Gregory Meeks

Mr. MEEKS

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an incredible woman by the name of Emma Kenner. Emma Kenner is a child of God, and she gives thanks and praises to our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Emma was a Queens native hailing from Jamacia, New York. An inspirational and dedicated 103-year-old constituent who has had a major impact on the district. She has spent decades serving the communities of Southeast Queens as a shining example to future community leaders. Emma has a lengthy resume with accomplishments across a plethora of fields. She spent many years working at the New York State Department of Mental Hygiene, served as a coordinator of the New York Board of Elections, and was the former president of the 113th Police Precinct Council. She has also played a major role in New York's political field by volunteering at many local elected official's offices such as Senator Comrie, Floyd Flake, Archie Spigner, and my very own. A woman undoubtedly devoted to public service and the advancement of our communities. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Emma Kenner for her dedication to politics, her city, and her community.

Mr. MEEKS

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Michigan.

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

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the great State of Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).

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

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in the 117th Congress, when I became the chair of Foreign Affairs Committee, my first stop was in Israel celebrating the Fourth of July. I said then what I will say now: Israel and the United States stand together because we have and share the same values. We believe in democracy. We know that Israel is a nation that at its foundation is not only Jewish but democratic. Its existence is crucial for the future of the Jewish people. We know that this Congress will continue to expressly reject all forms of anti- Semitism and xenophobia as this resolution before us states. We stand together, and I would hope that all Members of this august body welcome President Herzog tomorrow as we listen and continue to work with our strongest ally in the Middle East. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, we welcome Israel's President Herzog to the United States of America. For my entire career of 25 years in the House, and in recent weeks, I have stood on this floor and spoken on the importance of the State of Israel. The need for Israel to remain both Jewish and democratic is without question. Mr. Speaker, Israel cannot remain both Jewish and democratic unless we have peace and if it does not live side by side in peace with the Palestinian people. Both sides have to want peace. That is why I stand strongly behind a two-state solution for Israelis and Palestinians. As the resolution before us states, Israel is not a racist state. I concur. As the resolution before us states, Congress rejects all forms of anti-Semitism and xenophobia. I concur. Finally, as the resolution before us states, the United States will always be a staunch partner and supporter of Israel. I concur. I look forward to hearing the address of Israel's President Herzog tomorrow. The President is a rare symbol of unity in a polarized society and a true asset to Israel. He has been working diligently to bring all parties in Israel together to find consensus on judicial reform, something that is necessary to preserve Israel's democratic character, in my view. I encourage him to keep up this important work and wish him much success. Without question, the Democratic Party, my Democratic Party, supports the long-term viability of the Jewish state and knows its true character and importance. In fact, I, along with Leader Jeffries and others, was in Israel recently to celebrate the 75th anniversary of the Jewish state and was moved by the events we witnessed. Mr. Speaker, I support wholeheartedly and encourage all of my friends on both sides of the aisle to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Manning).

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

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

Mr. MEEKS

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for the purpose of closing. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to be long, but I am sitting here scratching my head trying to figure out what the gentlewoman from Colorado is talking about. This is not money that is taxpayer money that is appropriated by the people. I don't understand. This is money that these criminals, people who commit acts of terror, have. It is money that happens to be in some of our financial institutions that we know about. So we freeze it. They are sanctioned so that they can't get the money to continue the harm and damage to people. She talks about children. Many of them, these individuals, were having child soldiers. They were putting children's lives at risk in war. I don't understand the rationality. We should sanction ISIS. We should sanction Viktor Bout. Mr. Speaker, I can't believe that any Member of this august body will vote for this resolution. Every Member should vote against this, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 68. For the next several hours on the House floor, we will not be discussing how to raise wages for the middle class, debating how to create a regulatory framework for next-generation artificial intelligence technology, or strategizing about competing with China in the 21st century. Instead, we will be debating a handful of resolutions that will provide immediate sanctions relief for human rights violators, illicit arms dealers, and terrorists with American blood on their hands. I am not being hyperbolic, and I am not exaggerating. The resolutions before us terminate emergencies that were declared for the express purpose of sanctioning war criminals. Given that we have several similar resolutions on the floor, it is worth providing background on how the sanctions process works. In 1976, Congress passed the National Emergencies Act. This act formalized how the President can declare a normal emergency, enumerated certain powers the President can use during such an emergency, and gave Congress the ability to terminate an emergency via resolution like the one we have before us today. A year later, Congress built on this framework with the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, often referred to as IEEPA, which further elucidated what actions the President may take to regulate international commerce in such an emergency. IEEPA is the foundation of the modern American sanctions regime. The benefits of IEEPA are very clear. They allow the President to move quickly to impose sanctions. Though, of course, some time is needed to jump through appropriate and necessary due process hurdles, the President is able to impose sanctions without a particular congressional mandate. It is my view, likely shared by the sponsor and hopefully many Members of this body, that the power over sanctions has moved too much to the executive branch and too far from Congress. Too often, congressionally mandated sanctions are slow-rolled or minimized while the executive presses on with its preferred targets. I do not want to diminish the seriousness and the impressive work professionals at the State Department, the Treasury Department, and the National Security Council do on sanctions. They take the work very seriously and apply thoughtful policies with an attentional detail, executing their actions in a careful manner. Members of Congress should not blithely substitute their judgment about existing national emergencies without conducting a thorough review of the evidence, obtaining extensive briefings from the executive branch, and gaining a firm understanding of the consequences of a termination. Moreover, each national emergency is reviewed at least annually. The Bush administration, the Obama administration, the Trump administration, and now the Biden administration all renewed the national emergency this resolution seeks to terminate. Many national emergencies have been terminated. For instance, President George H.W. Bush terminated the South Africa program after apartheid ended. President Biden terminated the Burundi program not less than 2 years ago. Let's take a quick look at some of the individuals currently sanctioned under the DRC program. One is Viktor Bout. For decades, Bout flooded the DRC with illegal weapons. He has bragged about his many contacts in financial institutions who have helped him evade sanctions, and Bout likely has significant assets that can easily be unfrozen. If this body votes to terminate the executive order that imposes sanctions on Bout, he stands to gain a windfall of cash within mere minutes. The DRC program currently places sanctions on ISIS-Congo. That is right, the foreign terrorist organization ISIS. If Congress votes to pass this resolution, ISIS can set up a brokerage account, trade stocks, transfer funds, or keep money in a checking account in the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, in my humble opinion, ISIS-Congo should not be permitted to do any of the above, and neither should the numerous war criminals currently covered under the Congo emergency. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose H.J. Res. 68, and I implore all of my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Speaker, I 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 opposition to H.J. Res. 70. For decades, Muammar Qadhafi ruled Libya with an iron fist and with a corrupt, self-serving economic policy that stunted Libya's development and, through a security state, engaged in international terrorism, including the Lockerbie airline bombing that remains the deadliest event in aviation history. For the past 12 years, Libya has seen its share of continuous turmoil and chaos. To the extent this resolution is a symptom of frustration about ongoing problems in Libya, that would be understandable. Any notion that this resolution will be at all useful for Libya policy is deeply misguided. The United States actively supports the U.N.'s efforts to unify the country and its institutions under a democratically elected government. These talks are ongoing, and violence has decreased over the last several years. The economy is doing better in part because U.S. sanctions have helped decrease oil banditry. Lifting sanctions on the worst actors in Libya, the individuals who have perpetuated violence and instability, would send the exact wrong message to those pursuing economic reform. Whereas economic pressure and tough diplomacy have brought parties to the table, a free pass on sanctions would have the exact opposite impact. In general, there have been two large batches of sanctions under the Libya executive order. The Obama administration issued the first tranche against the Qadhafi family and its fiefdom of business and fake charities. The Trump administration issued the second set that sanctioned individuals who committed grave human rights abuses and prevented the theft of Libyan oil by pirates and illegal merchants. It is unclear to me how letting any of these people access American finance would be beneficial to the United States or to Libya or to the MENA region. One of the most notable people currently sanctioned under the program is Qadhafi's son, Saif al-Islam Qadhafi. When the protests began, Saif al-Islam went on television and threatened ``rivers of blood'' if the protestors did not cease. He has never condemned his father. He has never condemned his father's despotic rule and is actively seeking to regain power in Libya as we speak. The Qadhafi family controlled billions of dollars in assets. If sanctions are lifted on the remaining members of the Qadhafi family, the Qadhafis would have access to a windfall of wealth, which they plundered from the Libyan people. Instead of the frozen funds going to the Libyan people, they would go to the family that imprisoned and impoverished them. I cannot support anything like that outcome, Mr. Speaker. I must strongly oppose and hope all of the Members of this House opposes H.J. Res. 70. Mr. Speaker, 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. Mr. Speaker, I will be brief because, unfortunately, when we are in this august body, the world is looking at us. As I was scratching my head on the first resolution, I continue to do that. Judgments I use in making determinations is: Is this good for America? The question is, does this resolution promote America's national security? The answer to that is no. Does this resolution support America's economic interests? The answer to that is no. Would this resolution undermine America's standing in Libya? The answer to that is absolutely yes. Would this resolution undermine our standing in the region? The answer to that would be absolutely yes. Mr. Speaker, there is no need for me to continue to stand to debate this. I strongly oppose, and I believe overwhelmingly the Members of this Congress oppose this resolution, and we should vote it down. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MEEKS

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support Ukraine and agree with the President's decision to send the Ukrainians cluster munitions to defend their sovereignty. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 317.

Mr. MEEKS

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chair, what NATO has done when they have seen the taking of property from a sovereign country is stick together. The one thing that Mr. Putin did think would happen was that we would be divided. That has not happened, and NATO has been stronger because they see the inhumanity and the criminal activity that is now taking place by Vladimir Putin. One voice, standing together, to stop that. While it is the Ukrainian people who are fighting, it is the allies in NATO who are giving the ammunition that is necessary to win. But for that, this war would have been over in 2 weeks or less. It is that unity that has continued until Ukraine will win this fight. We must stand together, not giving any weakness of disunity.

Mr. MEEKS. As I said, we should not look to reignite some of the disunity and disruption that America First or America only promoted. We don't need to call out in an amendment our strongest of allies. This amendment calls out and criticizes and denounces Canada, Italy, the Netherlands, Germany, Spain, Denmark, France, and many others in the middle of war. I surely would not want to be fighting a war in a bunker saying we are allies and then someone is denouncing me. That is not the way allies stick together and fight an unjust war that is currently taking place in Ukraine where you have Russia taking land from a sovereign country.

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chairman, this week, NATO leaders held a summit in Lithuania to discuss, address, and prepare for the alliance's future. It was done with the United States at the table, leading the efforts to galvanize ambitions in the face of multiple threats, most notably those related to Russia's unjust and tragic war against Ukraine. In Lithuania, allies agreed to continue to ramp up support for Ukraine and use the 2 percent of GDP amount as a floor. Some of our strongest allies in the alliance are set to move even beyond that threshold in the coming years. We have not seen NATO stronger, NATO working closer together, NATO speaking together. Now, I know that the former President thought that NATO had outlived its usefulness and that we should not be a part of it. This amendment would lend itself to that type of mentality. We know that the strength of NATO is its unity. We know that what Mr. Putin was after was to divide NATO. We don't need to utilize any language or have any language that would accelerate that thought. What we need to do is to make sure that we continue with the spirit of what took place at the NATO summit. The language of this amendment seeks to create disunity at a time when NATO's unity is being actively tested by Vladimir Putin. So, no, we should not agree to denounce our allies in the NDAA, as this amendment does. We should not look to reignite some of the disunity and disruption that previous America First policies promoted.

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. This is a poorly conceived and ill-intentioned attempt to kill the United States' support for the Defence Innovation Accelerator of the North Atlantic program, otherwise known as DIANA, which is a cooperative NATO effort to outsmart and out-innovate our adversaries. The DIANA program was set up by NATO as an effort to spur increased defense research and development funding to rapidly adapt to a new era of strategic competition by bringing key defensive experts together with the NATO alliances, leading entrepreneurs, and academic researchers. The DIANA initiative is specifically designed to leverage breaking developments and critical advances and next-generation defense capabilities such as artificial intelligence, quantum computing, hypersonics, space domain, as well as advanced materials and manufacturing sciences for the benefit of all NATO allies. With U.S. adversaries such as Russia in its brutal, unprovoked war of aggression in Ukraine and our global competition with China where China in its efforts to outpace the United States in technological superiority and undermine international norms and freedoms continue their malign efforts, it is more important than ever that we work closely with our NATO allies to out-innovate and out-compete at the leading edge of defense technology. Eliminating funding from the DIANA program is precisely the opposite of what we should be doing--the opposite. We should be working together with our NATO allies in a collective way. Therefore, I encourage all Members to oppose this amendment.

Mr. MEEKS

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague, Representative Torres, for working with Representative Lawler to introduce this very important piece of legislation that would create a senior-level special envoy dedicated to enhancing and expanding the important Abraham Accords. Mr. Speaker, I have spoken in the past about my support for the accords, which I believe have the potential to transform the security, diplomatic, and economic environment in the Middle East for peace and to advance United States' interests. These agreements are already showing promise and deserve the attention of this Congress. I believe it is advantageous to the State Department to have an official in place focused on managing and implementing regional strategy for peace and encouraging cooperation between and among Israel, Arab states, and the Palestinians to enhance such prospects for a true peace and create tangible benefits for all. As Mr. McCaul said, starting with the UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco with the Abraham Accords, we need to grow and have more nations involved, saying this time that we know that Israel has the right to exist and will exist, and we are going to look and work together for peace in the Middle East. That is why adding a special envoy dedicated to working on and having and stimulating conversation among the other nations in the Gulf region with Israel is tremendously important. This is something that I am proud to support, and I hope my colleagues in the House join me. Mr. Speaker, I know that the Biden administration has taken implementation and expansion of the Abraham Accords seriously. I know that the President has dedicated several government agencies to their success. I believe that this high-level special envoy will be another asset to the State Department and help them coordinate and streamline implementation of the accords. It is something that we should focus on because success means peace in the Middle East, and peace is good for all of us on this planet. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Torres), a friend.

Mr. MEEKS

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for the purpose of closing. Mr. Speaker, for far too long, Paul Whelan has suffered at the hands of the regime in the Kremlin. For far too long, he has been forced to endure the horrific conditions in a Russian labor camp, wondering when he will finally be able to see his family again. For far too long, he has been left to wonder whether he has been forgotten by the government that the Kremlin is using him to extort. By passing this legislation and taking other important steps to support Paul, to support Evan, and other Americans wrongfully detained overseas, we can speak with one voice, a single voice, that the United States Government will not rest until he and others like him are finally brought home to their families. One voice, that is what we will do today. I know that my colleagues will join me in support of this very important resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 272, calling on the Government of the Russian Federation to immediately release United States citizen Paul Whelan. I thank Representative Haley Stevens for her continued work and tireless advocacy for her constituent, Paul Whelan, and other Americans wrongfully detained overseas. As I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to speak on this measure, I regret just how familiar it feels. For the third time, we are considering this resolution on the floor of the House of Representatives calling for Paul's release and expressing solidarity with him and other Americans wrongfully detained abroad. Russian authorities wrongfully detained Paul Whelan, an American marine veteran, more than 1,600 days ago on baseless charges for which no evidence was ever provided and subjected him to a sham, secretive trial. For more than 4 years, Mr. Speaker, Paul has endured persecution, denials of his lawful rights, and the withholding of critical medical treatment while the Kremlin seeks to use him as a pawn for political gain. For more than 4 years, Mr. Speaker, Paul's family has had to suffer this injustice, demanding his release, and pleading with us, the United States Government, to do everything in our power to bring him home. Like Evan Gershkovich whose resolution we are also considering on the floor today, Paul's only crime is being an American. Tragically, only the Kremlin can release him from this detention and the suffering it has caused Paul and his family, but we in the United States Congress and the United States House of Representatives are not powerless to make a difference and support the administration's effort to bring Paul and others like him home. This resolution today is one step that we can take to demand that the Russian Government forego the horrific practice of using the lives and freedoms of American citizens as political bargaining chips, demanding Paul's release, and raising his and other cases at every available opportunity. Mr. Speaker, we must pass this resolution calling for the release of Paul Whelan for the third straight Congress and continue to advocate forcefully and unequivocally for his release. We must continue to call out Russia for its illegal and reprehensible hostage taking and warn Americans about the dangers of traveling to Putin's lawless fiefdom. In last year's NDAA, we boasted notification and transparency at the State Department pertaining to wrongfully detained and added crucial new whistleblower rewards provisions that would deter further hostage taking and help bring imprisoned Americans home to their families where they belong. Mr. Speaker, we must continue to do everything we can and bring Paul to his family here at home in the United States of America. I strongly support this measure, Mr. Speaker, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Again, I thank Representative Stevens for introducing this resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stevens), who has been fighting for Paul Whelan's release.