Gregory Meeks

Mr. MEEKS

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

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Speaker, I have said from the beginning that today this debate is a cynical, partisan exercise by my Republican colleagues to attack the Biden administration and advance their political agenda. Mr. Speaker, I have been here for 26 years, and any time Israel came up previously, we didn't play politics with it. We tried to sit down and work it out and come out unified, Democrats and Republicans. Especially in any foreign policies, one of the things we have done, especially on this committee, is try to work together so that the other countries of the world did not see a divided America but rather a unified America with our allies. This is true with, for example, Ukraine. After many of my colleagues talked about the delay that took place to pass the supplemental, the whole idea even then was to negotiate together to try to come out with a bill that showed unity; not play politics with it; not try to say, as we have heard in this debate by some on their side: Oh, the Democrats are in cahoots with the terrorists. That is not who we are. That is not who we should be. We should be the United States Congress talking and working. We are not going to always agree on everything, but to have dialogue and conversation on an issue in a matter that is so serious as this, as we did, as Mr. McCaul said correctly. On October 8, we wanted to make sure that we put a resolution on this floor that over 400 Members of the House of Representatives, Democrats and Republicans, could support. We didn't start out agreeing on everything in that resolution. We sat down, and we worked and debated. We went back and forth, and then we came up with a resolution that we could proudly put on the floor to say that the United States Congress is together, that we are not divided. Mr. Speaker, that is not this bill. We didn't do that on this bill. We didn't even try. Why? Politics--politics in such a crucial time as this, with all that is going on. We were together and made sure that we were working together. We were talking to our Arab colleagues about normalization with Israel. Why? It is because that makes for a better Middle East. It is good for Israel. It is good for our allies in the region. It is good for the United States of America. That is not what this bill is all about. This bill is not good for Israel, and it is not good for our allies in the region. Chairman McCaul is correct when he said that we want to make sure that Saudi Arabia plays and has normalization with Israel as well as others in the Gulf area. Speak to them and ask them if this bill will make the area better. Speak to them and include them in that dialogue. Because if we want a better Middle East, peace for Israel, and the Jewish state to move forward where they don't have to worry about a threat, we need to work together, not alone. That is the dialogue and conversation we should be having. That is who we should be as leaders. That is who we should be as the indispensable nation. Those are our values. We should value every human life. We should be concerned when we see people starving, innocent individuals. That shows who we are. That is leadership. That brings people together. That is good for Israel, and that is good for the United States of America, not this. People are watching all over the world. Who are we? Are we just going to continue to divide? Are we going to be a nation divided? We can't sit down to talk and work things out? I know we can. Mr. McCaul and I do it all the time. We are having a markup right now, 14 bills in the House Foreign Affairs Committee. We didn't start out agreeing, but we worked it out. We have 14 bills today, all of them bipartisan. That is who we are. That is who we should be. You heard Mr. Sherman say he is working now on another bill that we can work on together. That is who we are. That is who we should be. Let's make a difference. Let's not play politics on the House floor. Let's make a difference. We can do this. We are better than this. We are better than this. I saw today on our committee--and I am proud of this committee-- Democrats and Republicans talking back and forth on their differences, trying to figure out how we can change this and move so that we can pass a bill in the committee. I was listening as we were doing certain things, and truthfully, it made me proud to see how we were working together. I say to my colleagues on the other side: Let's not do this. We are better than this, especially on foreign affairs. I mean, we are going to have our political domestic issues, but not on foreign affairs. Let's not play politics here. There is too much at stake, just too much at stake for us, for others. They expect more from us. Let's give them more. Let's show them we can work together. Let's show them why we are the greatest country that this planet has ever seen. We are the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. MEEKS

Mr. MEEKS. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, this is indeed a historic moment. Sometimes when we are living history, as we are today, we don't understand the significance of the actions, of the votes that we make on this House floor, and of the effect that it will have down the road for children yet unborn. This is a historic moment. Yesterday, one of the rarest things that has ever happened on this floor took place. Generally, in this body, it takes the majority party to pass its rule, and the minority party never votes for it. However, this moment is so big that House Democrats said: We are not playing politics with this. This is too important for our Nation's security. This is too important for our allies' security. This is too important for the free world's security. Therefore, we did something that we have never done before. We voted in a bipartisan way to pass the rule to get these bills on the floor. Quite frankly, I would have loved to have done this 2, 3, 4 months ago. However, this is a historic moment. Ukraine is now on the brink. The humanitarian catastrophes in Gaza and Sudan and Haiti and elsewhere require immediate aid. Israel faced an unprecedented, direct attack from Iran less than 1 week ago, and we need to rebuild our industrial base and support a free and open Indo-Pacific. We stand here today, finally, doing the people's work; doing, as I said just a few minutes ago, what we should have done months ago-- supporting our friends, supporting our allies around the world, and quieting the doubts about whether America is a reliable partner or not; whether the United States will continue leading on the world stage or not. I am so proud of President Biden because he has displayed that leadership time and time again. Now, today, we have a number of bills that we need to pass for our national security. On REPO, pertaining to the seizure of Russian sovereign assets, there is no doubt that Russia should pay for its crimes against humanity in Ukraine, as Vice President Harris has termed it. This bill, importantly, irons out legal questions that make sure that the United States does not act alone, but rather in coordination with our G7 and other partners, and we have seen President Biden pull them together immediately. Coordinating with our allies on this issue is important, not just for our standing as a paragon of the rule of law, but for our long-term economic interests. There is an array of Middle East sanction bills included in this package, including several we voted on this week. Importantly, the majority agreed to add a humanitarian exception in three of those bills. I had been requesting that for a while. Fortunately and thankfully, we got it in now. I hope that, going forward, including these exceptions is a matter of course rather than something added via last-second negotiation, but I thank my friend, Chairman McCaul, for the good-faith negotiations on the Middle East section of this legislation. The Foreign Affairs Committee sanctions section is not perfect, but it does provide important humanitarian exceptions and waivers throughout the bill. Given the focus on the REPO bill the last few days, I will highlight that a key authority in the bill is permissive. I do not think that a sanction should be the opening salvo of diplomacy. Many may have heard me talking about how I believe in diplomacy so strongly, but sanctions are an important instrument of economic statecraft that can, on occasion, deter bad actors, curb human rights abuses, and promote diplomatic outcomes. I believe we lose our moral credibility if American sanctions are seen as causing indiscriminate deprivation, and we lose our policy flexibility if we tie the executive branch's hands instead of giving it useful tools. Yet, it is important that would-be invaders and dictators around the world see they will face real consequences if they undermine the international order. This legislation also contains several bills in the Financial Services and Energy and Commerce lanes. Important changes were made to these bills. I had voted against H.R. 7521 on the floor out of concern that it would be a broad authorization that could be misused far beyond what we in Washington are currently debating, beyond just TikTok. However, I think the bill took a step in the right direction with a more realistic timeframe for a complex divestiture process. Let me say for the record that I believe this bill is about one company and that additional authorities provided to the executive branch are to be interpreted narrowly. Let me also take a moment to speak to those who oppose this legislation and say we can't support Ukraine in its fight against Russia's invasion because, to use their words, we are facing an invasion here at home. That is an absurd comparison. Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine because he wanted to topple the democratically elected Government of Ukraine and reconstitute the Soviet Union. He launched his unprovoked war of aggression with a willingness to kill millions of Ukrainians, not to mention his own forces. By contrast, people come to our border because of the tumult in their home countries or in search of a better life for themselves and their children. They do so because this is the greatest Nation, the greatest country, in the history of this planet. With all of our ills, with all of our faults, with all that we need to do, we come together. There is no question that the example that we show, by the people and the citizens of this great country, it is the greatest Nation on this planet. Today, once again, on this House floor, where we are right now, we are proving that fact by overcoming, by proving that this is the greatest country in the world, and by proving that we are the leaders of the free world. We are doing this by overcoming our partisan divides, by showing that we will work together and stand together, Democrats and Republicans, for the right thing and for our country. We are passing a historic bill, a bill that our children and grandchildren will be reading and looking at in the years to come. It promotes not just U.S. national security but the security of democracy over authoritarianism, law over lawlessness, and prosperity over chaos or famine. Madam Chair, the camera of history is rolling, and when they play it back, they will see we stood together. When they play it back, they will see that we stood for freedom, justice, and equality. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

Mr. MEEKS. Madam Chair, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Krishnamoorthi), the ranking member on the Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party.

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

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

Mr. MEEKS. Madam Chair, the Treasury opposes this amendment because they believe the reporting time is so short, and the requirements are so onerous. They believe it is so onerous that they will have to pull people away from doing the important work on finding illicit actors that should be sanctioned and make them work on this report. There are also concerns about business confidentiality here. I am guessing, if there were more time, we could make changes in this bill. We could work together to make it more workable and strike a deal here. But given that this is an up-or-down vote on the floor for an amendment now, I must oppose. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MEEKS

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

Mr. MEEKS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the gentleman from New Jersey's resolution, H. Res. 1143, condemning Iran's unprecedented drone and missile attack on Israel. Like every Member of this body, I am horrified by Iran's direct attack on Israel. In retaliation for Israel's targeted strike against two Iranian military generals in Damascus on April 1, Iran launched more than 300 drones and powerful missiles at Israel's population--Jews, Muslims, and Christians alike. The great success of Israel's missile shield, codeveloped by the United States of America, and the combined forces of the U.S. military, France, the U.K., and Jordan, prevented significant death and destruction. Our thoughts and hearts are with the young Israeli Bedouin girl, who is recovering today from injuries she suffered due to an Iranian projectile. I stand strongly with the people of Israel and their defense against both direct and proxy Iranian attacks, and I support this resolution being offered by Representative Kean. Israel, of course, has the right to defend itself like any other country, but as a true friend of Israel, I encourage the Israeli Government to be smart and strategic as it considers its response, and I urge this body not to beat the drums of war. As Secretary Blinken recently said, an escalation of the conflict is not in the United States' or Israel's interests. Believe me, I really understand the rage felt by Israel toward the Government of Iran, a government hell-bent on wiping Israel off the map. The two generals whom Israel eliminated worked day and night to provide Iranian proxies the lethal materiel and strategy necessary to significantly harm the State of Israel. I also understand the need for Israel to maintain strategic deterrence. Iran needs to know there will be serious consequences if it attempts to harm Israel. Deterrence serves to prevent an expansion of conflict. I also understand the massive consequences of Israel and Iran descending into a broader war and what that would mean for the United States and the rest of the entire world. An expanded Israel-Iran war would distract from the ongoing conflict in Gaza, a conflict that must end, while ensuring the elimination of Hamas' military capabilities. We still have challenges. We must free the hostages remaining in Gaza and achieve a humanitarian cease-fire. Famine and the current humanitarian catastrophe must be reversed at all costs. There must be a realistic plan for the future governance and reconstruction of Gaza, one that results in Palestinian control of the strip. An expanded Israel-Iran war could also serve to drag the United States of America deeper into the conflict. As the ongoing debate on the supplemental should make clear, the United States already has a lot on its plate. Madam Speaker, please remember that Russia's war of aggression in Ukraine remains unfinished business and that Ukraine is losing ground to Russian forces due to Donald Trump's interference in our emergency supplemental process. The future of Europe is urgently--urgently--at stake. Already, there are dangerous conflicts simmering throughout the Middle East region, including continued attacks by the Houthis in Yemen against international shipping and U.S. military forces. China still has its sights set on Taiwan as China strengthens its relationship with both Iran and Russia. An expanded war in the Middle East would put American soldiers deployed in the region in greater danger. It would harm the American middle class and global economies still clawing back pandemic-spurred inflation, just as our economy is beginning to rebound. Are there those amongst us who think it is wise to open a broader war in the Middle East this week? Do we want to further encourage Iran to rush to build and test a nuclear weapon? Do we want to give Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping the satisfaction of the United States being bogged down in war? China and Russia would love to see the United States embroiled and distracted in the Middle East as they continue their nefarious destabilizing objectives in Europe and the Indo-Pacific. We should not let that happen. Madam Speaker, I conclude my remarks where I started. We stand strongly with the State of Israel and its right to defend its people. Israel, without question, has the right to defend itself, and I hope that strategy and thoughtfulness rule the day, not rage and revenge. There is too much at stake. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. MEEKS

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 6046, which would force the administration to designate the Houthis a foreign terrorist organization, an FTO, a designation that risks jeopardizing the very lifesaving assistance Yemeni civilians are dependent on for their survival. Let me be clear. Everyone in this body recognizes the threat the Houthis pose both in Yemen and the Red Sea. We have seen the Iran- backed proxy launch a campaign of missile attacks on commercial vessels in the Red Sea, attempting to halt global trade, violating international law. Their disruptive campaign has not only endangered merchant vessels, but also United States personnel with the clear- stated intention of harming Israel and any of its allies. That said, I believe that this legislation is the wrong approach. The Biden administration has undertaken the correct approach. In response to the Houthis' unprecedented attack in the Red Sea, the administration, rather than unilaterally, worked multilaterally with more than 40 countries to curb the Houthi behavior while not escalating tension in the Middle East. The administration has targeted military strikes on Houthi targets and implemented, specifically, specially designated global terrorist sanctions with appropriate humanitarian provisions. Working collectively with our allies, not America alone, is the way that we win this battle. That is the correct route instead of this measure, which does not address the Houthi threat. Instead, it undermines the United States' national security objective in the region and endangers innocent Yemenis, who are already on the brink of perishing. First, the H.R. 6046 mandate does not include humanitarian provisions, thereby unnecessarily punishing millions of Yemeni civilians. This would create a scenario in which commercial vessels and humanitarian organizations would not be able to continue to provide lifesaving goods to many Yemenis due to severe criminal penalties they would incur for doing so. After nearly a decade of brutal war, the majority of the Yemenis, nearly half of them children, face serious malnutrition, and millions more Yemenis remain on the brink of starvation. This legislation would only deepen the humanitarian crisis at a time when aid is most needed. That is why a broad coalition of NGOs and humanitarian organizations oppose an FTO designation without humanitarian provisions. While some may point to existing general licenses or provisions as a mitigating factor, the legal implications of an FTO designation and the sweeping consequences it entails, without regard to type of activity or transaction, renders such licenses moot without any such new statutory authorizations or exemptions. Secondly, this designation would also undercut important ongoing diplomatic efforts by the United States, the U.N., and European countries to achieve de-escalation in the region, the world, together. That is the right thing to do. Finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill is theatrical. It will have no real- world impact on the Houthi behavior, but would likely serve as a public relations win and recruiting fodder for the movement while, at the same time, the people that would be punished are the Yemenis, those innocent children and women and men. It is unnecessary. This and any future administration already has the authority to implement such a designation per section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Mr. Speaker, for these reasons and others, I urge my colleagues not to support H.R. 6046, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6046 would force the administration to designate the Houthis as a foreign terrorist organization without humanitarian provisions and, consequently, make the humanitarian crisis in Yemen even more dire. Now, Mr. Clyde says that the Biden administration doesn't want to call the Houthis what they are, but let me read what they are and sanctioned already. They are a specially designated global terrorist. That is what the Biden administration issued. The difference between the two, being an SDGT as opposed to being an FTO, is one allows humanitarian aid in, and the other doesn't. This bill would have significant adverse impacts, creating a situation in which humanitarian organizations and commercial shippers would be reluctant to provide food, aid, and medical equipment to Yemen out of fear of the severe criminal consequences this bill would impose. It does nothing really to change the Houthis' behavior. It just hurts innocent Yemeni people. Therefore, I support the administration's efforts to counter Houthi actions with targeted military strikes and the implementation of that specially designated global terrorist sanction, which includes the humanitarian provisions that this bill lacks. This is, by far, the better path toward ceasing hostile Houthi actions. The Biden administration's approach holds the Houthis responsible for their violent, destabilizing actions without deepening the crisis for innocent Yemeni citizens. I am going to stand with a broad coalition of NGOs, humanitarian organizations, and those that understand the wealth and the need and the richness of human life, trying to save human beings, not turning our backs on them with a piece of legislation that will do nothing really to the Houthis or change their behavior. All of these NGOs, all of these humanitarian organizations, oppose an FTO designation without humanitarian provisions. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to do the same. We should make sure that the NGOs and humanitarian organizations are able to help save innocent lives. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill and ask my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MEEKS

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4691. As I have explained during committee consideration, I have serious concerns about what this bill means to the overall practice of American foreign policy and, therefore, must oppose it. Some think that diplomacy is weak and that the only way you show strength is to go to war. We have heard from generals that if war was the only option that we had on the table, it would cost us much more in bullets and armor, and that diplomacy helps deter military. In fact, I would say it is strength. Anybody can say I am going to fight. It is strength in trying to negotiate, in dealing with diplomacy. If that should fail, going to war should be your last alternative. Diplomacy and people in the State Department who exercise it are absolutely essential. It brings others with us so we are not out there by ourselves but working in a multilateral way. It is hard for any Member, particularly me as a ranking member, to be opposed to a bill that is meant to increase congressional oversight of sensitive foreign policy issues. However, in the specific case of this bill as drafted, were it to be signed into law, I believe it would damage America's ability to conduct effective diplomacy. Here is why. When dealing with our enemies, a strong diplomatic corps and a strong military are both necessary to achieve our goals. In the specific case of Iran, they can clearly see from our consistent joint military exercises, regional deployments, and last weekend's missile defense that we mean business. Our diplomatic efforts have also proven very effective. Case in point was the successful implementation of the JCPOA, which verifiably cut off all pathways to an Iranian bomb. The dangerous nuclear moment we now find ourselves in, where Iran has stockpiled highly enriched uranium and is limiting the access of inspectors is the direct result of the shortsighted cancellation of that diplomatic agreement. The Iranian nuclear threat has never been more dangerous than it is right now. Again, when we had the JCPOA, working in a multilateral way with our other allies, and even at that point, two who are not allies, and when you speak to most individuals, IAEA included, who had eyes on what was taking place in Iran, once we pulled out and stopped using diplomacy, they have no eyes now, which is why Iran is more dangerous today than it was when they were in this agreement. The United States must keep diplomacy on the table as a tool to address the Iranian threat. If this proposed bill is set into law, Iranian negotiators will know and allied negotiators will know that the executive branch officials in the negotiation room cannot independently make decisions. Our negotiators will be at an acute disadvantage. Other parties, friend or foe, will know any adjustment in sanctions implementation would become subject to a joint motion of disapproval. Carefully negotiated multilateral agreements risk becoming subject to partisanship right here in the United States House of Representatives, in Congress. Such an action is worrisome and also without precedent. I also believe that this bill directly interferes with the INARA process, the bipartisan agreement currently in statute to provide Congress the ability to approve or disapprove a negotiated nuclear agreement. Diplomatic agreements with Iran are already subject to congressional review as a whole. This bill goes far beyond that statute. Even if the United States Congress cleared an Iran deal through a comprehensive INARA process, sanctions implementation would once again become subject to binding congressional review, risking the agreement itself. This legislation could also harm efforts to deescalate tensions with Iran shy of a comprehensive agreement. If this or a future administration tried to negotiate a short-term diplomatic agreement on nuclear or other issues, such as regional troop protection, this legislation would interfere with that process. I would also like to make a more general point about sanctions that I believe this Congress sometimes forgets--one I feel that I have to make over and over and over again nowadays in this Congress. Sanctions are meant to be lifted if they achieve our goals. You don't keep a sanction if the goal has been achieved. Our nuclear sanctions were not passed to foment regime change in Iran, no matter how much we hoped they were. They were designed to drive Iran to the table to negotiate an end to their nuclear weapons program. If we reach an agreement that clears INARA, one that verifiably cuts off pathways to a nuclear weapon, we have to live up to our end of the agreement. Legislation like this one is designed to thwart our obligations, damaging our diplomatic flexibility and trustworthiness if we care about diplomacy. Now maybe we don't care about diplomacy; I think that is the wrong way to go. I think that we should very much care about diplomacy. Finally, some will argue that there is precedent for such a policy vis-a-vis Russia. That is inaccurate. The scope of Russian sanctions in CAATSA is much smaller. For instance, national emergencies past and present are included in this proposed bill but not in CAATSA. The new Russia sanctions EOs aren't covered in CAATSA, and any new Iran EO would be. There are also many sanctions in CAATSA where there is no congressional review. This bill, however, would apply to the entire universe of Iran sanctions. Finally, CAATSA mechanisms were established specifically to deal with Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election. It wasn't about trying to prevent legitimate diplomacy, as this bill will do. My friends and colleagues, we must look beyond Iran before going down this road. I have been around here 26 years, and I know that if passed into law, this type of policy will not stop with Iran. If this were to become law, it would only be a matter of time before the lifting of any sanction, no matter how small, would be subject to a congressional vote. It is our duty to provide the authority and the appropriations for effective foreign policy, not to undermine diplomacy in this manner. We cannot have 535 Secretaries of State in a negotiating room. It never happens that way. You do not negotiate that way. Diplomacy does not work that way. I say: Please think. Think carefully before steering us down this road. Think what it means if you think diplomacy is important. If you don't think diplomacy is important and the only thing that is important is going to war, then we have a difference of opinion. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MEEKS. Madam Speaker, I think everyone has heard by now how important diplomacy is. I think that we should show it in our budget. I am a firm believer in diplomacy. The fact of the matter, the direct quote from General Mattis was: ``If you don't fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition ultimately.'' I guess my friends and colleagues from the other side of the aisle just want to buy ammunition, and that is why the State Department is continually being cut, because they don't really focus on or put diplomacy on the same level, and that is what is happening here with this bill. This bill would significantly impede America's ability to conduct effective diplomacy with Iran. By requiring that any adjustment in sanctions implementation be subject to a joint motion of disapproval, the bill would undermine diplomacy and U.S. negotiators, and makes that clear to anyone sitting across from them at the table. That is the negotiating table, not the battlefield, where we hope we don't have to go, but we are prepared and have shown that we are ready to do it if we must, and that is discussed first at a negotiating table. This would also let them know when we are at the table--those that are sitting across that table--that they have no authority to relax or adjust sanctions. It would subject any negotiations to undue congressional partisanship. Can anyone deny that what we see happening on this floor--and what is happening in this 118th Congress--partisanship plays a huge role? In fact, we can't get anything done because of partisanship. Iran would know this. In fact, our allies would know this. We are tied up in partisanship. This would only weaken our position. This only compromises the agility required to address urgent international threats and opportunities. Moreover, the stipulations of this bill undermine the very purpose of sanctions which are intended as tools to bring nations like Iran to the negotiating table--not as a permanent punitive measure. But if they do something where they are disregarding, and we are not working together and are aggressive at that negotiating table, we also are letting them know that we are ready or what we have the capability of doing. This bill hurts diplomacy. It hurts trying to make sure that we are driving others to the negotiating table. As General Mattis said, he doesn't have to buy more bullets. Let's fund the State Department. Let's promote and speak good will of diplomacy. It is the best way to move forward in a multilateral way with our allies. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.