Gregory Meeks

Mr. MEEKS

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

Mr. MEEKS

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5613, as amended. The U.S. Government operates many lists of foreign companies run by different departments with different departments. This is entirely appropriate. A North Korean nuclear proliferation agency is not the same as an unverified South Korean company. While we may want to place restrictions on both, at least temporarily, the penalties and consequences should differ accordingly. The purpose of this bill is straightforward. When one agency, like the Department of Commerce, lists a foreign entity, it ensures that other agencies, such as the Department of Defense, are formally notified. The right hand simply needs to know what the left hand is doing. We need smart and effective policies, not a one-size-fits-all approach, particularly when it comes to economic statecraft and especially in our competition with China. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this bill. Also, since the gentleman said that he was prepared to close, that is my closing. It is my opening and my closing. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MEEKS

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1157, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. There is strong bipartisan support in Congress for the Countering the People's Republic of China's Malign Influence Fund because it is the primary pool of funding for USAID and State Department projects to compete with China on the global stage. Given this bipartisan consensus on the importance of the fund, I had hoped we could engage in a bipartisan process for this bill. Instead, most of our recommended changes to the bill were not accepted when this bill was rushed to a markup at the very start of this Congress. When offered an amendment to increase the fund's authorization from $325 million to $400 million per year--the same amount requested by the Biden-Harris administration--every Republican on our committee, unfortunately, voted against it. Is that being tough on China? I don't think so. In briefing after briefing, our committee has learned that the administration is laser-focused on addressing the China challenge and is utilizing the funds effectively to counter PRC disinformation, build resilience against the PRC's malign influence, and provide nations around the world with alternatives to China's extractive development framework. The administration is doing this work, and they are doing it very well. As drafted, I believe H.R. 1157 could constrain the State Department and USAID in competing effectively. To compete with China, the fund and our institutions need to be nimble so they can adapt to Beijing's constantly evolving tactics and policies. While I support this bill, as it moves forward, there needs to be a real bipartisan consultation with the administration on how best to achieve our objectives and ensure the fund is effective for the long term. If we are serious about the threat that China poses and if we are truly committed to winning this competition, then we need to put our money where our mouth is. We can hold all the China weeks we want, but if House Republicans keep cutting funding for the State Department and USAID, then we are not going to win the competition with China. Mr. Speaker, we are in a global competition for influence with China, and if you want to win it, then you cannot do it on a middle power budget. China is putting its money up. We want to compete; we don't want to just talk about it. We need to put ours up so that we cannot just compete; we can win. The stakes in our strategic competition with China are high. To come out ahead, we cannot spend our time playing whack-a-mole, reacting to every move China makes around the world. We have to proactively compete. That means sticking to our values because they are better than the values of the Chinese Communist Party. It means listening to our partners, our friends, our allies, and their needs, not forcing them to choose. It means building resilience to China's malign influence by strengthening governance and the rule of law; and crucially, it means providing real, sustainable alternatives to China's financing and China's infrastructure and development assistance. To achieve these goals and to do it effectively, we need more than just rhetoric. We need creative thinking, a willingness to experiment, and a commitment to sustain American engagement and diplomacy. All that requires a clear strategy, a nimble State Department, and a USAID apparatus, and, again, dare I say it, money, not just for this fund but for our broader foreign operations and assistance also. As we move forward with authorizing the Countering the PRC Malign Influence Fund Authorization Act, we need to remember that this is a long game. This is a long game. The game is not in the fourth quarter. If America wants to win it, then we must sufficiently invest. We must invest in our strengths as well as our tools of competition. We are the greatest nation in the world with the greatest resources in the world. Let's do something so that we can continue being the leaders of the world. Mr. Speaker, 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 today in support of H.R. 1103, the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office Certification Act, as amended. This bill recognizes that Beijing has ripped apart any credible notion of Hong Kong's autonomy and has undone the ``one country, two systems'' framework. In doing so, Beijing betrayed not only the people of Hong Kong but the commitments it made to the whole world. Hong Kong is no longer a bastion of the rule of law, no longer a place of political freedom, and no longer a place where opinions can be voiced freely. Today, over 1,800 political prisoners sit behind bars. Trials are held in secret, and justice is sent to mainland China. The freedoms once cherished in Hong Kong are disappearing rapidly. The bill in front of us today calls on the President to determine whether the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Offices in the United States should continue to get the privileges, exemptions, and immunities which were offered based on Hong Kong's distinct autonomous status. After all, why should we treat Hong Kong as different from China now when the Chinese Communist Party is tightening its grip over Hong Kong's political and governing system? This bill is timely and necessary. As we move forward, it is critical the State Department has the ability to assist both the hundreds of U.S. businesses operating and the over 80,000 American citizens living in Hong Kong. We need to make sure that our actions aren't indirectly strengthening Beijing's grip on Hong Kong's politics or its governance. I had proposed changes to this legislation during our markup to address some of these concerns, but, unfortunately, these were not accepted by the majority. After this bill passes, I hope that the executive branch and Congress can consider these issues together in a bipartisan manner so that we have one voice and so that with that one voice we may hold Beijing and Hong Kong accountable and protect American interests with one voice. Finally, I will thank Representatives Chris Smith for all of his hard work on the bill as well as Representative Jim McGovern for introducing this important piece of legislation. In that spirit, I encourage all of my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, over the last year alone, we have seen Beijing and Hong Kong authorities crack down further on dissent and free expression at home and abroad. In March, they enacted national security legislation under article 23 of the Basic Law to once again fundamentally erode the rights and freedoms of Hong Kongers. I am also especially concerned about Beijing's use of transnational repression on our shores, where we have seen democracy advocates, including a U.S. citizen, charged under the national security law, with rewards offered for their capture. This bill is necessary right now because we need to ensure that Hong Kong's economic and trade offices in the United States are not being used by Beijing to execute its transnational repression here in the United States against those simply standing for freedom and democracy. I hope all of our colleagues will join all of us here on the floor in supporting this timely and important bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MEEKS

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 8361, as amended, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, 2\1/2\ years ago, we saw an unprovoked and brutal invasion of Ukraine by Russia, an act that has destabilized Europe and challenged the principles of sovereignty and self-determination. This blatant aggression is a direct attack on the international order that has kept the peace for decades. Though Russia's illegal behavior is uniquely indefensible, countries such as China that have aggressively done business with the Russian military-industrial defense base are certainly not blameless. The United States Government, including the House Committee on Foreign Affairs in a bipartisan manner, has engaged in extensive diplomacy to discourage countries from providing financial and material support for the Russian invasion. The Biden-Harris administration has also used economic statecraft, including expansive export controls, to prevent key dual-use electronics items from reaching Moscow. Full blocking sanctions are a particularly formidable economic weapon, and the Biden-Harris administration has begun to use this part of the arsenal. Bipartisan support for this legislation affirms that position, and financial sanctions must be on the table. Finally, by imposing sanctions on the PRC and other entities that are fueling Russia's military machine, we send a clear message: We will not stand idly by while Ukraine's sovereignty is trampled. This bill underscores the importance of unity among nations in opposing tyranny and supporting democracy. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 8361, as amended, is a valuable bill that grants the administration important authorities with necessary flexibility to sanction the PRC and other foreign businesses in league with the Russian defense industry base. I think this is something we all agree upon, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yea'' on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MEEKS

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to pass H.R. 5245, as amended, so that we may strengthen oversight of any U.S.-China science and technological agreements. These are routine mechanisms that lay out the rules of the road for government-to-government cooperation, providing a set of bilateral accepted standards, rules, and protections that guide any collaboration and provide access and protection for researchers, for data, and intellectual property. We must continue to modernize the safeguards for government-to- government cooperation to manage the heightened risks in the case of China, while preserving space for scientific inquiry and innovations that may benefit us all. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5245, as amended, and yield myself such time as I may consume. First, let me thank Representatives Andy Barr and Dina Titus for their leadership in developing this bill. I also thank Chairman McCaul for his collaboration in bringing this bill to a bipartisan consensus, ensuring that we have the necessary oversight over any U.S.-China governmental science cooperation. We all know the challenges posed by the People's Republic of China. The Biden-Harris administration and this body are clear-eyed that the PRC is the only competitor with intent and means to reshape the rules- based international order. To advance our interests, we must manage this critical relationship with shrewd diplomacy, not fear. This is why we must continue to engage China and find areas of cooperation where possible, even as we vigorously compete with and, where necessary, confront Beijing. Since the U.S.-China Science and Technology Agreement was originally signed in 1979, the first bilateral agreement following our diplomatic recognition of the People's Republic of China, it has benefited the United States, China, and the global community. Research collaborations have prevented disease, reduced pollution, and deepened our understanding of the Earth's history. The agreement has been renewed every 5 years or so under both Republican and Democratic administrations. Mr. Barr's bill allows Congress to address robust oversight over the current and any updated U.S.-China Science and Technology Agreement, and it requires the State Department to ensure the agreement benefits the United States and includes standards and safeguards to protect the United States' interests. It also enables Congress to monitor and track projects taking place under the agreement to ensure that they are consistent with U.S. values and interests. Therefore, it is for these reasons that we must pass H.R. 5245. This bill will allow Congress to effectively monitor the limited joint projects we do have with China, assess whether Beijing is living up to its commitments as part of the agreement, and ensure that American researchers, intellectual property, and data are adequately protected. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MEEKS

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, over the past 3\1/2\ years, the Biden administration has imposed unprecedented export controls against China and Russia. These measures have been highly effective in restricting Beijing and Moscow's access to critical U.S. technologies that could be used to enhance their military capabilities. We know these controls are working because both nations are now seeking ways to circumvent them through various loopholes, diversion tactics, and deceptive practices. One such loophole could involve PRC companies accessing U.S. chips remotely. Right now, our export control laws do not explicitly cover the remote access of controlled technologies through a network connection, including the internet or cloud computing services. H.R. 8152 would close that loophole. I thank the majority for working with me to reach a bipartisan agreement on this bill. Since the markup, we have incorporated additional feedback from the administration to appropriately scope the bill and specify that offensive cyber operations against the United States are another end use that our export controls should be addressing. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MEEKS

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation. This is the long-awaited proverbial ``China week'' on the House floor, so let me explain briefly why this legislation pertains to the PRC. In February 2022, as the world turned its attention to the winter Olympics in Beijing, Vladimir Putin visited China to meet with President Xi where the two publicly declared what they called a ``no limits partnership'' between Russia and China. Just weeks after that declaration, Putin unleashed his devastating invasion of Ukraine, aimed at toppling the democratically elected government in Kyiv. Since that time, China has played a crucial role in keeping the Kremlin's war machine running. By purchasing Russian oil and gas in massive quantities, Beijing has funded the Kremlin coffers and the illegal invasion machine it operates. By exporting semiconductors, drones, telecommunications gear, and other strategic electronic equipment, the PRC companies have provided the technical know-how to backfill U.S. and European providers that have exited the Russian market. Though the PRC has deepened its economic trade with Russia, including in dual-use items, it has thus far avoided directly arming Russia's criminal war effort. Recent reports have emerged about Russian officials meeting with leaders of major Chinese state-owned construction firms to discuss building a tunnel from Russia to Crimea. Of course, Crimea is of enormous strategic importance. Ukrainian forces have rightfully targeted this bridge multiple times, demonstrating their resilience and their determination to disrupt Russia's illegal occupation. The construction of a tunnel linking Russia directly to Crimea would only further entrench Putin's control over the Crimean Peninsula and bolster his war efforts. Mr. Speaker, we have a duty to use every tool at our disposal to support Ukraine's struggle for sovereignty and freedom. I will thank my colleague, Representative Wilson, for his partnership on this important bill. I also extend my gratitude to Chairman McCaul for his leadership in advancing this legislation, both at markup and now on the floor, and I thank all Members who have shown their support by cosponsoring this measure. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MEEKS

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chair, I thank Ranking Member Lee for all the hard work that she does on SFOPS and her global leadership, which is tremendously important. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to this legislation. On this very floor, my Republican colleagues have claimed that America is falling behind its competitors like China, that we must counter its spreading malign influence that it has commanded through foreign investments and other coercive measures. While Beijing has increased its diplomatic budget over the last decade to surpass even what we afford our own diplomatic posts and personnel, what is the Republicans' strategy to grow our own influence and to outcompete China, Russia, and other national security competitors and adversaries? What is their plan? They propose this legislation, a partisan chain saw to our international affairs budget, which would impose a 12 percent cut on top of the cuts they imposed in last year's budget. This bill is a white flag of surrender in the competition for global influence. I believe there is still a bipartisan majority in this House that is serious about meeting the national security challenges we face. Unfortunately, the majority is not being allowed to work its will today. Instead, this legislation caters to the fringe MAGA wing of the Republican Party with extreme riders on abortion and family planning, climate change, and DEI. The bill cuts funding to international organizations, including the U.N., where we must demonstrate stronger leadership to advance U.S. interests. This bill has sharp cuts to the personnel accounts for both the State Department and USAID. How are we going to implement programming without the staffing needed to manage it, or retain the skilled diplomatic workforce? Amendments proposed today zero out funding for Ukraine, USAID, humanitarian and international disaster relief, educational exchange programs critical to promoting America's standing around the world, and democracy and human rights programs. This is irresponsible policymaking.

Mr. MEEKS

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, too often in our foreign policy, we turn to sanctions as a first choice rather than a tool of last resort. Sanctions should not be our only go-to punishment to express our displeasure because they have real consequences. That being said, I will say that on the Foreign Affairs Committee, we do try to work together and get a bipartisan bill. I thank the chairman for that. Unfortunately, we could not get to a final conclusion. As I review the bill that we are about to vote on today, the bill that is on the floor, in this instance, this bill would have a chilling effect on the ICC as an institution and hamper the court's efforts to prosecute serious atrocities that have been perpetrated in many places around the world from Ukraine to Uganda. We can't forget that the ICC is a venue through which we can hold accountable bad actors. I know many of us celebrated in March of last year when the ICC judges issued arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and other senior Russian officials for abducting thousands of Ukrainian children. In fact, in the wake of Putin's renewed war in Ukraine, Congress passed legislation to enable the United States to provide financial support to and share information with the ICC to investigate and prosecute Putin and his regime for their heinous crimes. Put simply, we leaned in on engagement with the ICC because it was in our interest and because it reinforces the prospect that the justice we want to see will be delivered. Let me also be clear that President Biden has said from the very start that the ICC prosecutor's application last month for arrest warrants against Israeli leaders is clearly outrageous. In doing so, the ICC prosecutor has attempted to equate the self-defense decisions made by Israel's democratically-elected leaders to those of Hamas' terrorist leaders. There is no, and I repeat, there is no moral or legal equivalence here. This is one reason why we try to work together and continue to figure out a way we can get to a bipartisan deal. Chairman McCaul and I will continue to do that. Furthermore, let me just say that the United States has, since its inception, opposed, and we continue to oppose in the strongest terms, this investigation as an overreach into a matter for which the ICC has no jurisdiction. That said, if our goal is to change the ICC's actions, sanctions is the wrong tool. They are simply not going to work here. They are not going to convince the ICC to back down and could, in fact, push the ICC to pursue this case with even greater vigor. This bill will bluntly curtail the United States' ability to engage the court to advance our interests in supporting justice and accountability processes and, critically, to share relevant information that can impact the outcome. The sanctions will have a chilling effect on States who would otherwise be inclined to align with us in ensuring the court delivers justice and avoids overreach. Not only that, this particular legislation is overly broad. It would sanction our allies around the globe who support the ICC through resources and personnel. Per the proposed text, anyone who has offered financial, material, or technological assistance to the court shall be sanctioned. Let's look at what that means when we break it down. If you wrote a list of the largest funders of the ICC and a list of America's closest allies in Europe and in Asia, they would be virtually identical: the U.K., France, Germany, Italy, and Japan. As drafted, the leaders of these countries would need to be sanctioned for providing material assistance to the ICC. The legislative bodies of the countries would also need to be sanctioned for appropriating funds to go to the ICC. Interparliamentary travel to Europe could become a sanctionable activity. Is sanctioning Rishi Sunak, Emmanuel Macron, or Giorgia Meloni smart policy? To me, that is absurd on its face. This bill would further risk sanctions on the over 900 staff members from approximately 100 countries at the court, from judges and prosecutors to administrative staff, including nationals of close U.S. allies and partners who collectively work to prosecute war criminals around the globe. The language in this bill is so broad that even a cafeteria worker or janitor, even their families, could be construed as having supported or materially assisted in these prosecutions by providing services to the ICC. It is almost certain that the ICC relies on American companies for cloud services, productivity software, and other gold-standard tech products. All of these American companies would be banned from doing such business with the ICC, and their Chinese competitors could rush to fill that gap. Do we want the ICC reliant on the PRC for its email services, data service, or cloud storage? Do we want to send a message to all other international organizations that America could pull the plug on their business services at any moment? This will undermine America's interests and bolster those of China and Russia. The broad sanctions language included in this legislation will also affect many innocent Dutch companies and nationals. The same sanction risks would apply to companies from other U.S. allies and partner companies that provide services to the ICC. It is unclear how sanctioning close allies' financial institutions and small businesses will aid our foreign policy interests. The path that has been chosen--not of leaning in, not of engaging the court and its supporters to ensure just outcomes, but of just punitive action--is dangerous for our national security. Behind-the-scenes diplomacy with the court and our allies and partners that support it is far more likely to yield a result that is better than a blunt-force approach. I am for sending a message of concern to the ICC for seeking arrest warrants for Israeli officials, but we need to do it in another way. Therefore, I must oppose this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Ramirez).

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

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

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. I yield myself the balance of my time to close. I think it is important for me to say, Mr. Speaker, at the outset that I really do appreciate the efforts that were made to make this legislation bipartisan. Trying to get to good in a bipartisan way is always my goal on the Foreign Affairs Committee, and Chairman McCaul has, indeed, been a partner in that effort. I thank him for his partnership. That said, the bill as it is on the floor, I can't support because I believe it will be counterproductive to our interests, harm our relations with allies, and undermine American global leadership. Unfortunately, I believe the bill on the floor will do exactly that. Sanctioning the court and all those who support it will backfire badly on us, and I must oppose this legislation and urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MEEKS

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

Mr. MEEKS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I strongly oppose H.R. 8369, which is a cynical, political exercise by my GOP colleagues to attempt to sow division and use the United States-Israel relationship and American security assistance to advance their own political agenda. Despite what you have heard and will hear from the other side of the aisle today, Madam Speaker, there is no bigger champion for Israel's long-term security as a Jewish state than President Joe Biden. As I am, the President is committed to eliminating Hamas, and that is clear by what took place recently when he defended, along with other allies, Israel from an Iranian attack. He visited Israel during wartime, and he has delivered unprecedented aid. To suggest that he is abandoning or harming Israel is absurd. He has been with Israel as a Senator, as a Vice President, and as a President. To insinuate that now, all of a sudden, he is not with Israel is not true at all. Now, I hear my Republican colleagues argue that leveraging 2,000- pound bombs should not have been done publicly. That approach has not worked. For months, the Biden administration publicly and privately urged Israel not to launch a major offensive in Rafah without credible plans to avoid mass casualties and to try to evacuate Palestinians to a safe space. The United States has also repeatedly pressed Israel to cease using large warhead ordnance that results in excessive civilian casualties in densely populated civilian areas. Our humanitarian values are to try to save innocent lives, not saving Hamas, but trying to save innocent men, women, and children while we pursue Hamas--not cutting off all weapons, cutting off these huge bombs that kill innocent individuals--by utilizing munitions that are more appropriate for urban warfare to get Hamas. To date, Israel has presented no plan to mitigate civilian harm or commitment to not using the 2,000-pound bombs in Rafah. To the contrary, what we heard from Prime Minister Netanyahu last week was that he repeatedly affirmed Israel's plans for an all-out assault on Rafah. That is when the Biden administration confirmed it would temporarily withhold a small number of large warhead bombs so that they would not be used in Rafah. My Republican friends also seem to think that President Biden's actions are unprecedented, but there is a history of the United States withholding certain security assistance to Israel. Many of my GOP colleagues call themselves Reagan Republicans. Recall that President Reagan did the exact same thing based on concerns with Israel's military actions on two occasions in 1981 and 1982. These 2,000-pound bombs in question can create a crater up to 50 feet wide and 36 feet deep when dropped. They have a lethal fragmentation to a radius the size of multiple football fields. Such bombs have no place in urban combat, not in Gaza and not in Rafah, one of the most densely populated areas on the planet. The United States has a duty and obligation under law to make sure our weapons are not disproportionately killing civilians. This bill, H.R. 8369, prohibits the Biden administration from exercising its executive branch prerogative in holding or suspending U.S. arms transfers to Israel, including these large warhead munitions and any other defense article. It also forces the administration to deliver any such item to Israel within 15 days of enactment and, if the administration is unable to comply, it freezes significant parts of the Defense Department, the State Department, and the National Security Council budgets. According to the Defense Department itself: Withholding defense-wide operations and maintenance funds would jeopardize DOD's ability to fulfill its constitutional obligation to defend the United States which could cause significant harm to United States national security. Further, these budgetary freezes would undermine U.S. defense leadership when we are simultaneously competing in the Indo-Pacific, supporting Ukraine in its fight against the Russian war of aggression, and working with our partners in sub-Saharan Africa on security challenges. Again, this is all tremendously dangerous for our own national security. The bill also includes a blatantly political attack on military officers, hardworking civil servants, and U.S. Government employees by mandating Inspector General investigations into individuals, not agencies or departments, and orders the withholding of their salaries in a brazen and politicized witch hunt. All of these concerns would have been made clear had my Republican colleagues not rushed this bill through without any kind of regular order. Had it been marked up in the Foreign Affairs Committee, we would have been able to highlight that this legislation undercuts a number of crucial existing United States laws that are in the Foreign Affairs Committee's jurisdiction, including the Arms Export Control Act, the Leahy Law, and executive branch policies including the Conventional Arms Transfer Policy and National Security Memorandum 20. Let me repeat: President Biden paused one arms shipment. One. The President continues to focus on freeing the hostages, to put the onus on Hamas to reach a deal, and supports Israel's right to eradicate Hamas. That is the position of President Joseph R. Biden. Let's be clear about it. In conclusion, consider the facts and the context. We should oppose this bill moving forward because it is not good for Israel, and it is not good for the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, to correct the record, President Biden never said, as I hear my colleagues saying, that he is suspending all weapons to Israel. He said specifically the 2,000-pound bombs that cause death to innocent Palestinians are the only things that were paused here, not all weapons. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

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

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

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, let me just say this really quickly. One of the speakers before him said Democrats and terrorists are against Israel. That just shows how political this is. Democrats and Republicans have always been with Israel. To try and distort it and say Democrats are against Israel shows that it is just a partisan argument and not for the benefit of Israel. It is for trying to play politics with this issue. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro), the ranking member of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee.

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