There is no threat from Iran in regard to that $6 billion to be utilized for any aggression on their part.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me just say this. First, the debate on the House floor today is a rare moment where the House Foreign Affairs Committee is debating legislation under a rule, rather than under suspension.

For those who don't know what that means, it signifies that this bill is not bipartisan. That is in contrast to the great majority of legislation that comes out of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

This is the first primary Foreign Affairs bill this year that we are debating under a rule this Congress. In the previous two Congresses, under the Democratic leadership, we debated a total of one bill under a rule.

One thing I will say, as I have talked throughout this debate, one thing that is a fact is that Mr. McCaul is my friend. We always try to reach an agreement on all bills. There is no question about that. I am not questioning that at all. We are frequently, as we did yesterday, very successful.

We had a completely bipartisan markup, including on a potentially game-changing bill that would codify an outbound investment regime to protect our economy and our national security. I would say that that is the way I do believe this committee is ran, and we work very closely together.

On this bill is one of those times where I do fundamentally disagree with the arguments put forward by the majority. I submitted an amendment that would have added a national security waiver to the legislation. Such a waiver is a very restrictive standard. The President can only waive the sanctions if it was vital to the national security of the United States. He could not waive the sanctions for trivial reasons, nor even for an important economic reason. He could only waive the sanctions to protect our national security. Of course, that amendment was not made in order.

Every major sanctions bill over the last 20 years has had basic exemptions and waivers, like the amendment I offered to this bill. This history includes numerous Republican sanctions, bills targeting Iran. By moving a bill today without those very basic guardrails, we are undermining bipartisan practices that have been held for decades. We are also forfeiting leverage to promote American interests and undercutting our credibility around the world.

As such, I oppose this legislation. It is the wrong time for this legislation. It is improper. It will hurt down the road. We need to look and have a vision for down the road because, for me, what we do is not just about today. It is about--I have three granddaughters, and I say this everywhere--it is about 5, 2, and 6 months, so it is about what takes place and what opportunities might be available 60 years from now.

As we look back at prior history, things that were done by prior Congresses had an effect 50 and 60 years later. People that are our allies now, 60 years ago were our enemy. Time changes things. People who were our enemies 60 years ago are now our allies.

Let's think forward. Let's vote this bill down--at least we should have the waivers in there. I must oppose this legislation, and I encourage all of my colleagues to do the same.

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

Mr. Chair, I strongly support this amendment.

The United States must stand for humanitarian aid and must stand for helping the people of Iran, even while we condemn the Iranian governing regime. The regime's medieval views on women's rights and religious freedom and their depraved agenda of financing terrorists around the region are separate from the people of Iran.

This amendment simply separates the government from the people, and I encourage all of my colleagues to vote for this very good and humanitarian amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is counterproductive. The House has voted in a bipartisan manner to support general licenses to Iran to allow open internet access to the protesters against the regime of Iran. That could violate this vaguely drafted amendment. In the recent past, the United States has spent very small sums of money to promote civil society and democratic ideals in Iran, and that could violate this amendment.

This amendment, I believe, with all due respect, is carelessly drafted and unvetted. Therefore, I must oppose it.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment targets Qatar, the most

important partner of the United States in freeing Americans and Israelis held hostage by Hamas.

Passage of this amendment and, in my opinion, this overall bill would jeopardize sensitive, ongoing diplomacy related to the hostage crisis in Gaza and further endanger Americans and Israelis in harm's way. Israel's National Security Adviser publicly praised Qatar's role as crucial to ongoing efforts to facilitate humanitarian solutions.

Furthermore, it was reported in late October that Qatar's Emir told Secretary of State Blinken that his government was open to reconsidering the presence of Hamas in Qatar once the hostage crisis is resolved.

I agree that Hamas' continued presence in Qatar and Turkiye is problematic. These terrorist leaders are living a life of luxury while their people suffer in Gaza. They should be held accountable, but this is not the way to go about it.

Let's free our hostages. Then, we can talk and work with Qatar to hold Hamas' leadership in Doha accountable.

This amendment is simply grandstanding and not the best way to deal with this issue, and certainly, it is being offered at the worst possible time.

Diplomacy is very important. If we challenge or damage these diplomatic channels, it further endangers Americans.

We can't pass this legislation. We should not pass this legislation. I ask my colleagues to please join me in voting ``no'' on this amendment. We shouldn't even need the bill.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gooden).

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas.

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

Mr. Chair, I will just simply say, very briefly, when you hear from Israel, its leaders, Israel's national security advisor publicly praising Qatar's role as crucial, and when I visited Israel and talked to the head of their defense, talked to Prime Minister

Netanyahu, all said that Qatar was crucial to this negotiation.

Let's not do this. It is the wrong time.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, this amendment is needless and simply not rooted in fact. The sponsor bases his claims for this amendment on the assertion that the administration has not condemned Houthi militants for their violent actions and continued destabilizing behavior. This simply is not accurate.

The Biden administration has repeatedly called out the violence of Houthi militants that they have perpetuated against civilians, including recent missile launches toward Israel, as well as our Gulf partners.

In fact, as recently as this past Tuesday, November 28, the State Department called out the violence of Iranian proxies across the region as well, and especially called on the Houthis to immediately cease attacks.

The United States led other G-7 nations in this public effort, which follows other similar statements. These statements include the State Department's condemnation of Houthi militants seizing the cargo ship Galaxy Leader on November 20.

Spokesperson Matt Miller called such actions flagrant violations of international law and demanded the immediate release of the ship and its crew.

The administration made similar statements earlier this year and last, calling out Houthi abuses against Yemeni civilians, missile launches against Gulf partners, and more.

I, along with many of my colleagues, have and will continue to call out abuses, escalatory actions, and violence throughout the region, just as the administration has.

This amendment is an unnecessary and ill-conceived attempt to misrepresent the facts, so I must oppose it, and I encourage all of my colleagues to do so as well.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me just say this.

Joe Biden has been one of the staunchest Israel supporters of any President of the United States.

You are going to take the word of the Ayatollah over the word of the President of the United States?

The President of the United States has said not a penny will get to the Ayatollah, but yet you want to take the side or believe in that brutal authoritarian dictator.

I think that the American people know better than that. I think that the American people understand better than that. I think that the American people can look at the facts and see what side Joe Biden is on, as he talks on a regular basis with the leadership of Israel, almost every day since October 7.

I wouldn't trust or believe anything that the Ayatollah says, but I do believe in Joe Biden.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would be counterproductive to America's interest.

No President, whether he be Democratic or Republican, has used this waiver for anything but the most pressing reasons.

Rescinding this waiver would likely prevent the administration from waiving sanctions that allow Iraq to pay for electricity imports from Iran. Without this waiver, Iraq likely will be unable to import electricity from Iran, leading to electricity outages and instability across Iraq.

We have seen what instability in Iraq looks like over the past decade: the decay of central governance, the rise of ISIS, and a growing terrorist ideology that struck America and Europe in numerous deadly attacks.

America has many interests in the Middle East, and this waiver is important for ensuring that this administration or any future administration has the flexibility it needs to promote American interests.

It is important for the Presidents, this one and those in the future, to have that flexibility. Thereby, I oppose my good friend from Texas' amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the Jackson amendment.

The world in 2023 does not look like the world in 2018. Russia has invaded Ukraine. Hamas has attacked Israel. The Burmese partial democracy has collapsed in a coup.

On the positive side of the ledger, NATO is more united than divided. The AUKUS pact has fortified our relationship with our closest allies. Japan and Korea are cooperating with each other like never before.

In 2018, most of us were unfamiliar with the term ``coronavirus.'' In 2023, many of us are trying to forget it. The point here is that the world can change dramatically in just 5 years.

Congress does itself a disservice when we lock into policies without oversight or a chance to reconsider. Mr. Jackson's amendment would fix that flaw in the bill, and I strongly support his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to say to my Republican colleagues: Stop the xenophobic rhetoric about asylum seekers and draft some meaningful policy that addresses the migrant crisis in New York and across this country.

Deception and extremism are what my colleagues across the aisle are spewing. In this so-called piece of legislation, they claim that Federal land will be hurt. The Floyd Bennett Field lease does not put any of our public lands in harm's way.

In fact, this same field was used 11 years ago during Superstorm Sandy as a disaster relief center for New Yorkers displaced by the hurricane. Republicans had zero opposition to that.

Those who are voicing their feigned concern for our public lands are the same people who have repeatedly pushed policies to defund and degrade our public lands. In this Congress alone, Republicans are trying to slash the National Park Service's budget by nearly half a billion dollars. These are not ideas of a party that has actual concerns about our public lands and parks.

Instead, this is an example of extremists trying to push policies that vilify migrants rather than provide sensible solutions to a real crisis.

Democrats, on the other hand, are working every day to put people over politics. The Biden administration, for example, granted temporary protected status to one-half million Venezuelans so they can financially support their families and join the American workforce as they await their asylum court dates. Now those are real results in putting people over politics.

Democrats are ready to work on legislation that addresses the migrant crisis in a humanitarian manner, but we need Republicans to stop wasting time with their terrible and extreme bills and join us in getting back to work.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this measure.

First, let the record be clear: There is no question that we all support Israel. The fact of the matter is, Chairman

McCaul and I worked very hard together to make sure that there was one voice on the very first vote once the Speaker was selected to say that we all support Israel, bringing us together.

There are some decisive votes that we take as Members of Congress that will stick with us, and one of those votes is this one, H.R. 6126. Congress has a proud bipartisan tradition of acting rapidly to pass emergency funding for critical national security needs. This legislation breaks that long and important tradition.

Once we set the precedent of conditioning assistance to partners and allies in essential fights with poison pills, it is hard to go back. We can't unring that bell.

We have stood in a bipartisan way to prevent conditioning aid to Israel. Yet, here we are, considering a bill today that does exactly that.

Disappointingly, this bill doesn't include the $9.15 billion the administration had requested to address global humanitarian needs, including Gaza, undermining our values and the Biden administration's careful diplomacy and bipartisan support for Israel.

We are a nation that aims to use its powerful good in this world. That has been our guiding principle drawn from the lessons learned when we look away. Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford to look the other way as Ukraine faces a vital moment and critical munitions shortfalls. We can't afford to look the other way as countries in the Indo-Pacific are looking to the United States for leadership as we engage in strategic competition with China. Are we prepared to signal to the world that we are looking away?

Mr. Speaker, let's reject this bill, which trades our long-term national security for a fleeting political advantage. Let's get back to work.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this extraordinarily important resolution written with my friend and colleague, Chairman McCaul.

Mr. Speaker, 18 days ago, the State of Israel suffered the greatest mass murder perpetrated against the Jewish people since the Holocaust, when Hamas terrorists invaded Israel by land, sea, and air.

Behaving just like ISIS, Hamas terrorists murdered and beheaded soldiers and civilians alike. Babies were shot and burned in their cribs and reduced to smoldering piles of ash--babies.

Children were murdered. Teenagers were murdered. Men and women were murdered. Elderly people, including Holocaust survivors, were murdered.

Hamas has also taken 200 of those who survived into Gaza as hostages, including unaccompanied children, Holocaust survivors, and many American citizens.

Mr. Speaker, Hamas' attack was truly unprecedented. When you consider the size of Israel's population, proportionately it would be like 30,000 people dying in New York on 9/11. Just let that sink in a little.

We must all acknowledge that Hamas is a cutthroat terrorist organization that exists solely to destroy Israel. Hamas' terrorism does not help the Palestinians. In this moment, it is critical for Israel to know that the United States of America stands firmly by its side in this battle against Hamas.

Mr. Speaker, what I am about to say next is also very important. There are innocent Palestinians in both Gaza and the West Bank who seek normal and free lives and want nothing to do with Hamas or other terrorist organizations.

We cannot lose sight of this. We must keep them--many of whom are also children--and their safety and well-being in mind. In the immediate term, we must find a way to ensure the safety of those innocents who are in Gaza's war zone, and I support the Biden administration's efforts toward that goal.

The United Nations estimates that thousands of Palestinians have been killed since the terrorist attacks on October 7. We don't know for certain how many of those killed were civilians, but here is what we do know: We know that Hamas terrorists used Palestinians as human shields. We know that every single one of them would be alive today if Hamas had not launched its terrorist attack.

We must be aware and do all that we can to stop this war from expanding beyond its current scope. The administration and our allies are working around the clock to send messages and warnings to Iran and Hezbollah to stay out. President Biden underscored this message during his recent travel to Israel.

Do not test America's will. This Congress will have Israel's back as it degrades and eliminates Hamas' terrorist infrastructure. We know that it won't take a day. It will be difficult.

For too long, too many have been willing to contribute to the delegitimization of the State of Israel.

It is deeply concerning that even global leaders are already whitewashing one of the worst terrorist attacks in history while Hamas and its allies blanket cyberspace with misinformation about this war.

Just yesterday, Turkish President Erdogan said: ``Hamas is not a terrorist organization, it is a group of mujahideen defending their lands.''

This from the mouth of a NATO ally who has his own concerns about terrorists as an existential threat to his country.

President Erdogan's rhetoric is dead wrong. It is rank with hypocrisy, and its timing is extraordinarily dangerous.

The resolution before us is a bright spot of bipartisanship today during a very difficult time in American politics.

Mr. Speaker, 425 Members of this House of Representatives have cosponsored this resolution. There is no question in my mind that it will pass overwhelmingly, Democrats and Republicans alike. Most importantly, the American people believe in the Jewish state and believe in its survival.

In the days, weeks, and months ahead, I know the United States will continue to stand steadfastly with Israel to assure its defense and its long-term security.

We will also, as President Biden has outlined, remain committed to ensuring that civilians in Gaza have access to safe areas and continue to have access to food, water, medical care, and other assistance without diversions by Hamas.

We must also stay keenly focused on working to get United States citizens and their immediate family members to exit Gaza safely.

I conclude, Mr. Speaker, by raising an issue that the United States and Israel must address: What does a successful ground operation in Gaza look like, and how do we achieve the goal of leaving Gaza to a responsible Palestinian Government if Israel's effort to remove Hamas is successful?

One thing is for certain--the path to peace will require more Arab States to recognize that Israel has the right to exist and that we hold firm and will make sure that we could thereby have a two-State solution.

If you say Israel does not have the right to exist, you are saying that you do not want peace. I urge our Arab friends to join the Abraham Accords and acknowledge Israel's right to exist because that is the pathway to peace in the Middle East.

To the people of Israel, I hope you learn of the passage of this resolution today and know that the United States Congress and the American people have your back.

We mourn beside you and are working to provide the resources your government needs to defend you. We have deployed powerful military resources to the region to demonstrate just that support.

We are working all of our diplomatic channels to assure your success, and we are in this together. We will not waver. We will not quit. We will stand with our ally Israel.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Manning), a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the former majority leader of this distinguished body.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa), another strong member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the former chair of the House Appropriations Committee and the current Ranking Member of the House Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. David Scott), the former chairman of the Agriculture Committee, the current ranking member.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the great State of California (Ms. Pelosi), the Honorable Speaker Emerita.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Thanedar).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lois Frankel).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Davis).

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, let me start off by thanking my friend and colleague, the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. McCaul, for his friendship and for working collectively together to make sure that the world knows that there is no daylight between us when it comes to us standing with our friend and our ally the State of Israel, and I appreciate you.

When we first started this, after this horrendous attack on October 7, we had a conversation. We said, let's make sure that we put out a statement collectively, us giving our opinions as chair and ranking member of this committee. Then immediately thereafter, we went to work on a resolution so that the world would know where the United States' House of Representatives stood.

We thought we would get it done earlier, but we knew that the first bill, the first resolution that would come to the floor after the House resumed its business, would be this bill because this bill is so significantly important to state that we have the back of our friend and ally, and we want to make sure that Hamas does not exist.

Mr. Speaker, I have had the privilege and the opportunity to visit Israel several times. I have been in some of those tunnels. I have talked to the people, and when I have talked to the people of Israel, all they say is that they want to live in peace. When I talk to the Palestinian people in Gaza or in the West Bank, they say they want peace, but the Hamas terrorist organization when you look at their mandate, they say they want the destruction of Israel.

You cannot have peace. You can't even negotiate peace if one side says you should not exist. How can you say that you want a better relationship if you are saying that Israel should not exist?

You can't forget the horrific terrorist ISIS-like atrocities that were committed on October 7. You cannot be silent. You can't sit back and make believe that it didn't happen because it did.

Mr. Speaker, I say, as we end this debate, thank you to the American people for standing with our friend and ally, the State of Israel.

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. 1684, the Haiti Criminal Collusion Transparency Act of 2023.

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that Haiti is in a dire situation. A United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime report, released this year, highlighted increasingly sophisticated and high-caliber firearms and ammunition being trafficked into Haiti amid an unprecedented and rapidly deteriorating security situation.

This level of criminal activity is the craft of experienced and well- connected individuals who have long utilized crises and instability in Haiti to gain economic control and increase their political sphere of influence.

There are as many as 200 gangs in Haiti who now control at least 85 percent of Port-au-Prince. Gang violence has resulted in the killing of over 1,200 people in Haiti in the first 5 months of the year alone. In just 11 days, the Baz Gran Grif gang murdered 69 people and injured another 83, forcing authorities to abandon several police stations. Authorities believe the gang is responsible for the killing of 14 Haitian National Police officers in late January as part of its ongoing violence.

Political insecurity following Moise's assassination has only furthered the declining security situation. The Haitian National Government's last democratically elected officials' terms expired in January, and new elections are postponed indefinitely.

While we continue to push for a Haitian-led solution to these challenges, the United States must do what it can to not allow corrupt officials that have contributed to Haiti's political and criminal crisis to travel freely to the United States. I am committed to holding corrupt officials accountable and prohibiting their travel to the United States, and this legislation would help in those efforts.

H.R. 1684 authorizes the Secretary of State to sanction Haiti's economic and political elite who regularly use gangs to leverage and maintain power. The bill also ensures that Congress receives regular reports on Haitian gang activity and related criminality.

The Haitian people need to believe that their voices matter and that their government exists to improve their quality of life, not make it more burdensome. We know these conditions are causing the rise in migration out of Haiti as people seek freedom and safety at any cost.

Mr. Speaker, I believe we have a duty to make sure that we identify and hold accountable those who relish in the chaos caused by supporting gang activity, using kidnappings and rape to control and silence communities, and using coercion to bring youth in and around Port-au- Prince into the service of criminal activity.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Kamlager-Dove).

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

Mr. Speaker, I introduced and marked up this bill with robust bipartisan support. I thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Chairman McCaul and the chair of the subcommittee, Chairwoman Salazar; my colleagues who just spoke, Representative Cherfilus- McCormick and Representative Kamlager-Dove; and others who worked in a bipartisan way to ensure that Congress takes steps to address the crisis created by Haitian gangs.

Mr. Speaker, the people of Haiti deserve to know which organizations and individuals support destabilizing criminal activity, including those who take advantage of desperate people who are already extremely vulnerable, trafficking them throughout the region and making financial gains at every stop along the way.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot allow these elites, those who are paying the gangs, those who are incentivizing the gangs to create and do horrific things, to just keep walking about with impunity.

We have to stand up and state that we are going to point them out and sanction them to give the people of Haiti an opportunity to feel that their government and their country can move forward.

We can no longer just talk about having elections without having the gangs wiped out and away from Haiti because they would control the elections.

This sends a message to those elites, those who are financing the gangs, those who think that they can continue their criminal activity, that the United States is going to sanction them and that they won't be able to cross the borders and go back and forth.

This bill would require the Secretary of State to submit an annual report to Congress regarding the ties between criminal gangs and political and economic elites in Haiti and impose sanctions on political and economic elites involved in such criminal activities.

I have a lot of Haitians in my district. They want some action. They want some relief from the activities of these criminal gangs.

The message that this bill sends, and what the follow-up with the administration would say, is that the United States House of Representatives, in a very bipartisan fashion and working collectively together, will not allow them to continue their corrupt criminal activities.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an incredible woman by the name of Emma Kenner. Emma Kenner is a child of God, and she gives thanks and praises to our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Emma was a Queens native hailing from Jamacia, New York. An inspirational and dedicated 103-year-old constituent who has had a major impact on the district. She has spent decades serving the communities of Southeast Queens as a shining example to future community leaders.

Emma has a lengthy resume with accomplishments across a plethora of fields. She spent many years working at the New York State Department of Mental Hygiene, served as a coordinator of the New York Board of Elections, and was the former president of the 113th Police Precinct Council. She has also played a major role in New York's political field by volunteering at many local elected official's offices such as Senator Comrie, Floyd Flake, Archie Spigner, and my very own. A woman undoubtedly devoted to public service and the advancement of our communities.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Emma Kenner for her dedication to politics, her city, and her community.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 68. For the next several hours on the House floor, we will not be discussing how to raise wages for the middle class, debating how to create a regulatory framework for next-generation artificial intelligence technology, or strategizing about competing with China in the 21st century. Instead, we will be debating a handful of resolutions that will provide immediate sanctions relief for human rights violators, illicit arms dealers, and terrorists with American blood on their hands.

I am not being hyperbolic, and I am not exaggerating. The resolutions before us terminate emergencies that were declared for the express purpose of sanctioning war criminals.

Given that we have several similar resolutions on the floor, it is worth providing background on how the sanctions process works.

In 1976, Congress passed the National Emergencies Act. This act formalized how the President can declare a normal emergency, enumerated certain powers the President can use during such an emergency, and gave Congress the ability to terminate an emergency via resolution like the one we have before us today.

A year later, Congress built on this framework with the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, often referred to as IEEPA, which further elucidated what actions the President may take to regulate international commerce in such an emergency. IEEPA is the foundation of the modern American sanctions regime.

The benefits of IEEPA are very clear. They allow the President to move quickly to impose sanctions. Though, of course, some time is needed to jump through appropriate and necessary due process hurdles, the President is able to impose sanctions without a particular congressional mandate.

It is my view, likely shared by the sponsor and hopefully many Members of this body, that the power over sanctions has moved too much to the executive branch and too far from Congress. Too often, congressionally mandated sanctions are slow-rolled or minimized while the executive presses on with its preferred targets.

I do not want to diminish the seriousness and the impressive work professionals at the State Department, the Treasury Department, and the National Security Council do on sanctions. They take the work very seriously and apply thoughtful policies with an attentional detail, executing their actions in a careful manner.

Members of Congress should not blithely substitute their judgment about existing national emergencies without conducting a thorough review of the evidence, obtaining extensive briefings from the executive branch, and gaining a firm understanding of the consequences of a termination.

Moreover, each national emergency is reviewed at least annually. The Bush administration, the Obama administration, the Trump administration, and now the Biden administration all renewed the national emergency this resolution seeks to terminate.

Many national emergencies have been terminated. For instance, President George H.W. Bush terminated the South Africa program after apartheid ended. President Biden terminated the Burundi program not less than 2 years ago.

Let's take a quick look at some of the individuals currently sanctioned under the DRC program. One is Viktor Bout. For decades, Bout flooded the DRC with illegal weapons. He has bragged about his many contacts in financial institutions who have helped him evade sanctions, and Bout likely has significant assets that can easily be unfrozen. If this body votes to terminate the executive order that imposes sanctions on Bout, he stands to gain a windfall of cash within mere minutes.

The DRC program currently places sanctions on ISIS-Congo. That is right, the foreign terrorist organization ISIS. If Congress votes to pass this resolution, ISIS can set up a brokerage account, trade stocks, transfer funds, or keep money in a checking account in the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, in my humble opinion, ISIS-Congo should not be permitted to do any of the above, and neither should the numerous war criminals currently covered under the Congo emergency.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose H.J. Res. 68, and I implore all of my colleagues to do the same.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to be long, but I am sitting here scratching my head trying to figure out what the gentlewoman from Colorado is talking about.

This is not money that is taxpayer money that is appropriated by the people. I don't understand. This is money that these criminals, people who commit acts of terror, have. It is money that happens to be in some of our financial institutions that we know about. So we freeze it. They are sanctioned so that they can't get the money to continue the harm and damage to people.

She talks about children. Many of them, these individuals, were having child soldiers. They were putting children's lives at risk in war. I don't understand the rationality.

We should sanction ISIS. We should sanction Viktor Bout.

Mr. Speaker, I can't believe that any Member of this august body will vote for this resolution. Every Member should vote against this, 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 opposition to H.J. Res. 70.

For decades, Muammar Qadhafi ruled Libya with an iron fist and with a corrupt, self-serving economic policy that stunted Libya's development and, through a security state, engaged in international terrorism, including the Lockerbie airline bombing that remains the deadliest event in aviation history.

For the past 12 years, Libya has seen its share of continuous turmoil and

chaos. To the extent this resolution is a symptom of frustration about ongoing problems in Libya, that would be understandable. Any notion that this resolution will be at all useful for Libya policy is deeply misguided.

The United States actively supports the U.N.'s efforts to unify the country and its institutions under a democratically elected government.

These talks are ongoing, and violence has decreased over the last several years. The economy is doing better in part because U.S. sanctions have helped decrease oil banditry.

Lifting sanctions on the worst actors in Libya, the individuals who have perpetuated violence and instability, would send the exact wrong message to those pursuing economic reform.

Whereas economic pressure and tough diplomacy have brought parties to the table, a free pass on sanctions would have the exact opposite impact.

In general, there have been two large batches of sanctions under the Libya executive order. The Obama administration issued the first tranche against the Qadhafi family and its fiefdom of business and fake charities.

The Trump administration issued the second set that sanctioned individuals who committed grave human rights abuses and prevented the theft of Libyan oil by pirates and illegal merchants.

It is unclear to me how letting any of these people access American finance would be beneficial to the United States or to Libya or to the MENA region.

One of the most notable people currently sanctioned under the program is Qadhafi's son, Saif al-Islam Qadhafi. When the protests began, Saif al-Islam went on television and threatened ``rivers of blood'' if the protestors did not cease.

He has never condemned his father. He has never condemned his father's despotic rule and is actively seeking to regain power in Libya as we speak.

The Qadhafi family controlled billions of dollars in assets. If sanctions are lifted on the remaining members of the Qadhafi family, the Qadhafis would have access to a windfall of wealth, which they plundered from the Libyan people. Instead of the frozen funds going to the Libyan people, they would go to the family that imprisoned and impoverished them.

I cannot support anything like that outcome, Mr. Speaker. I must strongly oppose and hope all of the Members of this House opposes H.J. Res. 70.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume for the purpose of closing.

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief because, unfortunately, when we are in this august body, the world is looking at us. As I was scratching my head on the first resolution, I continue to do that.

Judgments I use in making determinations is: Is this good for America?

The question is, does this resolution promote America's national security? The answer to that is no.

Does this resolution support America's economic interests? The answer to that is no.

Would this resolution undermine America's standing in Libya? The answer to that is absolutely yes.

Would this resolution undermine our standing in the region? The answer to that would be absolutely yes.

Mr. Speaker, there is no need for me to continue to stand to debate this. I strongly oppose, and I believe overwhelmingly the Members of this Congress oppose this resolution, and we should vote it down.

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