Darrell Issa

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1631.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this bill is not without controversy. You will see it here today, but this bill couldn't be more important because it maintains the balance that for more than 100 years has allowed people to have access to the right material necessary to understand the complex laws of the building code, the fire code, automotive standards, and the like. There have been complaints from one side that we don't go far enough, that we allow any free access to these copyrighted materials. As you will hear today, there are those who believe that they should all be free, throwing out more than 200 years of tradition that those who produce materials are entitled to their copyright and the protection that comes with it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, where do I begin? The gentlewoman is aware that in previous Congresses we have held hearings, and this bill is not new, but in fact is in its third iteration before the Congress. Additionally, she is right, we did schedule a markup, and the gentlewoman objected. We waited, and we scheduled it again. A quorum being present, by a vote of 19-4, overwhelmingly it was passed out of the Judiciary Committee, the committee of jurisdiction for copyright. Just for the purpose of the Speaker, I want to read one clause of the Constitution. Article I, Section 8, Clause 8: ``[The Congress shall have power] to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.'' Mr. Speaker, that is a solemn obligation of the Constitution. For nearly 250 years, we have made sure that, in fact, authors, musicians, anyone producing copyrighted material, have had protection. We have not, historically, even partially opened that up. In this case, we have gone much further on this legislation. We have provided a form of fair use. Any citizen can go online and read any part of any of these documents, thousands of pages. They can look at them, they can take notes. They can do any number of things. What they can't do is distribute it to others, circumventing the copyright. To put it in perspective, for the first 100-plus years of this, there was no controversy. They printed books, and they sold the books, and it was a copyright violation if you copied the book, if you made a duplicate of it. Nobody argued that because it made common sense. This makes common sense, too. We are making 100 percent of the material contained in any of these pro codes available. What we are not doing is allowing people to say they are giving something that in fact they have stolen from the author. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the ranking member of the full committee.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of things that I think we want to settle for the record here today. First of all, the protecting of privacy is important, but let's understand, for the first 230 years or 220 years of our existence, we didn't have an internet. We printed documents. Only the ability to digitally copy somebody's copyrighted material and then put it out on the internet created this situation. The courts have tried to grapple with the internet, but they failed in this case. Let me give you a good example. If you were to open those books or the online version of them, you would see diagrams. I am going to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I have gone through a few lawbooks in my time. I have never seen a diagram. A diagram is more than a law. A diagram or a picture or details of how to or multiple alternatives of how one can safely do something, all of those things are, in fact, not within the law. As a matter of fact, the calculation, the formulas on which you can calculate different uses, how much, what size wire to use for a certain amount of amps over a certain distance, all of those things are teaching. These teaching books have been around now for most of our time. In fact, these organizations have books that they sell in vast amounts. It is only those books that basically continue to give them revenue. The idea that over time we may obsolete books is an idea that we would over time obsolete the ability of these people to create these how-to guides without the government paying for them. The gentlewoman may be comfortable with the government paying for people to meet and produce these things. She may even be comfortable with the idea that these things would be printed as the document itself in the law, but I am sure she would be uncomfortable looking at that much law sitting there and then somebody saying: It doesn't tell me how to do it. I will tell you one thing about the government. They passed the IRS laws, but it takes a legion of private-sector companies to teach you how to file your income tax. That is really where we are. Whether it is the diagrams or our constitutional responsibility which we are meeting here today to ensure that the authors are fairly compensated, this bill narrowly provides a balance that enables us to continue to support copyright for those who create it and those who provide this important service. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA

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

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. ISSA. Madam Chair, the good intent of my colleague from Florida cannot diminish the fact that administration after administration, State Department after State Department, and the Department of Defense under both this and the previous administration recognized the importance of a stable and peaceful Lebanon. They recognized that the Lebanese Armed Forces maintain a force against the taking over of their country either by Hezbollah, Palestinians, Syrians, or others. I have been to Lebanon when it was under foreign control by Syria. I have seen the Lebanese Armed Forces push them out. I have also seen the Lebanese Armed Forces train with our military personnel, who, in fact, maintain close and daily relations with the Lebanese Armed Forces. Madam Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).

Mr. ISSA. Madam Chair, in closing, as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee for over 20 years, I have traveled the entire region and met with our leaders, including our leaders in Israel. I met with the Mossad chief. I met with many, and what they have all told me is that a stable Lebanon is important and that a civil war in Lebanon would lead to the chaos that caused Israel to have to invade Lebanon many years ago at a great loss of life. The fact is we have troops in Syria because Syria is effectively in a civil war. We have support for the LAF because the LAF stands as the only force that keeps Hezbollah from taking over that country as a proxy for Iran. I continue to stand with Israel. I continue to stand against Iran. To do so, I continue to stand with support for the LAF and the stability that it brings to Lebanon. Only a few weeks ago, General Aoun, the commander of the Lebanese Armed Forces, was invited here, where he met with our Secretary of State and our Secretary of Defense and where, in fact, the coordination between our two countries has never been stronger. Madam Chair, for that reason, I must oppose this amendment and hope that it will not be brought again because it is not in the best interests of America or its key ally in the region, Israel. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, spokespeople across the United States Government routinely refer to Xi Jinping as President of China. The only problem is he is not the President. He holds a number of titles in the Communist Party. They include three jobs. First, he is general secretary of the Communist Party; second, he is chairman of the Central Military Commission; and, third, he is state chairman, which is a ceremonial position. Mr. Chairman, I include two articles in the Record to describe this in more detail. [From CNN, Sept. 2020] US Lawmakers Want to Stop Calling Xi Jinping a President. But Will He Care? (By Jessie Yeung) Chinese leader Xi Jinping holds so many titles that he has earned himself a nickname: the ``Chairman of Everything.'' Since taking office in 2012, he has become head of not only the state, the ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and the armed forces, as is normal for the country's leader--but also of multiple new party super-committees, prompting speculation from international commentators that he is less of a president and more of an autocrat. Now a new bill in the United States Congress wants to strip Xi of the title ``President,'' which most Western governments and English-language news organizations--including CNN--refer to him by. The bill, called the ``Name the Enemy Act,'' was introduced to the House of Representatives on August 7 by Republican Rep. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania. It would prohibit the federal government from creating or disseminating any documents that ``refer to the head of state of the People's Republic of China as anything other than General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, or alternatively, as General Secretary,'' according to a draft of the bill. ``The leadership of the People's Republic of China has gone unchallenged in its perverse pursuits of human rights abuses across decades,'' the bill reads. ``Addressing the head of state of the People's Republic of China as a `President' grants the incorrect assumption that the people of the state, via democratic means, have readily legitimized the leader who rules them.'' Xi's titles have been a topic of controversy and some confusion. None of his official Chinese titles include the word ``president,'' or translate to it--but all Chinese leaders since the 1980s, when the country began to open up its economy, have had that official English title in China. Perry isn't the first to call for a change in designation; for years, critics have argued that this split in Xi's Chinese and English titles allows him to project an image of openness and representative leadership to the international community that is at odds with his authoritarian style and consolidation of power at home. ``China is not a democracy, and its citizens have no right to vote, assemble, or speak freely, said the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission, a US government panel, in a 2019 report to Congress. ``Giving General Secretary Xi the unearned title of `President' lends a veneer of democratic legitimacy to the CCP and Xi's authoritarian rule.'' A quick history Xi is known by three main titles in Chinese. As State Chairman (guojia zhuxi), he is the head of state; as Chairman of the Central Military Commission (zhongyang junwei zhuxi), he is the commander-in-chief of the People's Liberation Army (PLA); and as General Secretary of the CCP (zong shuji), he is head of China's ruling (and effectively only) political party. These titles are used depending on context; the military title is used when Xi is dealing with PLA matters, for instance. In English-language government communiques and state-run media, however, Xi is referred to as the President--but that wasn't always the case. The country's 1954 constitution, which was adopted several years after the founding of the People's Republic of China, refers to the Chinese leader as ``Chairman'' in its original English translation. Mao Zedong was the first to hold this position. In 1975, he pushed through a new constitution that emphasized the Communist Party's authority over the state's, by eliminating the State Chairman office entirely and granting sweeping new powers to the Party Chairman instead. It wasn't until 1982, under a new leader pushing to open China to the world, that another constitution was introduced. It reversed many of Mao's changes by re-establishing the State Chairman's office, rebranding the Party Chairman as General Secretary--and introducing the new official English translation of ``President,'' which has since been used for each successive leader. The word ``president'' has Latin roots that mean ``to sit before,'' which is why it was initially used for heads of colleges or committee leaders. Its meaning doesn't inherently have anything to do with elections or democracy; but the United States was the first country to use the word as a title for the head of a republic, and other countries followed suit. The 1980s were a time of sweeping reform and globalization in China, as then-leader Deng Xiaoping loosened government control over the economy and certain personal freedoms. The newly adopted English title of ``President'' reflected this spirit of opening up and increased international diplomacy. It also put distance between the country's new leadership and Mao's authoritarian regime, during which up to 45 million people starved to death, and inched closer to how other modern countries referred to their leaders. The shift indicated ``kind of an external alignment with international practices,'' said Janny Leung, a professor of linguistics at Hong Kong University's School of English, in contrast to Soviet-era Chinese titles which ``have a strong Communist historical association.'' Even the state-run paper China Daily said in 2009 that the new title was introduced because ``the heads of state in the world's republic countries are all called President in English.'' Some Western newspapers adopted the term president immediately, while others continued using ``leader of the Communist Party.'' But as China prepared to join the World Trade Organization in the late 1990s, which was taken as a sign that it was tracking towards a more democratic future, the use of ``Chinese President'' as a title became more widespread. International pushback China looks very different today than during Deng's era. It has cemented its position as a world leader, and its GDP has jumped from $150 billion in 1978 to $14 trillion last year, becoming the world's second-largest economy. The country's leadership and political landscape have also transformed. Whereas Deng, and other officials of his time, carefully stepped away from the Mao era, Xi has worked to increase Communist Party control over nearly all aspects of society, drawing parallels between his and Mao's governing style. In 2016, Xi was named ``the core of the Chinese Communist Party''--cementing his position above his peers and demonstrating his grip on power. The title was originally granted to Mao, then to Deng and Jiang Zemin, Deng's handpicked successor. A year later, his name and political ideology, Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, often simply known as ``XI Jinping Thought,'' was formally written into the Communist Party constitution--an echo of ``Mao Zedong Thought.'' No other sitting Chinese leader has had their names enshrined in the party constitution this way; ``Deng Xiaoping Theory'' was added to the party constitution after Deng's death. The most stunning move came in 2018, when the country's constitution was amended to abolish presidential term limits--leaving Xi free to serve indefinitely as China's head of state. At the time, the CPP justified the change as necessary to align the presidency with Xi's two other, more powerful, posts--heads of the party and the military--which have no term limits. Xi's tightening grip and crackdown on dissent have prompted some journalists, policy experts, and others in the West to urge dropping the English title ``President,'' arguing that it doesn't accurately represent the nature of his leadership. Instead, they say, foreign media and governments should adopt the literal translated version of Xi's Chinese titles, which better reflect his role. And in its 2019 report to Congress, the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission announced it would begin referring to Xi using ``the title by which he derives his authority: General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party.'' A `war of words' Perry's bill comes as relations between China and the US continue to hit new lows. In recent months, the countries have blamed each other over the spread of Covid-19, and closed a pair of consulates over a worsening national security spat. US authorities have taken aim at several Chinese tech firms and threatened to ban the popular apps TikTok and WeChat. This rise in tensions has been reflected in how top US officials refer to Xi. In the past two months alone, FBI Director Christopher Wray, US Attorney General William Barr, National Security Advisor Robert O'Brien and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have all referred to Xi by the title of General Secretary in speeches and statements--a clear departure from the White House's previous practice of referring to the Chinese leader as ``President Xi.'' Pompeo has also taken steps to distinguish the CCP from its citizens in recent criticism, saying in July that the Chinese people ``are completely distinct from the Chinese Communist Party''--rhetoric that Xi has bristled at, and that experts say is designed to further delegitimize the CCP by driving a wedge between the party and those it supposedly represents. As the latest push to officially change Xi's title, the ``Name The Enemy Act'' is more of a political statement than a linguistic adjustment, said Leung, the Hong Kong University professor. After all, she said, there are plenty of authoritarian countries that use terms associated with democracy--for instance, North Korea's official name is Democratic People's Republic of Korea. And Russian leader Vladimir Putin is still referred to as ``President,'' even though opposition figures and critics have accused the country's elections as being ``fake.'' The move to strip Xi of his title of President is a ``war of words--a way to diminish the legitimacy of the CCP in this current US-China tension,'' Leung said. ``If a foreign country then tells China, `No we're not going to use your official name,' it just causes China to lose face, regardless of what the term means,'' she added. ``If that's the term they choose and if you are denying or (refusing) to acknowledge it, I think that itself challenges the face of the country.'' It's unclear how likely the bill is to pass; though it has four other Republican cosponsors, there are also only a few months left in this congressional session. If it isn't signed into law by the session's end in January, it'll have to be scrapped and later re-introduced. The power of such a law, however, rests on one thing: the assumption that Xi still wants to be called President. Some experts argue he might, instead, prefer to revive the retired title of Party Chairman, last held by Mao. ``This year we can see a lot of steps (by Xi) in preparation for the coming 20th Party Congress (scheduled for 2022), but also we could see such change in the English title of Chairman,'' said Wu Qiang, a political commentator in Beijing. ``The title of Chairman means the top, absolute top, absolute authority. The totalitarian title for the leader of the Party.'' If Xi brings the title back, it would be his most significant step in following Mao's legacy, Wu Qiang added--a sign that ``he wants to turn back to the Maoist era.'' And adopting the term ``Chairman'' could help Xi consolidate even more power, said Leung--perhaps turning him, literally, into the Chairman of Everything. Opinion It's Time to Stop Calling Xi Jinping the `President' of China (By Katherine Wilhelm) In Chinese philosophy we find the concept of ``rectifying names'' (zheng ming). Confucius taught that failing to call things by their proper names is a failure to recognize reality, which leads to social and moral disorder. He was right. One excellent case in point: what to call Xi Jinping. This week, as the world's media are following the Chinese Communist Party's 20th National Congress reporters have been referring to Xi almost universally as China's ``president.;'' But that's misleading. The congress is likely to give Xi an unusual third five-year term as the leader of the Communist Party. We know the title he holds as party leader: general secretary. And we also know that his immense power as the paramount leader of China derives from this party position, not from his concurrent position as head of state. So why on earth do we persist in calling him ``president'' instead of ``general secretary''? The position that we have come to call ``president'' in English is actually styled ``state chairman'' (guojia zhuxi) in the Chinese constitution. Mao Zedong held the same post for five years in the 1950s but gave it up because he was bored by the paperwork. The next ``state chairman'' was Liu Shaoqi, who died in detention during the Cultural Revolution, a year after being stripped of all his titles for alleged disloyalty to Mao. The position fell into disuse but was revived in the 1982 constitution, with fewer powers. In a reflection of the party's post-Mao backlash against excessive concentration of power, the chairmanship was held by a series of respected veteran members of the party politburo. In 1993, when China was trying to overcome the brief international chill caused by the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, then-party General Secretary Jiang Zemin grabbed the post, and it's been held concurrently by the party general secretary ever since. It is generally believed that CCP leaders find the title of president useful when dealing with foreign countries. They can meet as peers with other heads of state rather than with the heads of other countries' ruling parties--who might not be the same person. Indeed, the title was so valuable to Xi that in 2018, he had the constitution amended to remove the two-consecutive- term limit on the presidency. Everyone in China immediately understood this as a signal that Xi intended to remain party general secretary for more than two terms. The general secretary position had no such term limit. The state post holds no charm of its own for an ambitious politician. Mao, not one to share power, was happy to give it up--perhaps because its powers are mostly ceremonial. We never see photos of Xi sitting in a presidential office doing presidential things. It's not clear that there even is a presidential office per se, with its own staff. The only time we hear from Xi as president is when he signs one-sentence orders proclaiming new laws that have been approved by the National People's Congress, appoints new ambassadors who have already been approved by the NPC, or takes similar ministerial actions. Virtually all of the powers conferred on the president by the constitution are shared with the NPC or its standing committee. Only the pomp and circumstance of international travel as head of state belong to Xi alone. Foreign offices and media seem to assume that no harm comes from referring to the CCP general secretary almost exclusively by his state title. But the practice generates a lot of unnecessary confusion about how China's political system works. Ultimate power in China is held by the Communist Party, with state officials operating solely as its agents. Indeed, under Xi, the party has boldly stepped out of the shadows, issuing more and more policy documents jointly with government bodies or entirely in its own name. When we insist on using Xi's state title while ignoring his party title, we participate in a charade that pretends important decisions in China are made by the apparatus of the state, instead of by the party. In China's own media, Xi is almost always identified as the party general secretary. Let's follow their example and ditch the word ``president.''

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, calling the state chairman a President helps the Communist Party offer a more presentable face to the world, and it hides the party's iron fist in a velvet glove of ceremonial title. It sows confusion about Communist China's Government, presenting it akin to democracy instead of an authoritarian police state. We should stop playing by the rules Beijing's propaganda would have us do as to Xi and give him his actual titles. I urge my colleagues to do so. I might note, Mr. Chair, that, in fact, many people that I don't particularly agree with, including President Bashar al-Assad and others, have the title, but if China doesn't give itself the title and rather he is the head of the Communist Party, we should continue to call him that and not erroneously make him look like a democratic leader. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chair, the gentlewoman from California, who I greatly admire is, in fact, in this case, wrong. She is making a mistake that I hope to correct in this debate. Xi Jinping is not the President. That is not the title that their government gives him. As I said in my opening remarks and I will clarify, President Bashar al-Assad of Syria is a President. That is the title his country gives him. The President of Egypt is a President. There are plenty of Presidents. We would not call Bibi Netanyahu President when he is the Prime Minister, and, of course, we would call the President of Israel President. I am only making the clear point that Xi Jinping has three titles, none of which includes, in any reasonable translation, the word ``President.'' He is the head of state. He is the chairman of his party. He is the chairman of, in fact, his military. As a member of Foreign Affairs, it is an important technical correction. I am in earnest agreeing with my friend, the gentlewoman from California, that we should not arbitrarily refuse to take any title given by their country. China could call him President if they wanted to; they do not. My amendment only says we need to stop changing his title. When the gentlewoman says that we shouldn't arbitrarily or in a petty way change a title, I agree. The title should be one of those three titles or, of course, he is the head of state and that can be used. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chair, in closing, I completely agree that the State Department should have reasonable diplomatic ability, but it has become a problem of a misstatement. As I said earlier, Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu should not be referred to as President even if the State Department wants to. They have both a President and a Prime Minister, as does France. It is important that titles reflect what, in fact, their titles are. The head of China has three titles. If they want to give him a fourth, they may, but until they do, I believe it is completely inappropriate to call a rose by any other name than the one that, in fact, the rose possesses. Mr. Chair, I close by urging passage, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chair, my amendment simply recognizes that over the last half-century things have changed. When I was a young private, Richard Nixon opened up the gate to China. A matter of less than a decade later, Jimmy Carter added them to the Science and Technology Agreement, recognizing that this emerging country needed our help, and that as we spread them and push them away from the Soviet Union, that this was one more way to work together. I commend what those men, those Presidents, did during their decades, but in the six decades since that time, things have changed. The fact is, China isn't just a competitor; they are, in fact, the world's greatest thief of technology, and cooperation simply leads to greater espionage and theft. For that reason, it is time to end our agreement that gives them one- way access to our technology. Simply put, we can no longer support the stealing of technology. In the words of Vladimir Lenin: ``The capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.'' That has not changed. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chair, my friend, the gentlewoman from California, knows that the acid rain that falls on California and throughout the United States comes from the knowing and willful burning of coal with no scrubbers in China. They don't need technology agreements to fix that. The technology exists. They need a will to do it. If we are going to talk about what we would get in the way of air quality, the answer is, we are not getting air quality because they simply won't make those expenses. That is a sadly hollow reason to continue it. Additionally, there are subagreements within the STA. Those do not go away. Some of the things that were cited, if they are appropriate, would continue. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chair, for all of us who serve on the Science Committee, there is no greater investment that we have made around the world than the one we made in CERN. The one in that supercollider; the one that gave us the PET scan, which gave us a lot of other technology that made us understand after the atomic age began what a proton was, how an electron worked, and these particle beams have been huge. It has been something to which we have contributed hundreds of millions of dollars a year asking only that our scientists be able to study with the others. I was just in CERN. The scientists there, who are of one world as any scientist you would find, both Americans and Europeans and others, they were in shock because many of their colleagues had just returned from China where they found that the entire design for the future particle collider which is going to be built in North Dakota had been stolen in its entirety. Every part of that sensitive information had been taken to China. When they went there, the most galling thing they could see was the Chinese bragging about having it, that they were going to get it built first and that people would have to come to them years before it would be available in the United States. We have been in a science cooperation that included the Chinese at every step. It is time to recognize that we have gotten little from them except lies about the origin of COVID. We have, in fact, been lied to by them and theft is systemic. We cannot and should no longer enter into those kinds of agreements. Mr. Chair, for that reason, I urge passage of this simple but important amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to refer to the current President or the presumptive nominee. For my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, I am going to refer to the history of this body because I think the study of the history of this body should tell Members on both sides of the aisle that this is an appropriate contempt. It will lead eventually to compliance and, again, to holding this body as a coequal branch of government. I might remind my colleagues, some of them here in the room, Mr. Speaker, that in 2007, this body held the White House counsel on behalf of the President of the United States, then-President Bush, in contempt for refusing to show up before this very committee, Judiciary. In 2012, this body held a previous Attorney General--in a very similar situation affecting the same two committees that have been speaking here, Oversight and Accountability and Judiciary--Eric Holder, in contempt because he told us that if we would take 200-and-some documents, that was all that was left, and end our case, he would give them to us. Otherwise, he would withhold them. We held him in contempt, and Judge Amy Berman Jackson, an appointee of President Obama, held several things, including that President Obama had clearly falsely claimed an executive privilege, probably based on being misled by then-Attorney General Eric Holder. In fact, 10,000-plus documents were turned over to the United States Congress. The then-Attorney General had lied. The then-Attorney General Eric Holder had lied to this body and to the chairman of the committee and ultimately was held in contempt on a bipartisan basis with 12 Members of the other party voting for that contempt. After a long period of time, we managed to get the equilibrium this body deserves. I call, Mr. Speaker, on this body and all my colleagues today to live up to the standard that we learned in 2007 when a White House, then of a Republican, refused to deliver a witness. Then, in 2012, when the Attorney General claimed that we were not entitled to the best documents we sought and that we were entitled to the documents related to Fast and Furious that he believed were appropriate, he failed, and he failed based on a judge appointed by President Obama. Why? He failed because this body does have the obligation and the right to seek all of the best evidence it believes--not that the other side believes; it believes. There has been no call for an in-camera review, no call for any kind of compromise. Once again, we are to take the word of an Attorney General working for the current President that there is nothing there. I have watched a lot of television over the years. I am not going to believe these are not the droids we are looking for. This, in fact, could be important evidence. Whether it is or isn't, isn't germane. What is important is that this body, in fact, lives up to its obligation. I call on every Member--those on the other side who did or didn't join with me in 2012 but who voted in 2007 to hold the White House in contempt--to consider whether once again we are balancing the power and the rights of this body. Mr. Speaker, many are arguing against the best interests of the United States House of Representatives, and for that, shame on those who do.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, we meet in an extraordinary, extraordinary session here on a Saturday, and we do so because Iran has fired missiles over our very ships intended to land on our ally Israel. We meet here on a Saturday because Russia has invaded Ukraine and continues an aggression that will not stop there, but we also meet here in order to provide a protection and a preventative funding to our allies in the Indo-Pacific. Included in those allies in this amendment must be the Philippines. Only days ago, the President of the Philippines and the Prime Minister of Japan met with our President in a trilateral meeting for the first time in, literally I believe, history. They did so to talk about many things, including the joint agreement for defense that includes Japan and the U.S. both participating in the Philippines in their defense on their soil by their invitation. That is how grave the threat from China is and how nothing will do a better job of preventing yet a third major area of conflict than peace through strength. Madam Speaker, I urge support for this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, it is my honor to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Moylan).

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining.

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, I want to remind this body of something that I think is important today. When I entered this body some 20-plus years ago, another Congressman then, Bob Filner, and I founded the Philippine Friendship Caucus. We did so because there were many promises made all the way back in World War II that had been reneged on through what was known as the Rescission Act. Through education, the Congress wisely restored those scouts. These were individuals who fought and died next to us, or often were tortured when captured while defending us and warning us from the Philippines when it was occupied. The Philippines has been our possession, our colony, our ally throughout history, but, more importantly, the Philippine people have reached out to us time and time again to be our friends. President Marcos came here personally to double down and triple down on that relationship as a friend of the U.S., a democracy, and, in fact, ready to defend the region with its partners for freedom in the Indo-Pacific. So, Madam Speaker, I ask you, please, this is an amendment more important perhaps than any other to prevent war, and I yield back the balance of my time.