Gregory Meeks

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. 5947. This legislation may be short, but it is equally shortsighted with considerable long-term consequences. Let's start with the impact this would have on Iraq. This bill would rescind a waiver that currently allows Iraq to pay for electricity from Iran. This waiver is what allows the Iraqi Government to keep the lights on. Without it, massive blackouts would leave millions without electricity and cause precipitous chaos. It would hamper the fragile stability that Iraq has achieved over the past several years. I don't believe anyone in this body wants to see a return to Iraq of the past, where Iraqis from previous decades suffered from never-ending wars and repression like that of the Saddam Hussein era. Mr. Speaker, the impact of this bill goes even further than that. It would harm and cause the Iraqi people terrible consequences. An Iraq without electricity serves no American interest and would do nothing to promote our, the United States', national security. Let's not forget, ISIS emerged from a chaotic Iraq. ISIS, I will repeat, emerged from a chaotic Iraq--long-term consequences, shortsighted bill. When ISIS emerged, the result was not just widespread disorder, destruction, and violence in the Middle East but the growth of a global terrorist movement that struck my home city and State of New York, Orlando, San Bernardino, as well as Paris, Brussels, and Barcelona. I agree that we absolutely need to help Iraq find alternative sources of energy besides Iran, but it is simply not true that Iran is filling its coffers with payments from Iraq. There is roughly $10 billion in Iraqi payments for Iranian electricity being held in escrow. Only very small portions of the money have been transferred to an account in Oman, into which the United States has oversight. Iran can only access that account to purchase humanitarian goods, like food or medicine. None of the funds--zero, nada--are going to nefarious purposes. Maybe we have a difference and some don't care about humanitarian causes, humanitarian aid, and things of that nature. I know my side of the aisle does. Human life, innocent human life, is very important, and it is also how we show what our values are. This bill would risk our ability to have oversight and control of the $6 billion in Iranian funds we are monitoring in Qatar, and much more. This measure would have the opposite effect of what it intends to do, leading to less control of Iranian assets. I am deeply concerned that this bill removes all flexibility from our current Iran sanctions program. The point of sanctions, again, is to bring Iran back to--as I have said over and over on the various bills we have seen today--the negotiating table. Sanctions are not an end but a means to an end. A diplomatic path, I say again, is the best path, and this measure removes the flexibility necessary for that strategic objective and the utilization of diplomacy. Let me also say a quick word about process. Yes, we need to respond to global events, and that is why I supported seven Iran-related measures on the floor just yesterday. While I disagree with some of the other bills on the floor today, at least those pieces of legislation received proper committee consideration. Yes, we do, on the Committee on Foreign Affairs, practice what I believe is some diplomacy. My friend and chairman, Michael McCaul, and I talk. We give a chance to trying to work it out first. Sometimes we do; sometimes we don't. These bills never gave us a chance to do that. This bill did not follow that process. It has not been marked up by the Committee on Foreign Affairs or, for that matter, the Committee on Financial Services or, for that matter, the Committee on Ways and Means or, for that matter, the Committee on Oversight and Accountability, even though every single one received a referral on this bill--process. Mr. Speaker, in my tenure as the former chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, now the ranking member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, this week is the first time ever that we are considering a bill under a rule that had not gone through the committee process--not only in my time as a chair or ranking member, but almost an entire 25 years that I have been on the committee. This is, I believe, a very unfortunate precedent that we are setting here. If we actually want to support--I know I do fully--our ally, Israel, what we should be doing is passing a bipartisan Senate national security aid bill that would send important funds to Israel so that they could defend themselves against Iranian aggression, as well as, of course, supporting our friends in Ukraine and Taiwan, and providing necessary humanitarian assistance. I know we have been negotiating, which is okay. We know that, and we are going to try to figure out some of the things, from what I am hearing. What we should be doing, what really is necessary right now, given the needs of our allies, is just pass a bipartisan bill. Seventy Members of the Senate in a bipartisan way passed it. It is waiting for us to vote on it. Many of us, I think at least over 300 of us, will agree that if that bill just had the light of day on the floor, because our Ukrainian friends are at a desperate end--they need assistance right now. What took place in the Middle East, the strikes against Israel, they need the money right now. Our Taiwanese friends need the money right now. The innocent individuals in Gaza, in Sudan, and around the world need the assistance right now. If today, we put that bill on the floor and let Congress do its will, it would be on the desk of the President of the United States either later this evening or first thing tomorrow, signed into law, and our allies that we claim we care for would get the aid and assistance that they need now. That is the bill we should have been debating in February. That is the bill we should have been debating in March. That is the bill we should be debating today, really, not this bill, which will have a far greater impact on innocent Iraqi civilians than any minuscule impact on Iran. Mr. Speaker, I guess you know that I oppose this legislation, and I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Khanna).

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for closing. I strongly oppose this measure, which would remove all flexibility from our Iran sanctions program and thereby strike a fatal blow to our ability to conduct nuclear diplomacy with Iran. Now, I have heard several times during the course of this debate about the failure of the JCPOA, of which at the time the IAEA had oversight, individuals were knowing what and where the nuclear material was. Most of it, as it has been said now, was moved out of the country. The fact of the matter is, if I recall correctly, General Mattis, who was initially an opponent of the JCPOA, after seeing what it was doing and how it was functioning, became a proponent of the JCPOA. He said it publicly, that it was a way through diplomacy to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say with joy that the former President pulled us out of the JCPOA. I ask: What was accomplished by pulling us out? Are we safer? Is that what it did? If we are safer by being pulled out, what are we talking about now? Are we in more danger? Does Iran now have a greater opportunity to get a nuclear weapon? Do we know where the materials are now, since it was a good thing to pull out of the JCPOA, or do we know less? Do we have more access now, since we pulled out of the JCPOA, or do we have less? Why was this thing about pulling out of the JCPOA such a great thing? I am more worried today about Iran getting a nuclear weapon than I was when we were in the JCPOA. I ask my colleagues: Were you more worried when we were in the JCPOA than you are right now? I hear that you are worried right now about where Iran is with a nuclear weapon. Back then what we were talking about was diplomacy to try to prevent them from having a nuclear weapon. Are you telling me now, because we don't know, that we should just go to war? There are choices to be made here. I think we were much better off using diplomacy, getting access to what was going on, watching them move nuclear material outside of the country, than just saying we are going to blow you up. No oversight, nothing; no contact; no one looking in; no information other than that and they are free to do whatever the heck they want to do now. They are free to do it because they no longer have to be at the negotiating table. Are we safer now or were we safer under the JCPOA? Additionally, let me say this bill would have greater consequences across the entire Middle East, particularly in Iraq, which this bill would restrict from purchasing Iranian energy. I will remind us again, let's not be shortsighted. With no energy, there is chaos in Iraq. What happened before? ISIS was created. Blackouts across Iraq would sow societal chaos in Iraq. Does that help serve our national security objectives in the region? I don't think so. If implemented, this bill would undermine the tenuous stability Iraq has worked to establish after decades of war. Are they perfect now? No. Four years is a short period of time when we are trying to do some major accomplishments here. Importantly, this measure may also cost us our ability to do what we say we want to do, to monitor and control the Iranian funds in Qatar and elsewhere. Do we want to lose control, not have oversight of that either? Then you want this bill. A smart sanctions policy has a purpose. It is not a blunt tool to wield in an effort to induce regime change. That does not work. It has never worked when it was used just to try to have regime change. Our sanctions policies must be flexible and allow for United States national security objectives to be realized through thoughtful--and I will use this word one more time--thoughtful diplomacy. A waiver is always necessary for that purpose. Our Middle East national security objectives should be about providing Israel aid as part of our national security supplemental and providing humanitarian aid to starving individuals. That is what it should be about. That is what we should be voting on. That is what we should be debating on, not just today. We should have done it months ago. It shouldn't be about cutting off Iraqis from electricity and creating chaos and the possible rise again of another terrorist group similar to ISIS that killed Americans and allies abroad. This bill should be opposed. This bill is shortsighted. This bill doesn't accomplish what we needed to do and what we need to do. Let's vote it down. Mr. Speaker, I 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, and I rise in strong support of H.R. 6603. This past weekend, Mr. Speaker, Iran launched more than 350 drones and ballistic missiles toward our ally Israel, an attack largely thwarted by the Israeli Defense Forces, alongside American, British, French, Jordanian, and other partner militaries. Nevertheless, the attack demonstrated Iran's airborne capacity and domestic drone and missile capabilities. Iran has not only launched its drones at Israel, but they have provided them to Russia for use in Putin's illegal war in Ukraine. The administration has implemented numerous export controls to prevent American materials from being sent to Iran for use in their drone program. It has been an interagency priority to help ensure our technologies do not wind up in the hands of the enemy. To that end, the Bureau of Industry and Security has imposed a foreign-direct product rule, BIS' most powerful tool, to prevent the production and proliferation of Iranian drones and missiles. The legislation before us now, the No Technology for Terror Act introduced by my colleagues, Mr. Moran and Mr. McCaul, makes permanent certain U.S. export control restrictions on American-made drones technology, and would be the first instance ever of codifying a foreign-direct product rule. During markup of this bill, the bill was improved to include exceptions to ensure it does not unintentionally prevent the sale of humanitarian goods such as food and medicine. The bill also contains a national interest waiver to provide the executive branch greater flexibility in minimizing the export control's humanitarian impact and maximizing our leverage against Iran. A waiver also provides Iran an incentive to stop its malignant conduct, cease its nuclear ambitions, and end its funding for terrorism. While it is a big deal to codify a foreign-direct product rule, Iran's conduct and the flexibility built into the legislation warrant my support and the support of all the Members of this House. So, Mr. Speaker, I thank Representatives Moran and Chairman McCaul for their good-faith efforts to make this bill a bipartisan bill, and I encourage my colleagues to join with me in supporting this measure. In closing, Mr. Speaker, Iran's weaponized drone program is a threat to our allies, Israel and Ukraine, and to United States national security. This legislation codifies the Biden administration's export control restrictions to prohibit United States-made technology and software from being transferred to Iran, preventing that technology from being used in the manufacturing of Iranian drones. I thank Representative Moran and Chairman McCaul for introducing this legislation and for working in the good-faith, bipartisan manner that we often do on this committee so that we can make this legislation as effective and flexible as it needs to be. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 6603, 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 support of H.R. 5917, the Strengthening Tools to Counter the Use of Human Shields Act, and I thank my colleagues, Representative Gallagher and Representative Sherman, for introducing this legislation. As we all know, Hamas regularly uses people as human shields, hiding behind them and thereby endangering innocent Palestinian civilians. We have seen this clearly in the months since October 7, but this behavior is not new. It is and has been the de facto policy of Hamas for many years. Hamas has operated from under, inside, and adjacent to hospitals, schools, and other civilian structures. Within civilian buildings, they have stored weapons caches and ammunition, built miles of tunnels underground, and launched attacks from behind women and children. When Israel instructed families in Gaza to flee to the south for safety, Hamas demanded people stay in Gaza City, to remain in place, saying that it was beneficial to their strategy. Hamas does not care for the Palestinian people. They never have. They never will. Hamas only means to exploit them as human shields. This behavior of hiding behind noncombatants is a clear violation of international law and has been an unconscionable contributor to the deaths of too many innocent Palestinian people. This measure, H.R. 5917, amends the Sanctioning the Use of Civilians as Defenseless Shields Act, adding additional terrorist entities, bolstering congressional oversight and reporting requirements, and extending its sunset provision. This legislation will renew and strengthen existing law, and I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Speaker, Hamas has not only shown complete disregard for the Palestinian people. It has also used them as human shields as an intentional war tactic. It is unconscionable and in clear violation of international law, contributing to the deaths of innocent noncombatants. This measure updates and extends the Sanctioning the Use of Civilians as Defenseless Shields Act by adding additional terrorist entities, bolstering congressional oversight and reporting requirements, and extending its sunset provisions. The strengthening of this existing statute is timely, important, and necessary, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 5917. 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 in strong support of H.R. 4681, and I thank my friend and colleague, Congressman French Hill, for introducing this measure. For years, the Assad regime has fueled its brutal and oppressive campaign against the Syrian people through the revenue of a drug trafficking network estimated to be worth billions of dollars. Syria remains the largest producer of captagon, a dangerous and highly addictive amphetamine popular in the Middle East, and Assad's regime, affiliates, and criminal networks have used that trade to enrich themselves and fuel their war machine. The Biden administration has taken significant steps to improve our coordination with allies and partners to interdict and disrupt the illicit network responsible for distributing captagon, but more can be done. This measure builds on previous efforts to mandate sanctions on individuals and entities responsible for captagon trafficking as well as congressional reporting mandates to inform this body on what steps the United States is taking to counter these criminal efforts. Disrupting Syria's narcotics trade is key to eliminating Assad's remaining financial lifeline, and this legislation is critical to that effort. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for closing. Under the Assad regime, Syria has turned into a narco-state, utilizing the proceeds from the illicit captagon drug network to fuel its brutal war on the Syrian people. This legislation builds on the Biden administration's efforts to coordinate with our allies and partners to dismantle the captagon trade network, mandating additional sanctions on individuals and entities responsible for captagon trafficking, and requires reporting requirements to the United States Congress on the administration's efforts. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 4681, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MEEKS

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5826, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the intent of this measure brought to the floor by my friend and colleague from South Carolina, Representative Wilson, which is to help better prevent hostile governments such as Iran from taking Americans hostage or wrongfully detaining them overseas. I believe Democrats and Republicans must work together and ensure the State Department has all the resources and authorities from Congress that it needs to bring Americans home who have been unjustly held abroad and to offer them the support they need when they return home. I understand and agree with my colleague's intent to disincentivize bad behavior by hostile actors, and to make clear to anyone who would wrongfully detain any of our citizens that it will not be tolerated. However, I am concerned that some of the messages sent in this bill risk undermining our key partners in the battle to protect American citizens. I want to make sure the State Department's Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs is given the latitude to negotiate and get the job done. I would like to offer my appreciation to the SPEHA team for the hard and difficult work it continues to undertake on behalf of the American people. We need to empower that office and the families of wrongful detainees that rely on its vital assistance and advocacy, not inadvertently burden it with extensive reporting or overly restrictive policy prescriptions. I also want to be certain we do not restrict the freedom of movement of Americans, something that is fundamental to our liberty and, specifically, the impact such a move would have on hundreds of thousands of Iranian Americans who expect our government, unlike the regime in Tehran, to respect their fundamental rights. That is why I am glad the language on the issue has been made nonbinding, and I really appreciate Representative Wilson working with us on this bill and the effort to make sure that the United States Government's approach on hostages and wrongful detention is smart and effective. We have worked together to achieve this. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I encourage my colleagues to join in supporting this measure. Again, we must do everything we can to prevent Americans from being illegally detained abroad. Mr. Speaker, again, I thank Mr. Wilson from South Carolina for introducing this bill. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 5826, 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 support of H.R. 3033. For the past 26 years, Congress and the executive branch have worked together to put pressure on Iran's energy sector to deny Iran funds for implementing its nefarious nuclear program and state-sponsored terror activities. The Iran Sanctions Act, or ISA, originally passed into law in 1996 and has been the key statutory element undergirding our sanctions infrastructure. Since 1996, Congress has built upon this legislation multiple times and has expanded the list of transactions that are considered violations of the ISA. These sanctions, combined with sanctions on Iran's financial system and petroleum transactions, and together with aggressive diplomacy, are what drove Iran to the negotiating table to finalize the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. The JCPOA effectively shut off every pathway to an Iranian nuclear weapon before it was unwisely torn down in 2018, leaving us in the dangerous position we are now in. The ISA is the only major Iran sanctions statute that contains a sunset provision. In general, sunset provisions have value. They force Congress to re-evaluate and reconsider sanctions to adjust to new situations. Therefore, we must all ask ourselves an important question: Under what circumstances can Congress envision the necessity of abandoning our sanctions infrastructure while this regime is in power? Even in the instance a new Iran deal is reached and successfully implemented, I believe we would want this sanctions infrastructure in place, just as it was under the JCPOA, so that Iran and the international community knows what awaits them if progress is not made. Furthermore, if Congress loses this sanctions infrastructure, we will be ceding even more of our authority to the executive branch of government, who will solely rely on its executive powers to implement sanctions unbound by the program developed by the United States Congress. This legislation sends an important message. It protects an important statute, and it serves the interests of the American people. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure, 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. 3033 reinforces our existing sanctions infrastructure, eliminating the sunset provision of the original Iran Sanctions Act of 1996. Although I believe that sunset clauses are important, previous provisions in U.S. sanctions-related legislation compelling Congress to reassess sanctions, the ISA is the only major Iran-related sanctions statute with a sunset clause. Even if the United States does manage to negotiate a new Iran deal to end Tehran's nuclear weapons program, the ISA is an important deterrent and reminder to Iran what awaits should they rescind the deal. Additionally, losing the ISA at any point would only further cede more power to the executive branch of government with its executive powers to implement sanctions. Therefore, I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 3033, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MEEKS

Mr. MEEKS. Madam Speaker, the United States designated the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or the IRGC, as a foreign terrorist organization, an FTO, in April 2019 because of its record of terrorism, violation of the laws of armed conflict, assassination attempts, and significant support for regional terrorist groups. Our designation has helped limit the IRGC's ability to access the United States' markets. Unfortunately, EU markets, absent a similar terror designation, remain viable sources of IRGC income. The IRGC clearly represents a threat to both American and European security. We must join forces to limit the IRGC's access to capital. It is long past time for the EU to act, as a combination of U.S. and EU designations would have a major impact and will help save lives. This resolution calls on the EU to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps of Iran as an addition to the EU terror list. Amidst IRGC's ongoing support of Russian war crimes in Ukraine, EU's reluctance risks emboldening the Iranian Government's goal of sowing terror and chaos in the West. The IRGC clearly presents a threat to the EU and our collective security. It is long past time to cut off its resources and hold Iran accountable. Working together, we can contain and diminish Iranian terrorism and make the world safer for Americans and Europeans alike. Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MEEKS. Madam Speaker, once again, it is overdue for the EU to designate the IRGC as a terrorist entity. They are nothing but that. By shutting the IRGC out of both the American and European markets, we will be starving them of important resources of funding they rely on to conduct their terrorist and other destabilizing activities. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Res. 288, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MEEKS

Mr. MEEKS. Madam Speaker, the 10-word slogan ``from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free'' means different things to different people. For many well-meaning supporters of the Palestinian cause, it is a slogan calling for future Palestinian statehood and Palestinian dignity. I agree with those goals, and that is why I support a two- state solution. To others, particularly to Israelis and Jews in the diaspora, the phrase is a threat, symbolizing the destruction of the Jewish people and the Jewish State of Israel, and I acutely understand that concern as well. However, a basic truth is evident. If you consider the geographic area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea to be exclusively Palestine, you are taking the Jewish State of Israel off the map. As clearly demonstrated by pro-Palestinian protesters following the horrific events of October 7, far too many people who boldly chant this phrase do not want Israel to exist. I know this because when asked, that is how they answer. As someone steeped in America's civil rights movement, I clearly understand the First Amendment and the right of free speech. I support peaceful protest. I support what my dear friend and former colleague John Lewis taught us about good trouble. It is okay for supporters of the Palestinian cause or the Israeli cause to cause some good trouble. When good trouble turns into calls for violence or, in this case, wiping the State of Israel off the map, the rhetoric has gone too far. It becomes dangerous, and it can cause people harm. That is why I support this nonbinding resolution critical of that phrase. Let me be clear: There is absolutely nothing anti-Semitic about advocating for an independent Palestinian state. However, calling for the elimination of the Jewish state, praising Hamas who strives for Israel's destruction, or suggesting that the Jews alone do not have the right to self-determination is anti-Semitic. I am a strong supporter of a two-state solution, which will result in the area between the river and the sea being the home to a Jewish State of Israel and an independent and prosperous Palestine. That is what we should be chanting for and what I will never give up hope for, a peaceful Middle East, two states side by side. When I talked to some citizens of Israel right after intifada, all they said is they wanted to live in peace with their neighbors. When I talked to some young Palestinians in the West Bank, all they said they wanted was to live in peace with their Israeli neighbors. That is what we should be striving for. While I am not really happy that we have to consider this resolution that I do believe, unfortunately, was brought here by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in an attempt to divide this House, I also know the danger of the phrase in question. That is why the resolution actually has my begrudging support. In this institution, at times you have got to do what you think is the best thing to do, the right thing to do, and that is why I support this resolution, and I encourage my colleagues to join in doing the same. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Speaker, as I stated during this debate, I am a strong supporter of a two-state solution, which will result in the area between the river and the sea being the home to a Jewish State of Israel and an independent and prosperous Palestine. This is what we should all be chanting for. This is what we should all be hoping for. This should be what we all are working for. It is in the best interests of the Palestinian people, the Jewish State of Israel, and the United States of America. Let's end hate. Let's end anti-Semitism. Let's bring people together. That should be what we are all looking for. Let's not put forth things that hurt and divide. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Res. 883, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MEEKS

Mr. MEEKS. Madam Chair, at this time, I am pleased to offer this bipartisan amendment with my friend from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner) along with the support of my colleagues Mr. Scott and Mr. Nickel. This amendment would provide opportunities for enhanced exposure to private funds through closed-end funds, investment vehicles with comprehensive protections under the 1940 Investment Company Act. These rules include the mandatory requirement that the fund be managed by an investment adviser who is required to conduct due diligence on a fund's investments, answer to independent directors, and adhere to extensive disclosure and reporting requirements. This amendment also makes clear that investors should be given access to the growth opportunities provided in the private markets so long as they have proper disclosures and risk mitigation. I am happy to sponsor this bipartisan amendment primarily because it also broadens opportunities and increases access for people who have been left out in the past while ensuring that robust rules of the road are followed.

Mr. MEEKS

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong support of my bill, H.R. 5375, Strengthening the Quad Act, as amended. Mr. Speaker, in talking about the importance of this very bill, just a few minutes ago before coming to the floor, I had a meeting with the Ambassador of Japan, Ambassador Yamada, who talked about the significance and the importance of inter-parliamentary conversation. We talked about how today freedom and democracy around the world are under threat. According to the organization Freedom House, the world has experienced 17 consecutive years of decline in global freedom as a result of war, coup d'etats, attacks on democratic institutions, and the rise of authoritarianism. To stem this illiberal tide, America must lead with our values and harness diplomacy like never before. This is especially important in the Indo-Pacific region where America's presence, engagement, and alliance system have maintained peace and stability for decades. In fact, the Ambassador also talked about how much he appreciated America being in the region and staying there and working collectively together. Today, China's growing global influence and authoritarian model is serving to undermine freedom in the Indo-Pacific and beyond. We need to work with fellow democracies in the region to showcase the heft of open markets and open societies. We need to demonstrate to the region that democracies can deliver real results. Consecutive U.S. administrations have utilized the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue with Japan, Australia, and India to enhance our diplomatic and development efforts in the Indo-Pacific. The Trump administration restarted the Quad, and President Biden elevated it to the leaders' level, supercharging Quad diplomacy. Today, there is a strong bipartisan consensus--I worked very closely with my colleagues on the other side, especially Chairman McCaul--that the Quad is integral for a free and open Indo-Pacific. To ensure the Quad's success and its longevity, we need a clear, long-term plan, as well as political and institutional support in all four capitals. This is why H.R. 5375 calls on the State Department to develop a Quad strategy that focuses on building democratic coordination in the region for the long term. The strategy and report to Congress will allow successive administrations to chart forward-looking objectives and partner with Congress to best meet them. The bill also establishes a Quad Inter-Parliamentary Working Group to facilitate engagement and cooperation among the legislatures of the four democracies. Inter-parliamentary engagement will facilitate legislative input and strengthen oversight to enhance the Quad's effectiveness. It will also help to sustain political support and adequate resources for the Quad in all four countries. Plain and simple, Mr. Speaker: The world has shrunk, and working collectively together, the four countries, sharing the values that we have here in the United States for the long term is better for the security of all of us, and I believe it will make the place that we call the planet Earth a better place, a safer place, for all. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to join in supporting this measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume for the purpose of closing. With growing instability in the Indo-Pacific and freedom under threat globally, the Quad is more important than ever for upholding regional rules and helping maintain stability. Regional rules, high values, and standards--that is what this is all about. That is why I am thankful that we are able to work in a bipartisan manner, collectively together, speaking with one voice in the region and with our Quad partners. I thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I am also thankful to President Biden for elevating the Quad to the leaders' level. In less than 3 years, President Biden has held five Quad leaders summits with the leaders of Japan, Australia, and India. In the past 3 years, the Quad has initiated cooperation in a whole host of new areas, from infrastructure development and critical and emerging technologies to maritime issues and climate change. My bill, H.R. 5375, will ensure the Quad is effective and sustainable, not just for today, not just for tomorrow, but for the long term. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MEEKS

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this year's NDAA. I am pleased that we were able to work in a bipartisan fashion to finalize the Senate's State Department Authorization bill for inclusion in this year's NDAA. In late 2021, during my chairmanship of the Foreign Affairs Committee, we shepherded--through the House, into a conferenced NDAA, and ultimately onto the President's desk--the first comprehensive State Department Authorization bill to become law in nearly 20 years. The passage of this year's bill will make three in a row. The bill includes many important provisions--including to: stand up a fellowship program in honor of our late colleague John Lewis and a transatlantic leadership institute; authorize support and economic diplomacy to public diplomacy and beyond. The NDAA also includes important provisions related to the implementation of the AUKUS trilateral security partnership. By leveraging the shared capabilities of the U.S., Australia, and the U.K., the United States and its allies can shape a free and open Indo- Pacific for years to come. The Foreign Affairs Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee painstakingly and carefully negotiated the AUKUS compromise text included in this NDAA. The compromise text includes support for the families of Americans wrongfully detained around the globe, and ensures that State Department personnel have the flexibilities and authorities they need to succeed in their work--from cyber helps advance this critical agreement and includes both Pillar 1 legislation to support the transfer of Virginia-class submarines to Australia, and shared financial and training efforts. It also includes bipartisan legislation supporting Pillar 2 of AUKUS, which provides a sound way forward for ensuring cutting-edge defense technology cooperation can advance while maintaining critical safeguards and regulations. This year's NDAA was not perfect. I am disappointed outbound investment regulations were not included, and I support moving the McCaul-Meeks bipartisan bill to the floor immediately to address this crucial issue. Nonetheless, the NDAA is once again the product of a serious bipartisan work accomplished during conference, so I support the legislation and urge all my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. MEEKS

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted YEA on rollcall No. 707, Bill Number H.R. 3224; NAY on rollcall No. 708, Bill Number H.R. 5378; and YEA on rollcall No. 709, Bill Number H.R. 6503.

Mr. MEEKS

Mr. MEEKS. Madam Speaker, I want to start by making clear that congressional support for Ukraine remains broad and bipartisan. We know, from previous votes on the floor amendments and the standalone bill on Ukraine funding, that assistance to Ukraine has overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress. While I am especially proud of the work the United States has done and President Biden has done to build a global coalition in support of Ukraine, Congress' inability to pass a Ukraine supplemental is sending a dangerous message to the world that America cannot be relied upon as a partner. The question for the Speaker now is: When will the House be allowed a vote to continue to support Ukraine? In these times of crisis, leadership matters. Those of us who continue to stand against Vladimir Putin's aggression, who continue to stand with the brave Ukrainians fighting on the front lines defending their democracy and their people, history will judge us favorably. How will history judge those who have cynically chosen to use aid to Ukraine as a wedge issue, to play partisan politics with assistance meant to support Ukraine's fight against Russia's aggression? This is a critical moment for Ukraine and for this body. The administration's top national security officials have made clear that continued support is essential for Ukraine as it continues its fight. We know the consequences if we cannot agree to additional funding for the arms they need to win, to the economic and development assistance that has been critical to Ukraine's livelihood. All of this will be impacted. I think it is also important we are all working from the same set of facts. In particular, I continue to hear from some of my colleagues who oppose Ukraine funding as they propagate misinformation regarding the management of our assistance. The administration has instituted robust monitoring for all of the assistance we provide to Ukraine. The State Department, the Defense Department, and our Ukrainian partners are all ensuring this assistance is carefully tracked and accounted for. This misinformation both undermines Ukraine's courageous efforts while benefiting one person, Vladimir Putin. The world is watching, and what we say in this body and what we are able to pass has consequences. Our allies, including Finland and Sweden, where I recently visited, are proudly joining NATO. They are doing their part. The EU and partners across the globe are increasing commitments to help Ukraine. What signal does it send if the United States of America, the country that has led this coalition, is the first to step back? It is not only friends who are watching. Our foes are as well. Putin wants us to get tired, to get distracted. The Kremlin is active in supporting anti-Ukraine candidates of any political stripe, and China is strategically hedging its bets. The only person who thought this would be a small, victorious war and a quick war was Vladimir Putin. There is no simple, predictable end. As long as Ukraine continues to push back Russia's brutal, unprovoked assault, our commitment to Ukraine should stand. If the large bipartisan majority in this House that I know believes in standing there and believes in this commitment, if we stay united with all of our allies, we will prevail.

Mr. MEEKS

Mr. MEEKS. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me first start off by saying the President of the United States did the right thing. It is easy to say why we should vote against this bill. My good friend, the chairman, has talked about October 7 over and over. Our committee has had several family members come before our committee where we have vowed to do everything we can to get their family members back home. For me, it has been very personal. Yesterday, we talked to a group of family members. We told them we will not stop until we get their family members back home. Negotiating to bring our hostages home is hard because you have to do it with bad people. Guess what? Hamas committed the heinous acts on October 7, but who are we negotiating with to get the hostages home? Hamas. It is not easy, but we vowed in front of these witnesses. I wonder what we would say to those five individuals and families, who are now safe at home, before they were released? Would we have promised them and didn't we promise them we would do everything we could to get them back home? Yes, President Biden did the right thing. He brought five Americans home who were rotting in Iran's notorious Evan prison. Every Member of Congress--I repeat, every Member of this Congress who was aware of these cases wanted our fellow citizens to come home. Now, they are saying they should not have come home. This was done, wanting them to come home, with a bipartisan voice. President Biden thus succeeded in doing what his predecessors could not. He got them home. Iran, of course, as is Hamas, is a murderous and corrupt regime. They are not pleasant, and this isn't easy. Thanks to this agreement, five American families are now whole again, and Iran has lost the leverage of holding these American hostages. Now, H.R. 5961 would sanction parties that carry out the financial terms of the hostage agreement in question. These include three European commercial banks and the Central Bank of Qatar, who, by the way, has been very instrumental in working with us to get hostages home that were taken on October 7, but let's really talk about the facts. Yes, I have been in classified sessions and nonclassified sessions and have heard it, as all of us have. Let's talk about the facts. Billions of Iran's own profits from oil sales were sitting in a restricted account in South Korea. It was done by the prior administration. It was established by the Trump administration for Iran to make approved humanitarian purchases. This wasn't done by the Biden administration. It was sitting in South Korea, by the Trump administration, for humanitarian purchases. The United States had no control over that account while it was sitting there. The agreement moved that $6 billion from the restricted account in South Korea, converted it to euros, and relocated it into the restricted account in Qatar, which now the United States has visibility over--not a single penny--facts, not conjecture, facts. I don't think anyone can refute the fact that not a single penny has moved into Iran. Not one. Not a penny, much less a dime. Not a penny has moved into Iran. Under the terms of the agreement, Iran can use the money in Qatar to make approved humanitarian purchases to acquire medicine, medical equipment, agricultural goods, and food. Iran's government physically will never touch this money. The entirety of the transaction occurs outside of Iran, and Iran only receives the vetted humanitarian goods. By the way, that is consistent with our values, and that is why we, in all of this, are talking about humanitarian concerns for people who are just victimized by bad people. Thus far, Iran has not made any requests of the humanitarian fund, and nothing has been gained by Iran. All of the money remains in the account, an account that the United States can watch. We have leverage over that account due to our relationship with the correspondent banks in Europe that would help process any transactions. In other words, we know we now have more control over this money than we did when it was sitting in South Korea. In fact, this account provides us with leverage, not the other way around. Furthermore, following the horrific attacks in Israel on October 7, the United States and Qatar froze the humanitarian fund, so it is frozen now in Qatar. No humanitarian purchases will be approved any time soon. Again, nothing has changed. The money remains in the account and we continue to have leverage. Nothing has changed from when the money was sitting in South Korea. The only thing that has changed is five American citizens are no longer sitting in an Iranian prison. They are back home with their families. Madam Chair, if H.R. 5961 is passed into law, that leverage will be gone. It will disappear. We will also lose our ability to conduct diplomacy with Iran and others in the future. If we blow up this agreement by passing this bill, we, the United States, will be the ones breaking yet another sensitive negotiated agreement. Our word and integrity will no longer be good in negotiations, whether it is with Iran or any other parties. The United States must continue to address--and here is where I think we agree--no one is saying that the United States needs to continue to address Iran's backing of groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. The Iranian-supported Hamas terrorists unleashed pure evil when they broke a cease-fire in the attacks on October 7. The population of Gaza would not be engulfed in war right now if it were not for Hamas. But we must also remain sober and serious about the challenge of Iran's nefarious nuclear program. None of the bad options we possess to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions are better than the diplomatic track, which has already proven successful. It was the United States who actually violated the JCPOA, not Iran. Pulling out of this hostage agreement will be the second time we violate an agreement with Iran's leaders. Passage of this bill would mean potentially slamming the door closed on future diplomacy, leaving us only with dangerous and highly risky options of confronting Iran's nuclear program. We all agree, Iran must not ever have a nuclear weapon, but guess what, since we pulled out of JCPOA, they are closer to getting a nuclear weapon than had we been in there. Madam Chair, the prisoner swap confirms to the Iranian regime that the United States is a reliable negotiating partner, just as we see taking place right now. As we bring the hostages home from Gaza, they have to deal with Hamas. Both sides have to keep their word. We have warned Israel, who is a strong, diplomatic, honest country moving forward, fighting for its existence but have to deal with Hamas. They made an agreement, and they are living by that agreement. Hostages are coming home, and we want that to continue for each and every one of them. They are not just simply being released, Israel is giving something back in return. In our case, Iran is actually not getting anything because they are not getting a dime to be utilized for their nefarious purposes. Madam Chair, let me conclude with this: The agreement has freed five Americans--I repeat, five American citizens--who were suffering in an Iranian prison, who we all, in a bipartisan way, said we would do anything to get them home. We wanted them to be home. It shifted Iran's own money from an account in Korea that we did not control, to one where we play a role and have control that we didn't in South Korea. Not a single penny has left the account. I don't think anybody can refute that. Not a single penny has left the account. Not a single penny has entered Iran. Not a single U.S. taxpayer dollar has been involved. This fund remains frozen indefinitely by the United States in Qatar, which has been working closely with us and Israel. There is no reason to jeopardize future negotiations or further inflame an already dangerous situation by passing this bill. The fact of the matter is, I don't see why we would want to pass this bill. We know that diplomacy is the first thing we need to move forward in bringing our people home. Lastly, let me just say this because I want to be absolutely clear: I don't want Iran's leaders to benefit from our actions in any shape, fashion, or form. This hostage agreement that stands today, they have not benefited from it and will not benefit from it. Unfortunately, this legislation will shoot American global credibility in the foot without even touching Iranian regime leaders. We encourage this House not to rush into passing this bill. Let's keep the door open for diplomacy. This stands as an example with Iran and others because we have adversaries, but you always have to deal with those adversaries and negotiate and talk to try to figure out how we can live in a better place. Let's think ahead. Let's not play checkers. Let's play chess. That is what this is all about. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MEEKS. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just say that I keep hearing this demonstrates weakness. The Biden administration demonstrated strength in being willing to stand with your enemies and negotiate. I can recall, for me, even in our own country, what I learned to live by. Many folks were thinking that when Dr. King was moving forward with nonviolence, he was demonstrating weakness and that we should go back and fight. He demonstrated strength. Sometimes when dealing and negotiating, that is where strength comes from, and if you just go out swinging, you demonstrate weakness. What Joe Biden has done was kept his word, number one. He said that he would bring, whenever he could, American hostages home. This body has said to American families that we would do everything and anything to bring their families home. We should keep our word. President Biden kept his word to those five American hostages, and the United States House of Representatives should keep its word and not challenge the agreement that the President made to return those five American hostages. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MEEKS. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again, I haven't heard a reply. Not one penny has gone to Iran. If I am wrong, then someone tell me. Not one cent. The money is frozen in Qatar. Not one penny. None of this could have been used by Hamas, Iran, or anyone for October 7. They didn't have a dime. The money was there already, put there for humanitarian purposes by the Trump administration. It was in South Korea, but we didn't have any control over it. I didn't hear anybody talk about that when the Trump administration was there, that he should not have sent the money to South Korea. This should not be something that we are playing politics on. The money shifted from South Korea and was changed into euros and sent to Qatar, where we have now more visibility than ever. Not a dime is going to Iran. We have five American hostages home, and then we are going to question the deal. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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