Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of today, I call up the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 21) directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove the United States Armed Forces from Syria and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the United States is not at war with Syria. Rather, the United States is conducting limited but important counterterrorism operations in Syria against ISIS, formerly known as al-Qaida in Iraq, pursuant to the 2001 counterterrorism AUMF.

Those operations are being reported regularly to Congress, consistent with the War Powers Resolution. They are not new or unique to the Biden administration.

In fact, let me quote President Trump about what we are doing here when he said: ``A small presence of United States Armed Forces remains in strategically significant locations in Syria to conduct operations . . . to address continuing terrorist threats emanating from Syria.''

``These ongoing operations, which the United States has carried out with the assistance of numerous international partners, have been successful in seriously degrading ISIS capabilities in Syria and Iraq.''

When ISIS was at the peak of its power in 2015, it controlled vast territory in Iraq and Syria, which it used to launch attacks in the Middle East and beyond. Those terrorists ruled with medieval brutality. We all remember the graphic videos of ISIS fighters beheading journalists and innocent civilians.

These monsters drew thousands of volunteers to join their ranks in Iraq and Syria and inspired terrorist attacks around the world.

Our U.S. military, working with a global coalition and local forces on the ground, helped to dismantle and destroy this vicious caliphate.

I am proud that our men and women in uniform answered the call to fight this menace, which threatened the United States and the world.

Even though ISIS no longer controls significant territory, there are still tens of thousands of hardened terrorist fighters in Iraq and Syria who are hell-bent on reestablishing their terror state.

In fact, in the last quarter of 2022, ISIS claimed 72 attacks in Iraq and Syria, including several IED attacks.

Thankfully, our small deployment of U.S. servicemembers is remarkably effective at working with local partner forces to achieve results and ensure the enduring and complete defeat of ISIS. Otherwise, these numbers would be much worse.

In 2022, we were involved in 108 partner and 14 unilateral operations, killing 466 ISIS operatives and detaining 215 others.

None of us want our soldiers overseas and in harm's way any longer than is absolutely necessary. I understand that the gentleman from Florida has introduced this resolution in good faith and is well intentioned, and he did it in response to a February 17 operation to kill an ISIS leader, in which four U.S. servicemembers were wounded.

Any injured or killed servicemember is a tragedy. We are eternally grateful for the sacrifice made by our men and women in uniform and their families and never take them for granted.

It is our responsibility as Members of Congress to reassess, on an ongoing basis, whether their deployments and the risk they involve are necessary. In doing that, we must recall President Obama's disastrous decision to prematurely withdraw our troops from Iraq in 2011.

A few short years later, American troops returned to fight the deadly ISIS caliphate, which grew out of the al-Qaida presence that had not been defeated.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Milley, was in Syria just days ago to see our troops and assess the state of our mission. He went there to figure out what value this mission holds for our security. He said: ``Unless you support and devote the correct amount of resources to it, things will get worse,'' and, ``If you completely ignore and turn your back, then you are setting the conditions for a resurgence.''

That is why I strongly oppose this resolution directing the removal of United States Armed Forces from Syria, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

If we withdraw our troops from Syria now, we could see a resurgence of ISIS or another lethal successor in a short time. Withdrawal of this legal, authorized U.S. troop deployment must be based on the total defeat of ISIS.

Let me be clear: Congress' power to declare war is one of our most solemn Article I responsibilities. I understand why some in this Chamber are uncomfortable with using a 22-year-old force authorization for current operations.

I believe that we should be working together, in a bipartisan manner, to have an updated replacement to this AUMF to address the current threat environment, while also keeping Congress engaged with our constitutional responsibilities.

But this resolution does not work to that end. I believe it would call for an artificial withdrawal and it would be a win for the ISIS terrorists committed to our destruction.

The bottom line is: The premise upon this resolution--as the Parliamentarian doesn't make fact-based determinations--the premise of this whole thing is that there is no authorization for troops to be in Syria today. It is just not accurate. In fact, it is wrong. In 2014, the ISIS threat was addressed under the Presidential authority of the 2001 AUMF.

I remember being in the White House with President Trump addressing this crisis, as well, about what to do about Syria, and whether we believe our U.S. troops should remain, in a very small footprint of 900 soldiers, in Syria.

At that time, President Trump made the decision that, under the 2001 AUMF, to keep these troops in country, and I believe that was the correct decision, and I stand by that.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in this opposition, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Zinke).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me just say to my colleague, who serves with me on the Foreign Affairs Committee, we are a lot in agreement. I think the 2001 AUMF is outdated, and it should have been sunsetted. Congress has a constitutional responsibility to address this. Now, as chairman, that is my intention, and I hope to work with the gentleman on this.

But the point is, this is a privileged resolution under the War Powers Act 5(c), section (c), that basically says if U.S. forces are engaged in hostilities without authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President, if directed by a congressional concurrent resolution.

We have authorization here, and it is the 2001 AUMF. We may not like that. We can debate whether we need to update this thing, and I think we do. The ranking member and I have had these discussions, as well. But that is really the centerpiece of what we are talking about on this privileged resolution.

So when this is all said and done, I hope we can perhaps work on updating this outdated authorized use of military force to what is the modern-day threat.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lawler).

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, let me say, it has been a good debate. There is nothing more important in this body than issues of war and peace and what we have been talking about today.

I was a counterterrorism Federal prosecutor after 9/11 and the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee when ISIS and the caliphate were at their strength with external operations and, yes, the southern border and the threat that that poses. We can talk about the merits some more, and I appreciate this discussion.

But at the heart of this under the War Powers Resolution privilege is, and I am quoting directly: `` . . . that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities . . . without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs. . . . `'

The authority is there, and if you look under the AUMF of 2001 `` . . . to prevent any future acts of international terrorism. . . . `'

I want to close with what President Trump said. I was a part of this decision with him on June 9, 2020. He said:

Since October 7, 2001, United States Armed Forces have

conducted counterterrorism operations against al-Qaida. Since

August of 2014, they have targeted the Islamic State of Iraq

and Syria, otherwise known as ISIS, formerly known as al-

Qaida in Iraq.

These ongoing operations have been successful in seriously

degrading ISIS capabilities in Syria and Iraq.

If we want to start having a debate without repealing and replacing the 2001 AUMF, then I would just argue to my colleagues that that would be the productive route to fix this issue of whether the United States should be present in the Middle East at all.

And to close, our Afghanistan hearing, what a mess we have left behind and what a threat that has become, as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 104) condemning the Chinese Communist Party's use of a high-altitude surveillance balloon over United States territory as a brazen violation of United States sovereignty.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this past week the Nation watched in shock as a Chinese surveillance balloon traversed much of the United States, including sensitive American military sites like Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana. That base is one of the three places where our minuteman ICBM nuclear missiles are stored.

Americans were rightfully deeply disturbed by this brazen violation of sovereignty by the Chinese Communist Party. This act of aggression was done on the eve of a scheduled meeting between Chairman Xi and Secretary of State Antony Blinken. That meeting was ultimately canceled.

The balloon, I believe, was a test, a test of this administration to see how it would respond. I believe the President should have shot it down before it entered American airspace rather than allow it to cross over the Continental United States airspace.

But make no mistake, this was another intentionally provocative act by the CCP. As I have said often, weakness invites aggression. This act will only further embolden and empower our enemies; it will embolden and empower Chairman Xi.

Mr. Speaker, I have never seen a foreign nation adversary fly a reconnaissance aircraft that you could see from the ground with your own eyes. The CCP threat is now within sight for Americans across the heartland, a vision and memory that they will not forget.

This is further proof that the CCP does not care about having a constructive relationship with the United States. It is publicly challenging U.S. interests, threatening Taiwan, supporting Russia's war of aggression in Ukraine, and now violating U.S. sovereignty.

If there is any question whether the administration should request funds supporting Taiwan's foreign military financing grants, this incident alone should make it clear that the time is now to harden ourselves and our partners against the Chinese military aggression.

An event like this, Mr. Speaker, must not happen again, and it cannot go unanswered. They only understand one thing and that is force, and that is projecting power; and we need to project power and force and strength against the Chinese Communist Party.

They must understand that we do desire peace, but infringing upon our sovereignty leads us down a dangerous path. Our adversaries must believe that any future incursion into American airspace by a spy balloon or any other vehicle will be met with decisive force, and that is why the House should pass this resolution.

The resolution, under section 4, does call for the Biden administration to continue to keep Congress apprised by providing comprehensive briefings on this incident that include--and there

are many of these, but I want to go to the end,--most importantly, a detail description of plans, capabilities, and methods to deter and defeat intelligence collection activities conducted by the PRC or other foreign adversaries in the national airspace system and any additional authorities needed from Congress to ensure detection and defeat these activities in the future.

I hope this administration will comply with this resolution. This resolution, I believe, sends a clear, bipartisan signal to the CCP and our adversaries around the world that this action will not be tolerated; to tell the world, with a united voice, that our national security is not a partisan issue.

We stand together today with one voice, as Americans, Americans against this act of aggression by the Chinese Communist Party.

Mr. Speaker, I urge unanimous support of this resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Fry), who personally eyewitnessed the spy balloon in the Atlantic Ocean as it was shot down on the beaches right off of his district, off the coast of his district in South Carolina.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), the vice chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and another eyewitness to this act of aggression as the balloon traveled across her State, the State of Missouri.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Kim), chair of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Indo-Pacific.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Zinke), an original cosponsor of this bill and yet another Member who witnessed the spy balloon as it flew over his State of Montana.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Moran), a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Kean), a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Europe.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me just say that lies, deceit, espionage, spying, this is nothing new.

Mr. Speaker, I remember, in 1997, I was assigned to a case at the Department of Justice to prosecute a man named Johnny Chung. He was taking money from Chinese intelligence officials, from China Aerospace, to put into the Clinton campaign to influence the election because China wanted to influence the election back then. They wanted satellites. They wanted aerospace technology. That is why they were doing it then.

Guess what? My FBI agent got indicted for espionage for sleeping with a Chinese spy--imagine that--a Chinese spy who for 20 years was cultivated as an FBI asset. Her name was Katrina Leung. I will never forget it because all the information I gave my agent went straight back to the mother ship in Beijing. A Chinese spy, 20 years cultivated, became a double agent reporting back to Beijing, and we can't release those documents from 20 years ago, 30 years ago.

But this--this one--takes the cake: a balloon this brazen that is only 60,000 feet above the ground and that can be seen with the naked eye surveilling the United States of America.

We talked at our organizational meeting last night about how this committee is bipartisan. We are bipartisan. We are bipartisan on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I will tell you this: If there is anything this Congress should get done--I challenge the other side of the aisle--let's stand together against this common enemy that we have.

Our enemy is not each other. Our enemies are foreign enemy nations like China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea--China being the largest foreign state adversary and the biggest threat long term to the national security interests of the United States.

Let's do it with one voice. Let's put our partisan politics aside and do what is right for America.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 107.

Stated against:

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear friend, Chairman Meeks, for working with me on this important legislation. This is a historic time, and it is a historic bill.

This is the largest invasion in Europe since World War II, with war crimes in Europe the likes of which we haven't seen since my father's generation in my father's war.

Mr. Speaker, the world is watching, and history will judge us all by how we act, by our actions. As the chairman said, the tape is filming; the reel is filming this. We are seeing these horrific images coming out of Ukraine as I speak, and sadly, there will be many more. We have just hit the surface.

Corpses are littering the streets of Bucha, their hands tied behind their backs and bullets in their heads. Some are decapitated.

A pregnant woman, covered in blood--these monsters bombed a maternity hospital, for God's sake--as she gets wheeled out, holding on to her womb or baby. Sadly, and tragically, both she and her baby did not survive that day.

Mothers are raped in front of their children, and young girls are raped in front of their families--girls.

The bodies of families are half-buried together in shallow graves, with their hands still sticking out of the ground.

My God, what is happening in this world? I never imagined or thought I would see this in my lifetime. This is of centuries ago, not today.

The bombing of apartments and public buildings providing refuge to children and the elderly, including a theater in Mariupol that had the word ``children'' written outside so large in Russian that the satellites could see it--we could see it from satellites. What do the Russians do? They bombed it. They bombed it knowing that there were children inside.

Today, just today, most disturbing, we have reporting out of Ukraine that Russia is bringing in mobile crematoriums to deal with the carnage because there are so many bodies in the streets. They are bringing in mobile crematoriums in an effort to hide the evidence of their crimes.

These are Putin's war crimes, and he will be held responsible. He and his cronies, and the Russian troops who have carried them out, must be held accountable.

Sadly, these are not the first war crimes committed by Putin's troops, as the people of Chechnya, Georgia, and Syria can attest.

We cannot wait for the next atrocity before we act. We must do what we can now to deter Russian leaders, commanders, and troops in the field from committing further war crimes.

That is why we introduced this legislation. It will ensure the United States helps the people of Ukraine gather, analyze, and maintain the evidence of these war crimes.

It will also put Russian troops--I think ``troops'' is probably not the right word--these Russian monsters and their leaders on notice that the world is watching.

The world is watching them right now, and we are taking names. We are

taking the names of these war criminals; we are taking photographs; we are taking surveillance; and we are taking the satellite imagery to document this injustice, this crime against humanity. And we will seek justice.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the bipartisan efforts that our committee has made. But on the topic, I just have to--my God, I can't believe we are here even talking about this. I can't believe this is actually happening in this world, in this century.

These horrific atrocities in Bucha have made one thing crystal clear: No country can remain neutral in the face of this evil. The entire world needs to rally against Mr. Putin and these war crimes. Passing this bill is a step forward to getting justice done.

I was a Federal prosecutor for a good part of my life, and I have dealt with a lot of victims. I have seen a lot of really awful things that man can do to mankind. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, this is probably--in fact, it is absolutely the worst thing I have seen in my lifetime.

The world is watching, and history will judge us all. All nations will judge us all by what we do here and now.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill).

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

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

Madam Speaker, we rise today not as Republicans or Democrats but as Americans and as a united Congress on behalf of the American people condemning these atrocities.

Madam Speaker, there is a group called the Wagner Group that is entering Ukraine right now. They are the worst of the worst. They are mercenaries. They are cold-blooded killers. Mr. Putin has sent them to Africa to kill people in Mali and Libya, and they have been in the Donbas previously. They have a saying, these Wagner thugs, these monsters, that our business is killing, and business is good.

This is sick. They rape women and girls. They kill for a living, and, yes, now they are entering Ukraine.

Sadly, Madam Speaker, I am not sure Bucha is the last we are going to see of this, and when the dust clears from Mariupol, God knows what we are going to find there. God only knows. When they are talking about mobile crematoriums to hide the evidence of so much carnage and so many bodies to be burned. This has to stop.

We are standing together united as Americans condemning this, and as a former Federal prosecutor, yes, to indict Mr. Putin for his crimes against humanity.

Mr. Putin thought his legacy after this fiasco was going to be reclaiming the glory of the empire. He would be known as great as the czars or maybe Stalin. Maybe he is like Stalin. His legacy is not going to be reclaiming the empire. His legacy is going to be that of a war criminal. That will impact his psyche, and that will impact all those around him, including his oligarchs, that no one is safe here, that you will be indicted internationally, and that you will be brought to justice.

For without justice in the face of these crimes against humanity, what good are we? So this is an historic moment.

I want to thank the chairman, as always, on this committee for working with me to stand up against evil, because that is exactly what this is.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to mark the 55th anniversary of the opening of the Westminster Retirement Community in Austin, Texas. I wish to congratulate them for

the meaningful work they do for the senior community in Austin and commend them for their commitment to providing high-end, quality care to their residents.

Westminster will always hold a special place in my heart, as they cared for my mother in her final days. I want to thank the doctors, nurses, and all the staff for the love and care they provided her during her time with them.

Since 1967, Westminster has provided life care, residential services, and state-of-the-art healthcare to thousands of residents who have trusted and relied upon their facilities and staff. To reach this milestone, Westminster's staff has worked tirelessly to ensure that their residents receive the care they need while also providing a comforting place to live during retirement.

The high quality of care and standard of living for the residents of Westminster has garnered national attention and led to a recognition as a Top 25 `Best in Wellness'' Senior Living Community in North America by the ICAA. This continued commitment to serving their residents in Austin illustrates the value that they serve in this community.

For 55 years, Westminster Retirement Community has diligently served the senior population in Austin to ensure that its residents live a long, healthy, and joyous life. Westminster has become the reliable institution that it is today due to its effort and acute attention to the care of its residents.

I want to recognize Westminster on their 55th anniversary and I commend them for the outstanding work they do for the retirement community in Austin.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for yielding.

Madam Speaker, the Chinese Communist Party poses a generational threat to the United States and our freedom-loving allies around the world.

They are brutally oppressing their own people. They are committing genocide against ethnic and religious minorities. They are expanding their military reach and carrying out territorial aggression against their neighbors. We cannot wait any longer to address these issues.

Madam Speaker, I stand before you, quite frankly, disappointed. We had a great opportunity here, and this bill that passed the House is not the bill. I am very hopeful we can get to a good place in our conference committee.

Unfortunately, the Democrat leaders chose not to work with Republicans to pass a substantive, meaningful bill to counter this malign influence. Instead,

they jammed the partisan COMPETES Act through the House.

The COMPETES Act, in my judgment, is a Trojan horse filled with unserious, dangerous, and wasteful provisions.

Those provisions include fringe, progressive priorities, like $8 billion worth of taxpayer money into an unaccountable U.N. slush fund. This U.N. slush fund has already provided at least $100 million directly to China, a country that this Congress, former Republican administration, and current Democrat administration have all agreed is committing genocide.

In fact, it is worse. The Xinjiang Province--you get this money to make solar panels and batteries in the Xinjiang Province where they commit genocide itself. That is not good for America and it is certainly not good for the U.S. taxpayer.

Secretary Kerry admitted before our committee that the CCP is using slave labor to make these green energy products--like solar panels and batteries--that could be used by this U.N. fund. In effect, the bill would fund their slave labor and prop up their forced abortions. We tried to stop this from happening--to stop U.S. taxpayers from funding slave labor in my motion to recommit, and shockingly, we were outright rejected by the Democrats.

The motion to recommit prohibited taxpayer money going to slave labor, genocide, and the Wuhan Lab, and every Democrat voted against that measure. This is a test of our time.

Madam Speaker, so I remain the eternal optimist and hopeful that this conference process will be able to rectify these glaring issues that I have outlined. We can start today by supporting this motion that will block billions of dollars going to the CCP military PLA companies and human rights abusers.

Congress owes it to the American people to pass a bill that takes this threat seriously. That includes tough export controls, outbound investment screening and funding for the CHIPS for America Act, which I introduced, to give us a competitive edge, bring manufacturing to the United States to make advanced semiconductor chips and protect our national security at the same time.

This is vitally important to our national security, and it keeps critical U.S. technology out of the hands of the Chinese military, like hypersonics. It ensures U.S. taxpayers are not subsidizing their genocide.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this motion to instruct. I hope we can all work together in a bipartisan manner on what could be the most important legislation of this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, what can you say about Don in 30 seconds? I always saw him as a captain, the tugboat captain, the captain of the ship.

Don was the captain of this ship, this great institution, the House. Don was rough on the exterior like his State, rugged and larger than life, but he had a heart for serving others.

I will never forget going to the White House when we signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act into law. ANWR opened up. He did a little jig in front of the White House. I think that may have been one of the days he broke his promise of maybe having a little drink.

But I will say this: I will always cherish my last day in the House sitting right next to him. The very last day, we were here for an hour talking about this great institution, talking about our families, what is important in life. Little did I know that the next day he would be lost.

Madam Speaker, let me say in closing, Don planned to serve in Congress until God or the voters decided it was his time. It is no coincidence that God called him home on his 49th year in Congress as a Representative for the 49th State.

May God hold Don in the palms of his hands.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me just thank Chairman Meeks for his leadership. This is really a historic time, not for only this Nation, but the world, for Ukraine. It is a time when we come together, not as Republicans or Democrats, but as Americans in strong support of the people of Ukraine.

I also want to thank Congresswoman Victoria Spartz, who is from Ukraine, who knows this story firsthand, and who very passionately has told her story about what it means, a country that has endured Hitler, a country that has endured Stalin, and now a country that is enduring Mr. Putin and Russian aggression.

As we stand here, Ukrainians are fighting for their country and for their very lives. Vladimir Putin has launched the largest attack in Europe since World War II.

His war machine has unleashed a brutal barrage of missiles and rockets on innocent Ukrainian civilians. In fact, there are 40 miles just north of Kyiv of tanks and military weaponry that is getting ready to go in and encircle the capital city.

But the people of Ukraine are inspiring the world with their bravery in the face of this, of Putin's evil and unprovoked attack. Fathers and mothers, teachers and shop owners, taxi drivers and students are all taking up arms, making Molotov cocktails, joining Ukrainian soldiers to defend their country.

They are standing in front of the tanks, standing in front of the tanks. I have seen a child standing in front of a tank just like Tiananmen Square and the images coming out that are sent around the world so we can all witness this, this war against humanity and human rights, war crimes.

They are risking their lives to fight for freedom, and that is what this Nation stands for, freedom and democracy.

Despite the terror inflicted upon them by Putin's bombs and rockets, the Ukrainian people have courageously refused to relent. Vladimir Putin has underestimated them. He has underestimated their strength and their bravery. The resiliency of the Ukrainian people has been an inspiration, really, for the world.

We were told in our briefings, well, this will last 2 or 3 days, but they have stood up. Putin needs to understand that he has miscalculated, and this will cost him a very, very high price. He has underestimated the strength and bravery to his own peril.

So I am pleased that we are able to come together, not as Republicans or Democrats, as I said, but really, as Americans, as we should, to express and send a strong message in support of the people of Ukraine and against this tyrant and this monster who is savagely killing civilians, as I speak.

We have all seen the images of the women and the children and the refugees as they leave their fathers and husbands behind who are left to fight this war.

This resolution really does one thing: to tell the world in one united voice that the United States of America stands opposed to oppression, that we stand with the people of Ukraine, and we stand against Mr. Putin's aggression. We must ensure that Putin fails, and I believe long term, he will.

I am hopeful that today's resolution will also lead to additional constructive bipartisan steps to properly arm the Ukrainians in any way possible, as they have told us, we don't need your troops, but we need your weapons to fight against the Russians.

You know, there was a tweet that came out from a dead Russian soldier who sent a text to his mother, saying, I thought they were going to welcome us, that we were liberating them. And yet I am seeing Ukrainians and children being run over by our tanks. And he says to his mother, this is the worst thing I have ever seen.

He lies. He is deceptive. He lied to his own people that he is liberating these Ukrainians who are oppressed by the Russians. This is no liberation. This is not a liberation ceremony.

This is tyranny at its worst, and oppression. We need to continue to support them as long as even one Ukrainian citizen continues to stand up to Russia's tyranny.

As in February 1941, facing a devastating bombing campaign by the Nazis--we can see the parallels here--this is similar to Hitler invading Poland.

When they talked about the blitz, Winston Churchill made a direct plea to the United States for assistance, and it is timeless. It actually resonates today. He said, ``Put your confidence in us. . . . We shall not fail or falter; we shall not weaken or tire. Neither the sudden shock of battle, nor the long-drawn trials of vigilance and exertion will wear us down. Give us the tools, and we will finish the job.''

Mr. Speaker, this is what the Ukrainian people want. It is what they are asking for. It is what they need. It is what the United States of America and our NATO allies will deliver.

Today, facing the onslaught of Putin's missiles and tanks, the Ukrainian President, Zelensky, a most courageous leader, as we have seen, who didn't run away from his country like President Ghani. He is in the bunker right now, knowing that his very life and his survival is on the line.

He made the same plea to us, and today, we have the opportunity to tell Ukraine that we have confidence in them by supporting this measure, that we will give them the tools they need to finish the job.

So let me, once again, thank the chairman. This is when the Foreign Affairs Committee is at its best, when we come together as Americans. As Eliot Engel always said, partisanship stops at the water's edge, and I firmly believe that commitment as well.

I urge my Members to support this. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MEEKS: Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), who just recently was walking the streets of Kyiv, talking to the people, listening to them, and their determination to preserve their democracy. Mr. David Cicilline.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Spartz), the lead Republican on this resolution, who was born and raised in Ukraine. Her grandmother is still there and has told her the stories of Hitler and Stalin and how bad this situation is on the ground.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee and one of the longest serving Members of Congress as well.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, Central Asia, and Nonproliferation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the great State of Texas (Mr. Pfluger), a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the leader for his remarks. I think it is very important this Chamber passes this resolution unanimously to send one voice to Putin that the American people stand for the Ukrainian people and against Mr. Putin.

I think it is no coincidence--to me, it is fitting--that today is Texas Independence Day. My forefathers fought for freedom and liberty for the same purpose, from tyranny.

Since 2014, the world has watched the Ukrainian people fight to forge their own destiny in the face of violent attacks by Russia. They are facing down

Putin's missiles and tanks, risking life and limb for their freedom today.

As President Zelensky warned the Russian troops invading his country just a few days ago, as he sits in the bunker, putting his life on the line, he said: ``If they try to take our country, our freedom, our lives, the lives of our children, we will be defending ourselves. . . . As you attack, it will be our faces you see, not our backs.''

Today, we have the opportunity to honor his leadership and the bravery of the Ukrainian people, to send a strong message to these brave men and women that they are not alone, that the United States stands with them and will continue to stand with them for as long as it takes.

Mr. Speaker, again, I urge my colleagues to vote in support, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Madam Speaker, if we adopt the motion to recommit, we will instruct the Committee on Science to consider my amendment to ensure that this bill will not fund the Chinese Communist Party.

I ask unanimous consent to include the text of my amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to recommit.

As I said yesterday, the generational threat of the Chinese Communist Party is a test, not only for our national security but for American values. Sadly, this bill fails that test.

The CCP exploits our economy. They are building hypersonic weapons on the backbone of U.S. technology, and they are using American intellectual property to further their genocide.

A substantive bill to counter the CCP isn't just a security issue. It is a moral issue. Yet, this bill takes no meaningful steps to keep U.S. technology out of the hands of the CCP's military.

Even worse, my Democratic colleagues have refused safeguards that would stop this money from financing slave labor and genocide in the Xinjiang province.

Madam Speaker, I, therefore, urge my colleagues to reconsider this Trojan horse bill and to adopt my straightforward amendment. It would stop huge sums of U.S. taxpayer dollars from going to the Chinese Government, from funding their genocide. It would stop research funds in this bill from being used by entities like the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Madam Speaker, this is the test of our time. We must not help the CCP build the future of global energy on a foundation of slave labor and genocide.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand on the right side of history and to support my motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, last year, the CCP's hypersonic weapons program successfully launched a missile that traveled all the way around the world. That program was built on the backbone of U.S. technology.

And as we speak, the Chinese Communist Party is committing genocide against their own people. Women are forced to abort their children. Families are ripped apart. And all the while, American IP is being used to build the CCP's police state to help the CCP surveil and imprison the ethnic and religious minorities that they torture.

A substantive bill that counters the CCP isn't just a national security issue; it is a moral issue. That is why any serious legislation must include export controls to keep U.S. technology out of the hands of the CCP's military and surveillance state.

The stakes could not be higher, and the outcome hinges on a technology race. Unfortunately, this bill takes no meaningful step to address this significant risk to U.S. national security. Instead, it is a Trojan horse being used to inject $8 billion worth of taxpayer money into an unaccountable United Nations slush fund.

That is more than double the amount of money authorized for actual foreign policy programs. This U.N. slush fund has already provided at least $100 million directly to China, U.S. taxpayer dollars to a country that this Congress, that the former Republican President and the current Democrat President have all agreed is committing genocide; to a country that even Secretary Kerry admitted is using slave labor to make green energy projects, like solar panels and batteries.

And for some unknown reason, Democrats rejected Republican efforts to guarantee that the CCP could not access U.S. taxpayer money in this bill.

But even worse, this legislation could send U.S. taxpayer dollars to fund green energy projects built on the CCP's genocide program against its own people, to fund their slave labor, to prop up their forced abortions.

Shockingly, Republicans attempted to stop this from happening, to stop U.S. taxpayers from funding slave labor, but we were outright rejected by the Democrats.

Mr. Speaker, this is a moral issue. It is the test of our time. If we allow this legislation to pass, we will be on the wrong side of history. We will be helping the CCP build the future of global energy on the foundation of slave labor and genocide.

And Mr. Speaker, I stand before you today both angry and disappointed. This bill could have been the bipartisan crowning achievement of this Congress and we could have worked together.

We could have shown the American people that when it comes to generational threats posed by the CCP, that Republicans and Democrats can put U.S. interests over special interests; that we can put national security over party politics; that we can put morality over money.

Instead, the gentlewoman from California hijacked this legislation that was bicameral, bipartisan; hijacked these negotiations, and threw it together in this legislation that she well knew contained provisions that Republicans could not support.

In other words, she chose to turn this into a partisan political stunt. And she did it in secret, behind the backs of Republicans, while many of us were still negotiating with our Democrat counterparts in good faith to find a bipartisan agreement.

So, Mr. Speaker, the CCP is the most significant economic and national security threat the United States faces. The American people deserved better than this superficial partisan response.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this immoral bill and stand with me against genocide.

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

Madam Speaker, let me just say to my good friend, Chairman Meeks, we all deplore anti-Muslim persecution. No one should ever be attacked or denied their human rights or dignity because of their faith. So, we actually agree on the intent and the spirit behind this. But I do have some concerns with the wording in many parts of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, the United States Government is rightly committed to opposing these monstrous acts of violence that we have seen directed at Muslims around the world. This includes the horrific mosque shootings in Switzerland, Quebec, and Christchurch.

Our commitment must also apply to anti-Muslim persecution by foreign regimes, especially when it amounts to genocide. I am proud of our bipartisan work to condemn and punish the Burmese military's genocide against the Rohingya Muslims that began in 2016.

We are also working in a bipartisan fashion to oppose the Chinese Communist Party's ongoing genocide against the Uyghur Muslims that we passed together in a bipartisan manner on this floor just the other day.

Today, more than 1 million Muslims and other ethnic and religious minorities are held in camps and exploited as slave labor. Muslim children are ripped from their mothers' arms to be raised by the Communist Party. Muslim women are suffering systematic sexual violence, forced sterilization, and forced abortion.

Members on our side are fully committed to combating these anti- Muslim atrocities. I am proud of the work, again, that Chairman Meeks and I were able to do together to hold the Chinese Communist Party accountable for their genocide, and I thank the gentleman for his efforts.

In addition, I am pleased that right after this bill, Chairman McGovern, who has worked so hard with this committee, and Senator Marco Rubio in the Senate will finally be able to send to the President's desk a bipartisan, bicameral bill to combat the forced labor that supports the CCP's Uyghur genocide.

Unfortunately, the rushed, partisan bill before us today does not live up to these two serious bipartisan efforts. Committee Democrats made no effort to work toward a bipartisan agreement before the markup, and the bill has no Republican cosponsors.

This legislation is dangerously vague and unnecessarily duplicative. It doesn't frame things in terms of anti-Muslim persecution, nor does it use the typical statutory language like ``gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.''

Instead, it uses the undefined, nonlegal term of ``Islamophobia.'' This word appears nowhere in the Federal statutes. It is so vague and subjective that it could be used against legitimate speech for partisan purposes. Even the term ``phobia'' connotes irrational fear, not discrimination.

The bill also completely ignores the State Department's extensive efforts already underway to protect the rights of Muslims. Regular monitoring and reporting are already carried out by human rights officers or embassies worldwide, as well as the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor; the Office of International Religious Freedom; and the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.

The annual ``Country Reports'' on human rights contain detailed, country-specific narratives of human rights violations targeting Muslims. The ``Annual Report on International Religious Freedom'' details anti-Muslim abuses and U.S. Government policy to address such challenges.

In addition, the current nominee to serve as the Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom, Rashad Hussain, is a prominent Muslim American.

Madam Speaker, the lack of a special envoy is not a sign of bigotry. In fact, there is no special envoy for the hundreds of millions of Christians who face dangerous persecution today. Also, there is no special envoy for the Hindus or the Buddhists or the Baha'is or the Yazidis or many other people of faith who experience persecution.

We have heard a lot from the other side about the office and special envoy on anti-Semitism, and I imagine that we will continue to hear about this during this debate. But while the wording of today's bill is modeled after the two prior anti-Semitism bills, the process has been completely different and inadequate.

Both bills, in 2004 and 2020, came after dedicated hearings showing the need for specialized legislation. The second bill is based on 16 years of experience before a Senate-confirmed special envoy was added.

In stark contrast, today's bill is the result of a hurried, partisan push over the last 6 days. This legislation was introduced less than 2 months ago. We have not held any hearings focused on whether the new State Department bureaucracy is needed or useful to counter anti-Muslim hate.

Finally, today we received the oddest Statement of Administration Policy that I can ever recall, basically saying that while the administration supports passage of the bill, it would like for this bill to be rewritten. This State Department would like for this bill to be rewritten. Why aren't we consulting with the State Department to get this bill right before we throw it on the House floor and pass it with such haste?

In it, the administration also says that it wants to include language to ``ensure the Secretary of State has the necessary flexibility and permissive authority to designate such an office and special envoy.'' In other words, the administration doesn't want to be required to create this office and position, as this bill mandates.

Combating religious persecution against all people of faith, including Muslims, is a serious issue, and it deserves the kind of serious attention that draws bipartisan support. I also believe that a definition for clarity as to what Islamophobia is and how it would apply should be done through the legislative intent of the Congress and not left up to the bureaucracy in the State Department.

Unfortunately, the text has been rushed to the floor. It is vague and redundant, as I have said. For that reason, I do oppose it.

I am going to get, later, into some definitions of Islamophobia from various scholars and lawyerly articles that really bring out how vague this term is. We are not saying we are protecting against persecution of Muslims or international human rights for Muslims. It is Islamophobia that I think draws the most scrutiny to this bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry), a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee, (Mr. Burchett), a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Van Duyne).

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.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from New York is prepared to close, I am ready to close.

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

Let me just first say that all of us deplore anti-Muslim persecution. We are seeing a lot of that in Afghanistan today, especially the small children. We deplore violence on violence, Sunni against Shia. No one should ever be attacked or denied their human rights or dignity because of their faith. I believe both sides of the aisle agree on this, and I personally agree with the intent and the spirit of this bill.

The United States Government is rightly committed to opposing these acts of violence that we have seen directed at Muslims around the world. The State Department has an office to do so.

What I do object to, Mr. Speaker, is the unfortunate circumstance that the bill before us abandons the usual statutory language about violations of internationally recognized human rights. Instead, it uses this vague term, Islamophobia. Look it up on Wikipedia. It says it can mean many things.

This Islamophobia is not defined. It is not that we are against the anti-Muslim persecution or against international human rights violations against Muslims, but rather this Islamophobia.

In connection with that, I would like to quote a 2016 article from Columbia Law Review that states: ``There is no singular, cogent, or consensus definition of Islamophobia.''

Similarly, the University of Oslo's Center for Research on Extremism calls Islamophobia a ``contested term.''

These are law review articles, not mine.

It goes on further to say: ``The term conflates opposition to Islam with prejudice toward Muslims.''

These expert descriptions underscore the need for due diligence that this text has not yet received. I wish the minority had been given an opportunity to discuss this bill before it was thrown in on the markup, for we all oppose religious persecution against Muslims or any other faith. I am a Catholic. Any other believers in any faith should be protected from this hate speech and violence.

So for those reasons, because the definition is not provided, Islamophobia is a very broad term that can be subject to many interpretations.

If we don't define that in the Congress through legislative intent, who will?

That means we cede our authority over to the executive branch, and then they write what Islamophobia means. I wish we had used different terms, terminologies that are in statute under law rather than something that is sort of borne on a Wikipedia page.

To me, that is not the way we legislate here. I have done a lot of great legislation with the chairman and the previous chairman of this committee, and I intend to keep doing that with him. I

appreciate our joint efforts to advance strong, responsible bipartisan legislation to protect religious freedom.

We are going to have one of those bills coming up right after this one on the Uyghur Muslims, and I appreciate that. I know this has been a heated debate, and some things have been said today that could be offensive. This is not about one Member of Congress. This is about our ability to come together as Americans and come out with a strong bipartisan bill that makes sense so we can send the message around the world that this will not be tolerated, just as we are standing up for the Uyghur Muslims with the genocide bill and the bill that is going to follow this debate here today.

Mr. Speaker, it has been a rigorous debate, and we expected this. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking Chairman Meeks and Chairman McGovern for bringing this important human rights legislation to this floor. It is high time.

I want to start this debate with the simple truth that we cannot afford to forget. Truly, free trade cannot involve slave labor.

Today, the Chinese Communist Party is using the forced labor of the Uyghurs and other minorities to help bankroll its genocide against these very same groups.

The repression taking place right now in Xinjiang is breathtaking in its scope and its brutality. It involves the detention of more than 1 million people in concentration camps. It also involves surveillance and intensive brainwashing on a massive scale. It involves breaking up families and taking children from their parents. And it involves forced sterilization and forced abortions.

This should be a terrifying warning not only to China's neighbors and to the American people but also to the world. The Chinese Communist Party is fundamentally focused on expanding its power and its authoritarian style of government. It views things that it does not control, like religion, cultural identity, and the yearning of all people for freedom, as threats that must be destroyed. Because we have drawn the CCP into many of our most critical supply chains, it has the ability to hold our national security hostage while it uses U.S. consumers to subsidize its atrocities.

As many as one in five cotton garments globally are potentially tainted with Uyghur slave labor. Last year alone, U.S. Customs and Border Protection seized a 13-ton shipment of human hair that originated in Xinjiang's forced labor system. It is brazen, and it is sickening.

We must refuse to be complicit in the CCP's genocide against the Uyghurs, and for that reason, I support the measure before us today.

I wish we could have taken this up earlier. After sending a letter to the Speaker, we are finally at the day where we are now. Last Congress, this legislation went straight to the floor. Two weeks ago, 10 members of the Foreign Affairs Committee joined me in a letter urging the Speaker to move this bill. I am grateful that our message was received. But we could send this legislation to the President's desk today by taking up the Senate version. Instead, we are setting this bill up for further legislative gridlock by passing a conflicting version, although I do applaud Chairman McGovern's efforts in this issue.

Mr. Speaker, going forward, I hope the majority in both Chambers will move this to final passage regardless of pressure from the administration to not advance the American values we all share.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Global Human Rights. He also is the co-chair of the China Commission and has been a champion for human rights in China for three decades.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Burchett), a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Rice), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I know there is another bill by Senator Rubio. I hope this bill, when it passes, can be worked out in the Senate, and I hope the administration will not slow-roll this important measure, as has been reported.

Out of this region we have batteries and solar panels. When Secretary John Kerry testified, he admitted that Xinjiang's solar panel production presents a problem for U.S. climate strategy, and I agree with him.

In recent years, the world has stood by as the Chinese Communist Party has detained more than 1 million ethnic minorities in concentration camps where they are tortured, brainwashed, and put into forced labor. This is all a

part of a deliberate program by the CCP to wipe out their ethnic identity, their religion, and their culture, anything that might compete with the Communist Party for their loyalties and affection.

We have a moral duty to speak out against these horrifying crimes; but we have an even greater duty to avoid funding this genocide by paying for slave labor in Xinjiang.

Many American companies have built their businesses on values that include respect for basic human rights. The United States must continue to lead the world in setting corporate responsibility standards. There can no longer be business as usual with China. China is watching and the world is watching.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Waltz), a member of the Committee on Armed Services and ranking member of the

Science, Space, and Technology Committee's Subcommittee on Research and Technology and also the Republican coauthor of this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, when international institutions become unaccountable to the democratic world and are co-opted by dictators, they undermine American interests and values. That has become even clearer over the last few years.

When the COVID-19 outbreak began in Wuhan, the World Health Organization's complicity and the CCP's coverup helped turn what could have been a local outbreak into a global pandemic. We are still feeling the effects of the WHO repeating the CCP's lies without scrutiny, with them covering for Xi Jinping and with them legitimizing sham investigations into the origination of the virus.

The International Olympic Committee has a similar track record toward the CCP's human rights abuses. No human rights conditions were ever imposed by the IOC as a condition for China to host the 2008 Summer Olympics, and the CCP used it as propaganda to whitewash their brutal oppression. They allowed Beijing to host the 2022 Winter Olympics, once again turning a blind eye to the gross human rights violations and genocide currently being committed.

Over the last several weeks, we have seen the IOC change from passively validating the CCP's abuses to actively enabling them. The most troubling example is the ongoing abuse of Chinese Olympian Peng Shuai. She was disappeared by the CCP after coming forward with serious sexual abuse allegations against a senior party member.

After the world began speaking up for Peng, the CCP propaganda machine published false statements in her name. Rather than standing up for her, the IOC immediately issued public statements to validate this obvious disinformation and propaganda.

Even more shocking, IOC president, Thomas Bach, participated in and publicized a staged conversation with Peng

that was supervised by a senior CCP member.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that Peng is neither free nor safe. Since the 2008 games, the Chinese Communist Party has become more repressive at home, more aggressive abroad, and has begun a genocide against China's most vulnerable minorities.

When Olympians from all over the world travel to Beijing in February, they are trusting the IOC to keep them safe, but the IOC's recent actions have shown that they are not worthy of this trust. I commend this resolution for holding them accountable.

In closing, I want to offer a heartfelt thanks to the Women's Tennis Association and its chairman, Steve Simon. Mr. Simon and the WTA have fought for Peng bravely in an inspiring display of moral clarity and support for our democratic values. Unfortunately, this is all too rare among those with financial ties to the CCP.

Mr. Speaker, I support this measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Let me thank the chairman for bringing this measure with me here today. I also want to thank him for his passion on this issue. We talk about human rights, whether it was the African Americans who were enslaved in this Nation to the Native-American Indians who were mistreated by this Nation to the victims of the Holocaust where the Geneva Convention came out with the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide and defined what genocide is after the atrocities of the concentration camps that were perpetrated by the Nazis--a war that my father fought in and bombed Nazi Germany, and I am proud for his service and the entire Greatest Generation.

And it is clear, the language, it says: ``targeting members of an ethnic or religious minority group for death or serious bodily and mental harm or taking steps designed to destroy such a group constitutes genocide.'' That is precisely what the Chinese Communist Party has been doing.

Since 2017, they have interned more than one million Uyghurs and members of other ethnic and religious minority groups in an effort to wipe out their culture, to wipe out their ability to carry down to other generations by sterilizing them.

During their unjustified detainment, Uyghurs and ethnic Kazakhs and Kyrgyz and members of religious minority groups are forced to work in horrific conditions, they are deprived of food, and they are beaten. Their religious practices are suppressed. There are reports of families being separated and of sexual abuse, of forced sterilization, forced abortions, and even reports of killing to wipe them, quite simply, off the face of the Earth.

It is horrific to imagine that this is happening in this day and time, in this time that we speak, in this age. Mr. Speaker, it is clearly a genocide under the Geneva Convention.

These crimes are the moral test of our time and our generation. The world and certainly the Chinese Communist Party is watching. And that is why it is vital that we speak in a united voice with the current and prior administrations by calling these ongoing atrocities what they are, and that is genocide.

Genocide is not to be taken lightly. It is a term we reserve for history's most serious crimes against humanity. It is essential we get our response right, not as Republicans or Democrats, but as Americans, as freedom-loving Americans who stand up for human rights and against genocide. Because we have faced this test before, and we have not always passed.

Our response to the Uyghur genocide should be an example of our character in this Congress, rather than a stain on our history.

This humanitarian crisis is about more than just U.S. foreign policy toward the People's Republic of China. It is about the legitimacy of the post-World War system designed to stop these atrocities whenever and wherever they are being committed.

And it is about how we stop the CCP from contaminating consumer supply chains with slave labor. It is about how we stop using cotton sourced by the Uyghur homeland and picked by those without a voice. It is about stopping shipments of hair. It is about how we convince our private sector to act morally, consistent with our American values.

So let me just say, I, again, thank the chairman. This is probably one of the most important bills to come out of the committee this year. I am proud to have introduced it, and I am so proud to have the chairman's support. I thank him for cosponsoring this resolution and all of our colleagues on the committee who support our efforts to condemn these atrocities.

I urge the entire House of Representatives on this vote, because China is watching and the Uyghur Muslims are watching, to join us as we speak in a united voice and condemn this genocide by supporting this measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, let me say in closing, I again thank Chairman Meeks, my friend, who has been in strong support of this legislation. We pride our committee in doing what is right by the country. We try to take the politics out of it as much as we can. And as Eliot Engel often said, it stops at the water's edge, and this is no exception.

Mr. Speaker, this is a historic day. Congress is rarely in vote or declared genocide on another people, but it is very appropriate today to do so. And the international community is watching, and China is watching this right now. They are watching this on C-SPAN, and the world knows that the United States stands for higher moral values, and we stand for human rights.

And that is why this bill was introduced, and the lives of over a million people depend on it. Think about that. A million people in internment camps, concentration camps, being exterminated, depend on this legislation. We pass a lot of things in this Congress but it is very rare you can pass something like this that condemns this kind of moral atrocity and call it to the world so the entire world can see it for themselves what is, in fact, happening. And when Congress speaks, the world does listen. And when we speak as Americans in this Chamber, not as partisan politicians, they listen. And I know they are listening today.

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