Floor Statements

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased the House is considering the Cyber Diplomacy Act that I reintroduced this Congress with Chairman Meeks and a strong roster of bipartisan cosponsors. I also want to thank my good friend from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), my co-chair on the Congressional Cybersecurity Caucus. Over the past decade, he and I have worked very hard to advance critical cyber legislation like the law that set up the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency at the Department of Homeland Security.

With today's bill, we are taking the protection provided by CISA to the United States to the international stage and, as the chairman mentioned, providing rules of the road, which we do not have today.

The United States has strategic and economic interests in ensuring the internet remains open, reliable, and secure around the world. Unfortunately, not all governments agree.

For example, Russia and China are aggressively promoting their vision of ``cyber sovereignty,'' which emphasizes state control over cyberspace and tramples individual freedoms. That is why the United States and our allies must be prepared to advance our own vision for cyberspace.

The Cyber Diplomacy Act gives the State Department the necessary tools to work with our allies and partners to stop the spread of misinformation, to stop the cyberattacks, and to stop the imposition of their so-called cyber security.

Madam Speaker, a new ambassador will be given the authority to establish critical cyber norms and standards that do not exist today to help define what is good behavior and what is bad.

Let me say that when the SolarWinds attack occurred, in the past, there were no consequences to bad behavior with the Russians or the Chinese, and I was very supportive and proud that President Biden struck back with sanctions against Russia for this bad behavior. That is what this office is really all about.

Without these clear guidelines, it is not possible to mount a strong response to our adversaries' destructive behavior. This bill is long overdue. To me, it is the last piece in terms of our cyber role in the Federal Government, now taking it to the international stage with our allies around the world.

Madam Speaker, again, I want to thank Chairman Meeks, Mr. Langevin, and all of the bipartisan cosponsors. The recent high-profile attacks remind us that what happens in cyberspace is vitally important to the United States and our allies and partners around the world. This act will enhance our ability to protect and promote our national security, our ability to compete, and the freedoms and ideals America represents to the world.

A decade ago, we had to determine what is the cyber role--or maybe even 15--what the role is of the Federal Government. We knew the Department of Defense and NSA had great offensive capabilities. We needed a civilian agency to work with the private sector to share threat information, and that became the beginning of the cybersecurity agency at the Department of Homeland Security. And, of course, the FBI investigates. But we have never had any international norms or standards or, as the chairman said, the rules of the road.

This bill, as I said, is long overdue. The Russians influenced our elections. There are, finally, sanctions against them. But before that, few consequences occurred. When the Chinese stole 23 million security clearances, including my own, there was zero response from the United States of America.

When these attacks occurred, and when our intellectual property has been stolen, so much so that Keith Alexander, the NSA Director, said it was the ``greatest transfer of wealth in human history,'' with no consequence, we finally shut down the Chinese consulate in Houston because of the tremendous theft of intellectual property through the Texas Medical Center in my home State, including research and development on the vaccine. Then there was a Texas A&M professor being indicted for espionage for giving NASA data to the Chinese. This has to stop.

This act, this cyber diplomacy bill, will ensure that, at the international level, the United States is respected and that we are going to work with our allies to provide the norms and standards that are so desperately needed to better protect our interests and the interests of our allies.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I am honored to join my colleagues today to express our support for the people of Belarus and their democratic aspirations.

There is no question that Alyaksandr Lukashenka rigged the presidential election in Belarus this past August. He is an illegitimate leader who will never be recognized by the community of democratic nations. The scale of the electoral fraud was unprecedented, as was the violent crackdown by Lukashenka's cronies afterwards.

The reports of peaceful protestors being beaten, tortured, and arbitrarily detained and killed are appalling. In a cowardly attempt to conceal their heinous crimes, the regime has repressed independent media, disrupted internet access, and expelled and detained countless journalists.

Given this despicable human rights situation in Belarus, I commend the Biden administration's decision today to renew sanctions against nine Belarusian state-owned enterprises.

Despite the terror inflicted upon them, the Belarusian people have refused to relent. They continue to demand a free and fair vote. Their courage is truly inspiring.

This resolution reminds the corrupt Lukashenka regime that the United States Congress supports the people of Belarus. We echo their calls for the immediate release of more than 300 political prisoners and all of those unlawfully detained by the regime. We also join them in demanding new, free, and fair elections to be held in Belarus.

Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 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; and also the author of the Belarus Democracy, Human Rights, and Sovereignty Act that was signed into law last year.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Meijer), a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

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

Today, the people of Belarus know that they are not alone, that they have the support of the United States Congress and the American people.

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

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

Madam Speaker, on February 1, Burma's military seized power yet again, ending 5 years of a flawed, but hopeful, democracy, and dragging Burma back into brutal military rule. Since that day, the world has watched horrified as pro-democracy protestors are met with brutal violence in the streets.

The Burmese military has used communications blackouts, curfews, and mass detentions to stifle opposition. They have used live ammunition against peaceful protestors. Hundreds have been killed and thousands detained. At the same time, the lead opposition to the Burmese military, the National League for Democracy, is facing further repression. NLD members have been rounded up and charged with baseless crimes, including NLD's leader, Aung San Suu Kyi.

Madam Speaker, that is why I am asking my colleagues to join me today in supporting this resolution. I really want to thank the chairman and Mr. Connolly of Virginia for bringing this bill forward, to make it clear that the United States of America condemns this coup. It encourages engagement with southeast nations to promote Burma's return to democracy.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, Members across the aisle share the same concerns about Burma's military coup, and the brutal human rights violations it has caused. This bill ensures that the United States of America's condemnation of this coup is a matter of record, and it asks the administration to report to Congress on this critical issue.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, the House has always come together to condemn human rights violations around the world, whether it is in Rwanda or Xinjiang; or as we discuss here today, in Burma.

Only 3 years ago, the House overwhelmingly passed Mr. Chabot's resolution to label the Burmese military's crimes against the Rohingya Muslim population as genocide.

Unfortunately, we are once again facing shocking violence in Burma as a pro-democracy movement pushes back against the recent military coup. Hundreds are reported dead, with many more injured. And more than 2,000 people have been arrested, simply for peacefully asking for freedom. America cannot stand idly and silently by while atrocities like this happen.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution. With over 60 Republican and Democrat cosponsors, this resolution, and this issue, is truly bipartisan. I want to thank Mr. Levin for introducing this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Burchett).

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

Mr. Speaker, the Burmese military is using brutal violence to drag Burma back into repression and isolation. We should condemn this coup with one united voice as the United States of America through its Congress.

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

Madam Speaker, on February 7th, we were forced to say goodbye to my dear friend and fellow Representative, Ronald ``Ron'' Wright.

Throughout his long and distinguished career in public service, Ron inspired all with an unshakeable drive to make his community a better place. Ron was a committed Texan through and through, and among those values he held most dear were those of integrity and hard work.

Ron's jobs over the years reflect this. He spent his early years milking cows--on the family dairy farm, then proceeded to 30 years in business, working in construction, media, sales, and management. But throughout his time in the private sector, Ron couldn't quite shake a deeper desire to serve. He served on a number of boards and commissions, including the Tarrant County Historical Commission, the Arlington Housing Authority Board of Commissioners, the Mansfield Education Foundation board, the Arlington Sports Authority, and the Arlington Tomorrow Foundation.

In 2000, Ron made the permanent switch to public service when he was elected to the Arlington City Council. In this role, Ron fought to improve the lives of his fellow citizens. After serving 8 years on the City Council, Ron accepted an appointment to become the Tax Assessor- Collector of Tarrant County. He was later elected to a full term by the voters of Tarrant County, then re-elected to a four-year term in November 2016.

In 2018, Ron was elected by the constituents of Texas' 6th Congressional District to represent them in the U.S. House of Representatives. In this capacity, Ron fought to improve the lives of his fellow North Texans, and he served as a Member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Education and Labor.

I had the opportunity to learn from Ron last Congress during our time on the Foreign Affairs Committee. In my conversations with Ron, I was struck by his wit, charm, and readiness to solve the problems affecting all Americans.

During his time in Congress--Ron, famous for his impeccable taste in bow ties, began every day with a smile on his face. He worked with everyone, looking past the bounds of party lines in his desire to find solutions for the American people. In 2019, Ron was diagnosed with lung cancer. In the face of this challenge Ron did not balk but maintained a rigorous work schedule and inspired us all with his fortitude and lasting sense of humor.

Ron was a fighter, a proven conservative, and a true statesmen. The citizens of Texas' 6th District have lost a leader and we here in Congress have lost a dear friend. My heart goes out to Ron's wife, Susan, their three children, and their nine grandchildren. Ron Wright was a warrior, and someone who passionately fought for his constituents, for Texas, and for America--he will be missed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the United States-Northern Triangle Enhanced Engagement Act, for which I am proud to be the lead Republican cosponsor, and I want to thank Chairman Engel for his bipartisan work on this very important piece of legislation that was really the product of a trip that we took down to Latin America.

This bill requires the State Department and USAID to develop and fund a 5-year strategy to address the drivers of illegal immigration to our southern border. The bill requires State and USAID to develop annual benchmarks to track the progress of programs in stemming migration flows. It requires those to be reported to Congress, increasing our ability to oversee U.S. foreign assistance to the Northern Triangle.

As Chairman Engel mentioned, we recently traveled to El Salvador earlier this year and saw the hard work that the U.S. Government is doing to support international law enforcement investigations to capture MS-13 gang members. The bill also prioritizes security assistance to combat transnational crime and to improve security and counternarcotics efforts at their borders and ports.

This legislation also supports the amazing work of faith-based organizations that are engaged with the private sector to provide employment for youth and prevent them from joining gangs.

This bill builds on existing efforts to increase coordination with Mexico in our shared efforts to curb illegal migration, spur economic development, and combat corruption in the Northern Triangle.

I understand and share the President's frustration with the continued stream of migrants to our southern border, and as a native Texan, I understand the unique challenges caused by illegal migration to our border. Addressing this problem requires a comprehensive solution and utilizing all tools at our disposal, including foreign assistance, which should be used.

I also agree with the President that the governments of the Northern Triangle countries can and must do more to address the drivers of migration. This bill includes conditions that these governments must meet to receive assistance and requires the State Department to engage with these governments to track and ensure they are doing their part to address the crisis.

Lastly, the bill authorizes targeted sanctions against individuals engaged in corruption that impacts the Northern Triangle, and so I urge my colleagues who believe that we must do all we can to address this humanitarian crisis on the border to support this legislation.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman, Mr. Engel, for his ongoing bipartisan work on this committee. I think we are probably the most bipartisan committee on the Hill, and I know Mr. Engel and I are both very proud of that accomplishment.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the United States Agency for International Development does an incredible job of providing lifesaving humanitarian assistance to vulnerable people all around the globe.

I want to take this opportunity to commend our former colleague, Administrator Mark Green, for his hard work at USAID. I have had many constructive conversations with him since becoming the lead Republican on the Foreign Affairs Committee, and I look forward to many more. This bill is actually his idea.

While the primary goal of such assistance is to save the lives of people in desperate need, we also want to ensure the recipients know that it is a gift from the people of the United States of America.

We hear a lot about the need to maximize America's ``soft power.'' There is no better way to win hearts and minds than by saving lives, feeding hungry children, and helping impoverished populations.

This is why I introduced the Branding Modernization Act, together with Chairman Engel.

While this bill places no mandates on USAID and maintains the Administrator's flexibility, it does empower him to brand all of our humanitarian assistance.

It also expands the tools and logos available to the Administrator for implementing a comprehensive branding strategy.

Finally, it requires an audit by the agency's inspector general to ensure that our personnel are complying with branding regulations.

This bill represents smart diplomacy, good governance, and the true compassion of the American people. I believe it deserves our unanimous support.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Engel again for working with me, as usual, on this bill as well as many others, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this unfortunate and dangerous amendment which is a propaganda win for the Iranian regime and the Houthi allies. It takes legitimate options off the table; shows America divided in the face of mounting Iranian threats; and makes our Nation less safe.

We all agree that, under Article I of the Constitution, only Congress possesses the authority to declare war. The administration's measured response to Iran's shooting down of our U.S. military asset in international airspace shows that the President is not looking for war with Iran.

But this amendment goes much farther in prohibiting unauthorized war with the number one state sponsor of terror. It uses the power of the purse to preclude any use of force whatsoever against Iran unless it is previously authorized by Congress or provoked by an attack on the United States or our Armed Forces.

Think about what that means. What can our military do if Iran attacks American civilians or our regional allies like Israel and Jordan or strategic international shipping through the Straits of Hormuz?

Under this reckless amendment, the answer is: Absolutely nothing. The U.S. military cannot fire a single shot until after the successful completion of a bicameral legislation process that enacts a law authorizing the use of force. All of us here today know how long that could take.

This will tie our military's hands at a perilous time. We need Iran and its terrorist proxies to think twice before they attack Americans, our friends, or our interests.

This amendment is an unprecedented attempt to micromanage the powers claimed by every Commander in Chief, Democrat and Republican, since the War Powers Resolution was enacted over President Nixon's veto in 1973. In fact, the effect of this misguided amendment is far more restrictive than the War Powers Resolution itself.

This is absolutely not the time to play politics with our national security. Iran's saber rattling and provocation is not going to go away anytime soon.

I would like to quote from a July 8 letter from Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. He says:

The Department strongly opposes this amendment. If U.S.

citizens, diplomatic facilities in the region, or other

national interests are threatened or attacked, we must be

able to respond promptly and in an appropriate fashion.

And he says:

At a time when Iran is engaging in escalating military

provocations demonstrated most recently by the shooting down

of the U.S. unmanned aerial vehicle, it is attacking allied

shipping.

They shot a missile at our U.S. Embassy in Iraq. This amendment could only embolden Iran to further provocations.

Bottom line, this amendment will give comfort to our enemy who has the blood of Americans on their hands--from the Marine barracks bombing to the Iraq war--and who continues to hold American hostages to this day. This is a pro-Iran, pro-Houthi amendment.

I was in the White House when the President made his decision and exercised restraint to not escalate this war, but this, I believe, is an ill-proposed amendment.

Madam Chair, no one respects the Constitution more than I do. We have Article I authorities.

There is a reason why the Founding Fathers put Article I first, because that is the American people over the imperial presidency.

Why are we debating such an important issue, matters of war and peace, which is what my committee argues day in and day out on the Foreign Affairs Committee--well, first of all, it is part of the NDAA. But why are we arguing this at 9:15 at night, in the darkness of night and not the sunlight of day?

This is a dangerous amendment. It is a preemptive use of the AUMF.

We have not engaged in hostile forces, combat forces in Iran. We have not engaged in hostilities. That is when the War Powers Resolution kicks in, notification to the Congress, and then Congress debates the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

I have been in this body for eight terms. That is how the process works. You don't handcuff the President, the Commander in Chief. You don't handcuff him in advance of any preparation for dealing with state-sponsored terror.

This is just wrong.

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

Madam Chair, I oppose this amendment to repeal the 2002 law that authorizes the use of military force ``to defend the national security of the United States against the continued threat posed by Iraq.''

First of all, the repeal of any AUMF does not belong in this NDAA bill. The Committee on Foreign Affairs has longstanding sole jurisdiction over declarations of war and intervention abroad. Any significant change to war-making authorities needs to be the result of deliberations and votes by the committee of jurisdiction.

There is no issue more deserving of regular order than issues related to war and peace.

Although none of us want to see the extension of any conflict beyond what is necessary, we have also learned that premature disengagement can have huge costs, such as when the prior administration's rush to withdraw U.S. troops contributed to the deadly rise of ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

While the Saddam Hussein regime was a key focus, it was not the sole focus of the 2002 AUMF. It expressly identified al-Qaida and ``other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of the United States citizens.''

Members will recall that al-Qaida in Iraq later became ISIS, a brutal transnational terrorist organization that continues to threaten American lives and interests. President Obama cited the 2002 AUMF as legal authority for his military operations against ISIS.

The current administration has stated its opposition to the repeal of the 2002 AUMF because:

It remains an important source of additional authority for

military operations against ISIS in Iraq and to defend the

national security interests of the United States against

threats emanating from Iraq.

For those reasons, we shouldn't be repealing key counterterrorism AUMFs unless and until we have replaced them with updated authorities that clearly confront the enemies that continue to threaten our Nation, our people, and our allies. To date, we have seen no such proposal from the majority.

So for those reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in prioritizing American security by opposing this amendment.

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

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. It simply lists complaints about the 2001 authorization for the use of military force while avoiding the serious work of proposing an improved replacement.

Most Members, including me, would say they would be fine with an updated AUMF that better describes current threats. Unfortunately, there is no consensus at all about what that should look like. The fact that the majority has not put forward a single proposal in the 6 months they have been in charge indicates to me that they have deep disagreements.

The author of this amendment has also inserted an outright repeal of the 2001 AUMF into this year's Defense appropriations bill, which would make all counterterrorism operations globally illegal. That is reckless because AUMF provides the necessary legal authority to confront ongoing deadly threats against our homeland. It would also be simply irresponsible and dangerous to repeal it until an adequate replacement has passed both Chambers and been sent to the President's desk.

The gentlewoman from California, with all respect, has held a principled, consistent position on this issue, and I do respect that. I just disagree with it.

But it is incorrect to assert, as this amendment does, that the 2001 AUMF is a blank check for any President to wage war at any time and at any place. The AUMF has been interpreted as covering al-Qaida, the Taliban, and ``associated forces.'' And while that interpretation is sometimes broad, it can't be stretched to cover just anything. For example, it does not capture North Korea or countless other potential adversaries and, arguably, Iran, as well.

The amendment also complains that the 2001 AUMF did not include things like geographic limitations or a named enemy. But it is hard to see how it could have done so while also meeting the grave transnational terrorist threats it was intended to defeat. Because these enemies aren't nation-states marching uniformed troops to face us on the fields of battle, authorizing force to fight them is much more complicated.

The amendment also wrongly implies that the will of Congress has been thwarted by how long and how broadly the AUMF has been used. But Congress has been kept aware of how it is being used, and has always had the same power to legislate, amend, or repeal, as it had back in 2001. The fact is--and this goes on both sides of the aisle--it has not done so. That indicates a decision that, under both Democrat and Republican majorities and administrations, the 2001 AUMF is working.

For my years as Homeland Security chairman, I know that our operations overseas, and the sacrifices of our service men and women, have saved American lives and helped to protect the homeland from countless thwarted attacks.

Unfortunately, the threat does continue. As the Director of National Intelligence has testified, al-Qaida and ISIS maintain transnational networks actively committed to our destruction. Don't get me wrong: I would like to see an updated AUMF as well. That comes out of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. We should deliberate an updated AUMF on our committee. But this amendment contributes nothing towards that outcome.

Until we have new authorities in place to combat the real and dynamic threats to American lives and safety, we need to focus on responsibly using the authorities we have, not just complaining about their imperfections.

If the other side is serious about a fix, then let's work together on a fix and provide a serious replacement to begin this process on a very serious issue of counterterrorism and war and peace.

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

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my bill, H.R. 1158, the DHS Cyber Incident Response Teams Act of 2019. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for managing this on the floor. I want to thank the gentlewoman from New York for her comments.

Every day, we are facing threats from Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and other malicious actors trying to hit not only our Federal Government networks, but our private sector.

During my time as chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, I prioritized ensuring that our Nation had the capacity to respond to cyber threats and protect our critical infrastructure. I am proud to say that we have made important strides in recent years, including standing up the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency within

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution that Chairman Engel and I introduced because of our serious concerns regarding the United States-Turkey alliance.

Turkey has been a member of NATO for almost 70 years. Through our bilateral and multilateral relationship, we have worked together to advance our shared objectives.

However, I am deeply disturbed and concerned that our relationship is increasingly characterized by bumps in the road. And right now, we are all watching as Turkey stands at a fork in the road.

This summer, Turkey is scheduled to obtain the Russian S-400 defense system. Purchasing the S-400 would have unavoidable negative consequences for U.S.-Turkey relations.

By law, the purchase would trigger congressionally-mandated sanctions under the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions law. The purchase also puts at risk Turkish participation in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

Program and broader security cooperation, including future U.S. arms sales.

The F-35 program promotes NATO interoperability. And Turkey's decision to complete the purchase of the S-400 would erode its partnership in this multilateral alliance.

While we are deeply, deeply concerned about our alliance with Turkey, we very much want to rehabilitate our relationship. Both sides of a bilateral partnership need to take steps toward strengthening and preserving it. That is why this resolution expresses full support for the United States Government's offer to sell Turkey the Patriot system if Turkey does not acquire the S-400. We want to give Turkey the ability to accommodate its security needs without endangering its place in NATO.

So Turkey really has a clear binary choice between buying Russian S- 400s and the U.S. offer to accelerate the delivery of Patriot missiles.

So I call upon Turkey to now step forward and choose the United States and NATO over Russia.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).

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

Let me just say this: Chairman Engel and I met with the Foreign Minister of Turkey and their Ambassador trying to avoid this impasse, this choice between Russia and the United States.

And Chairman Engel and I talked about this alliance that we have with them.

Nearly 70 years ago, NATO and the United States stood with Turkey against growing Soviet aggression. In fact, that is the reason NATO was formed in the first place. That is why we have Incirlik Air Force Base in Turkey. And yet, the idea that Turkey would break from this alliance and choose Russia over the United States, truly, is a defining moment for Turkey.

I hope they are listening to this debate as we speak right now. They still have time to salvage this, what I consider to be an error in judgment of choosing Russia over NATO and the United States of America.

That is why this resolution is so important. It sends a very strong message to Erdogan and to Turkey, that we are not going to allow this to happen; and, in fact, it would run afoul of the sanctions that we passed almost overwhelmingly in the House and Senate against Russia. It would sort of violate the Russia sanctions law.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Engel for his strong bipartisan support on this issue. We are on the right side of history, and I urge my colleagues to support this.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the United States-Mexico Tourism Improvement Act of 2019.

I want to thank Chairman Engel and also thank my good friend Henry Cuellar for leading this legislation, which we introduced together earlier this year.

I must say, the timing probably couldn't be better, as we avoided a tariff situation on Mexico in exchange for some security cooperation.

We know, being from Texas, that Mexico is our largest trading partner. Just last month, Mexico now has become the United States' largest trading partner.

We understand well the value of tourism from our neighbors to the south, what that provides to our economy. As a matter of fact, Mr. Cuellar and I both chair the U.S.-Mexico Interparliamentary Group, and I look forward to working together to strengthen our ties with the Mexican Congress to address our mutual interests rather than divide.

Tourism between the United States and Mexico, in both directions, is worth tens of billions of dollars to our economies every year. To help increase these benefits, this bill directs the State Department to develop a strategy to expand tourism through cooperation with Mexico, including collaboration with governmental and nongovernmental entities.

Legitimate tourism between our two countries, in my view, strengthens our economies, strengthens our cultures and our partnership together, and should be encouraged and expanded.

Madam Speaker, once again, let me just thank my good friend Mr. Cuellar for his hard work. He does a lot of good work between the United States and Mexico, and I fully look forward to working together with him as we serve together in this Congress.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Laredo, Texas, who really made a good case for this bill. He knows, being the largest land port in the United States, what trade and tourism means for Mexico and the United States.

This bill will not only strengthen our economies, which is always a positive thing, but I think it will strengthen our relationship. It will also strengthen our security, working together, and it deepens our rich cultural ties that we have and that we know is so important.

I think it is good for both nations, a step forward in the right direction.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my good friend Henry Cuellar for bringing this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to associate myself with Speaker Pelosi's comments, that we have been riding the dragon for too long.

Thirty years ago today, the so-called People's Liberation Army turned their guns on the people of China, killing hundreds and possibly thousands of unarmed civilians in Beijing. Many were Chinese students, who had been peacefully protesting for reform, democratic transparency, and respect for fundamental human rights.

The victims included young children and people in their 60s, cut down by indiscriminate gunfire. The dramatic days of May and June 1989, left the world with many indelible images: the huge expanse of Tiananmen Square packed with hundreds of thousands of people rallying for freedom; the 30-foot tall Goddess of Democracy statue built by Beijing art students in the center of the square; the rush of tanks and armored personnel carriers into the area to, quite literally, crush the protest and protesters on June 4; the heroism the next day of someone the world only knows as Tank Man who halted an entire column of Chinese Army tanks, armed only with shopping bags and resolve.

But those indelible images are hidden from the people of China by the Communist regime that inherited the bloody mantle of Tiananmen. Hiding behind the great fire wall, the Chinese Government refuses to allow any reckoning with that history, and fiercely quashes discussion, whether online or in public.

Obsessed with control, it uses its massive Orwellian apparatus to try to erase the events of June 1989 from the memory of the world. But as John Adams once wrote: ``Facts are stubborn things,'' so, too, are the memories of the many Chinese who experienced those events up close. Western journalists on the ground during the massacre reported that people in the streets of Beijing pleaded with them to tell the world what had happened there.

Today's resolution is a continuation of that sacred charge. So I want to thank all of the bipartisan authors of H. Res. 393, and Mr. McGovern and Mr. Smith, for giving this House a renewed opportunity to testify to the true events of June 1989, to tell and call for a just and open accounting for the Tiananmen massacre, and to condemn serious, ongoing human rights violations by the Government of China.

Dictators need to understand that freedom can only be held back for a finite period of time. They may succeed in crushing a democratic protest, but they will always fail to crush the democratic spirit.

So I am proud to stand with the people of China who want to break the chains of Communist oppression, and I urge support for this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I must say at a time when the American people see this Congress so divided, it is refreshing for the American people to see the Congress so united with one voice standing up for good over evil. We must keep the memory of Tiananmen alive.

Secretary Pompeo said yesterday that China's one-party state tolerates no dissent and abuses human rights wherever and whenever it serves its interests.

Today their party's methods are more subtle than rolling the tanks in--but no less horrifying:

The Communist Party deprives one-fifth of mankind of fundamental human rights; it has imprisoned up to 3 million Muslims in what the Department of Defense has called and labeled concentration camps; and it is seeking to spread its totalitarian ideology and repression along its physical and digital Belt and Road Initiative.

In the Foreign Affairs Committee, I know I and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will keep working to shine a light on China's threats, impose consequences on their malign actions, foster partnerships with NATO and other allies, and help build up an alternative to China's predatory Belt and Road influence.

With that, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution to honor the memory of those who have sacrificed for freedom and to remain clear-eyed about the nature of our adversary.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Global Fragility Act. I want to thank my good friend, Chairman Engel, for introducing this bill. I am proud to be the lead Republican on this vital bipartisan legislation.

Violent conflict costs the global economy more than $14 trillion every year, killing tens of thousands of people and displacing millions from their homes. In the past, the United States has been investing billions of dollars to stabilize fragile states and conflict areas, often with little to show for it.

We are successful militarily. For example, we have destroyed the so- called caliphate in Iraq and Syria. But as former Secretary of Defense James Mattis once said: ``The more that we put into the State Department's diplomacy, hopefully, the less we have to put into a military budget as we deal with the outcome. . . . `'

Simply put, we need to be more effective in helping to prevent conflicts before they erupt. That is what this bill is designed to do.

Weak governance, corruption, and extreme poverty fuel instability. Jihadi groups prey on these conditions and plague key parts of the world with their violence and oppression. Fragile states provide fertile recruiting ground for these terrorists and, also, transnational criminal organizations.

Sadly, we are seeing jihadists expand in the Sahel region of Africa. Violent attacks linked to terror groups have doubled every year since 2016.

When I was in Africa last month, I heard tragic stories of this growing threat. I am glad that we are taking action here today to help bring stability to this vital region by passing the Global Fragility Act.

Our bill requires the administration to launch a new initiative to coordinate our assistance in fragile states. This will ensure that the United States takes a whole-of-government approach to preventing violent conflict rather than individual agencies funding piecemeal, uncoordinated activities.

The bill requires the State Department to coordinate with USAID, the Department of Defense, and other agencies in standing up a pilot program in a select number of countries. It also ensures consistent future funding in order to take a long-term approach to our programs and objectives in those key selected locations.

Madam Speaker, we must get this right. We are seeing unprecedented levels of instability, displacement, and humanitarian needs around the world in Syria, Venezuela, Yemen, the Sahel, South Sudan, and elsewhere. Preventing conflict and violence can save the U.S. taxpayer dollars and make our country and the rest of the world safer.

I want to recognize the development community and NGOs, like the ONE Campaign, for the important work that they have done on this critical humanitarian and national security issue. They have been extremely supportive of this bill, and I look forward to working with them to get to final passage.

Madam Speaker, in closing, I would like to say that we have done a lot of good things in terms of defending this Nation. As chairman of Homeland Security, I think that we stopped probably 95 percent of the threats that we saw coming at us.

We have done very good offensively in our military, defeating and destroying extremist groups like al-Qaida and ISIS in Iraq and Syria and the collapse of the caliphate. But, Madam Speaker, I think where we have been probably not as good and where we need to do better is in prevention and getting at the root causes of the problems.

Getting to the root cause of the problems, particularly in Africa, is extremely important, as the military tells us the Sahel will be the next caliphate.

We have to pass this bill because it gets to the root cause. It is the prevention piece that the State Department, USAID, and the Department of Defense will work together to stop and prevent extremism at its core roots, and I believe it will make the world a safer place long term.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Refugee Sanitation Facility Safety Act.

I want to commend my two colleagues from New York, Representatives Meng and Zeldin, and also Chairman Engel for the good work on this bill.

Around the world, conflict and humanitarian disasters are causing unprecedented levels of displacement in places like South Sudan, Somalia, Syria, Nigeria, and Venezuela.

Some of these crises have dragged on for years and even decades. Generations of young people are growing up knowing only life in a refugee camp where conditions can be dire, and even dangerous, for women, children, and other vulnerable populations.

In these situations, things as basic as lights and locks can make a difference between safe restrooms and bathing facilities in dangerous environments where refugees are vulnerable to sexual violence and other crimes.

This bill amends the Foreign Relations Act to ensure support for safe sanitation facilities for refugees and displaced persons living in camps around the world.

The U.S. continues to be the largest donor to refugees and displaced persons around the world, and we will continue to lead, while encouraging other countries to step up and do more.

In closing, Madam Speaker, the United States is a leading donor of humanitarian assistance to refugees around the world. Through the work of UNHCR and NGO partners, we are saving millions of lives every day.

This bill does not increase those assistance levels but will help ensure that our funding is put to effective use in protecting the safety and dignity of vulnerable refugees.

Madam Speaker, I want to, again, thank Chairman Engel and Representatives Meng and Zeldin for their leadership, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise in support of the Taiwan Assurance Act, a bill introduced to deepen and expand U.S.-Taiwan relations. I want to thank Chairman Engel and all those on the other side of the aisle and the gentleman from New Jersey for agreeing to be the lead Democratic cosponsors of this important bill that deepens our ties with Taiwan.

Of note, the bill urges the State Department to eliminate self- imposed restrictions on U.S. diplomatic interactions with Taiwan and to provide Congress access to those policies for the first time.

Prior administrations have applied unnecessary and arbitrary restrictions on their own interactions with officials from Taiwan. At times, these restrictions expanded, apparently in response to complaints by Communist China.

As the body that produced the Taiwan Relations Act, it is necessary and appropriate for Congress to have awareness and a say in how these policies are made. They go well beyond what is required by the carefully crafted TRA, which does not even state that U.S.-Taiwan relations are unofficial.

Since the TRA was enacted in 1979, Taiwan's Government has evolved into a vibrant democracy, while the Chinese Government has become more and more authoritarian.

It is improper to restrict relations with Taiwan to avoid offending the Chinese Communist Party, and it is out of step with reality to keep pretending that Taiwan is anything other than a fully functioning democracy.

Taiwan deserves a more elevated relationship with the United States, and I urge my colleagues to join me in rewarding Taiwan's commitment to democracy by supporting the Taiwan Assurance Act.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would just like to, once again, thank Chairman

Engel and the entire Foreign Affairs Committee for their enthusiastic support of this measure and their support for the democracy of Taiwan.

I yield back the balance of my time.