Gregory Meeks

Mr. MEEKS

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise today to honor the life and legacy of St. John's University's Hall of Fame Head Coach Lou Carnesecca, who passed away on November 30, 2024, at the age of 99. Born to Alfred and Adele Carnesecca in 1925, Lou was raised with strong principles that would set the foundation for his legacy. After graduating from St. Ann's Academy--now known as Archbishop Molloy High School, Lou served in the Pacific Theater as a troop transporter for the United States Coast Guard during World War II. Mr. Carnesecca is most well-known for his lifetime commitment to the game of basketball and its players, with roles as head basketball coach for St. Ann's Academy, St. John's University, and the ABA's New York Nets. ``Little Looie'' was an old-school coach recognized for his tenacity, energetic leadership, and his emphasis on the fundamentals. He was a two-time National Coach of the Year, a three-time Big East Coach of the Year, and an inductee to the New York City Basketball Hall of Fame. Lou's coaching led St. John's to 18 postseason appearances in the NCAA Tournament, including in the Final Four and Elite Eight, and he cinched a NIT Championship title. His dedication to the program yielded five Big East Conference Regular Season Championships, two Big East Conference Tournament Championships, and more than 40 NBA Draft picks. As a believer in the value of mentorship, I commend Lou for his dedication to impacting the lives of the players he coached, the fans he inspired, and the community he served. The vision of a future we desire is determined by our willingness to invest in others--Lou did it every day. Mr. Carnesecca is survived by his wife of 73 years, Mary, and his beloved family--daughter Enes, son-in-law Gerard (Jerry), granddaughter Ieva and fiance Frank, niece and nephew, Susan Chiesa, John Chiesa and his wife, Nancy--and his extended family and many friends.

Mr. MEEKS

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, my heart goes out to Omer's family. October 7, 2023, was a beautiful, clear day. Omer, a 21-year-old, who decided that he was going to make a difference and have peace in the Middle East, was just there on duty and then being called because of the horrific attack across the border of Gaza into Israel. At 21 years old, he put everything aside, never thought on that morning when he woke up that he would have to go into battle to try to save lives because a vicious attack of pure hate was taking place. He lost his life, an American-Israeli citizen killed, a tank platoon commander in the IDF. I can't even imagine the strength and the pain that his family, his mother and his father, Ronen and Orna, have felt and continue to feel. We stand here united today, Democrats and Republicans, Members and people of the United States of America saying that we will stand together. We will be with you. We will continue to pray, for we must make sure that his life was not given and taken in vain. Together, we must make sure that his name is forever, as well as all who lost their lives and those who need to be returned home, because all hostages should be returned home immediately, and strive and move for peace in the Middle East. We cannot stop. We cannot forget. We have got to lock arms hand in hand until there is peace, and a 21-year-old who had a dream is not deferred, a 21-year-old who just wanted peace is not stopped. We will stand together as American citizens to say we will stop evil that is happening and that happened on that day of October 7.

Mr. MEEKS

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for the purpose of closing. Mr. Speaker, the first question in closing is the decision that had to be made because of what the Trump administration had done, was whether to withdraw, as Mr. Sherman has indicated, or to escalate or to stay or to try to bring in more troops. As the generals have testified, if we were going to stay, we were going to need more than the 2,500 that were there. How long would we stay there? How many more lives would we lose? Because the fighting, the generals did say, would resume after the deadline. Yes, Joe Biden decided no more American lives are we going to lose. He made the right decision. This resolution, as I have said all along, is nothing more than political theater designed to score cheap points rather than address the real issues at hand, the real issues. It is a distortion of the facts and a disservice to the American people, a disservice to our servicemembers, a disservice to our diplomats, all of whom put their lives on the line during our 20-year war effort there, and their sacrifices should not be used as a political football. We should be working on real solutions, supporting our Afghan allies, ensuring that we learn the right lessons, and providing accountability that is based on truth, not partisan narratives. There is time for us to still do that. I urge my colleagues to reject this resolution. Reject it, but let's commit to the American people. Let's commit to those servicemembers and the Gold Star families who have lost their loved ones. Let's commit to them that today, we are going to work together in a meaningful way that honors their sacrifice, that honors those who serve and uphold the values that we all stand for. Let us commit to come with a real report, not a partisan one. We can do that. We can do that today. We can stand together today on behalf of the people of the United States of America and those great soldiers. How do I know that we can do that? Because the United States of America is the greatest country that this planet has ever seen. It is that when we do things together. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a partial minority staff report. House of Representatives, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Washington, DC, September 9, 2024. Dear Democratic Members of the Committee: I am transmitting the attached memorandum prepared by Committee minority staff summarizing the findings of the Committee on Foreign Affairs' investigation in the 118th Congress into the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. I have long voiced my concerns about Republican attempts to politicize the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. In keeping with the partisan tenor of this investigation, Committee Republicans have indicated they will soon release a partisan, majority report on the Afghanistan withdrawal. The Majority did not involve the Minority in this report, nor have they even provided a draft copy to us. This comes on the heels of former President Trump using a ceremony to honor 13 American servicemembers killed in an ISIS-K terrorist attack as a campaign event to call the Biden-Harris Administration culpable, though Republicans knew for months that the attack was not preventable and that, even though a witness told our Committee he thought he had the ISIS-K bomber in his sights, he did not. And it follows the Chairman's subpoena to Secretary of State Blinken this week compelling testimony Secretary Blinken has already provided to us, including as the first cabinet official to publicly testify about the withdrawal in September 2021. The majority has also threatened to subpoena National Security Advisor Sullivan after baselessly accusing him of misconduct and, for months, has cherry-picked witness testimony to exclude anything unhelpful to a predetermined, partisan narrative about the Afghanistan withdrawal. The Republican majority has taken particular pains to avoid facts involving former President Trump--including his committing the United States to a full, date-specific withdrawal in a deal he negotiated with the Taliban that excluded the Afghan government or any reference to the rights of Afghan women and girls; his unilateral announcements to withdraw troops, often a surprise to many of his own senior officials, which undercut U.S. leverage because those announcements were divorced from Taliban compliance with the deal; and his forcing the Afghan government to release 5,000 Taliban fighters back to the battlefield before a final Taliban offensive ultimately took Kabul. When former President Trump took office, there were approximately 14,000 American troops in Afghanistan. Days before leaving office, the former President ordered a further reduction to 2,500. President Trump initiated a withdrawal that was irreversible without sending significantly more American troops to Afghanistan to face renewed combat with the Taliban. All witnesses who testified on this issue agreed that the United States would have faced renewed combat with the Taliban had we not continued the withdrawal. Rather than send more Americans to fight a war in Afghanistan, President Biden decided to end it. Republicans' partisan attempts to garner headlines rather than acknowledge the full facts and substance of their investigation have only increased with the heat of an election season, and after recent public criticisms about the investigation from former majority staff. With the ascendance of Vice President Kamala Harris to the top of the Democratic presidential ticket, the GOP performance has reached a crescendo--Republicans now claim she was the architect of the U.S. withdrawal though she is referenced only three times in 3,288 pages of the Committee's interview transcripts. American taxpayers have funded this Committee's oversight, and American people deserve the truth. We owe it to them to highlight the facts elicited in this investigation without undue spin and with respect for the seriousness of the subject and the witnesses who have voluntarily testified to us about it. If information we receive is hidden, twisted, or used as a political cudgel it will undermine the Committee's ability to undertake credible oversight going forward. This is why I pressed the Chairman during a November 2023 hearing to release all closed-door interview transcripts from this investigation--five of which remain unreleased--and why I am now transmitting the attached memorandum to complete the picture on what this investigation has yielded. In the September 2021 Committee hearing I referenced with Secretary Blinken following the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, I called to mind some numbers to help us find perspective on the work we were undertaking then and now: 800,000--the number of Americans who served with the U.S. military in Afghanistan since 2001. 2,461--the number of American military personnel who died in Afghanistan, including the 13 brave Americans who were killed by ISIS-K as they facilitated the evacuation of more than 120,000 people from Afghanistan over the course of 17 days. 66,000--the number of Afghan National Security Forces killed in the conflict. 47,245--the number of Afghan civilians killed since 2001. And finally, 20--the number of years we sent our brave men and women to fight a war in Afghanistan, from which disentangling ourselves was never going to be easy. It strikes me now as it did during that hearing that many of those critical of withdrawal effort simply have a fundamental objection to President Biden fulfilling his pledge to be the last Commander-in-Chief to preside over the war in Afghanistan. They are masking their displeasure with criticisms but have failed to offer feasible alternatives. We must continue to wrestle with these matters not to rewrite the past or assign partisan blame, but to identify lessons that can help us better fight and end wars in the future. Sincerely, Gregory W. Meeks, Ranking Member.

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution, which is clearly just another attempt by Republicans to politicize their investigation. It was not a bipartisan investigation. It was their investigation into the United States' withdrawal from Afghanistan. For what purpose? Solely to attack the Biden administration in an election year and deflect the scrutiny of their own partisan claims. Mr. Speaker, we had a committee markup just yesterday. Why avoid regular order? Well, I will tell my colleagues why. If this resolution had gone through committee, we would have been able to go line by line and address either their misleading or outright falsehoods that were made throughout the text. We could have made clear, for example, how Republicans cherry-picked testimony to reinforce their own predetermined, meaning they made a determination before it was concluded, narrative about the Biden administration while omitting any facts showing that former President Trump initiated the withdrawal; that President Trump's actions undercut U.S. leverage in negotiating with the Taliban; and that President Trump's order to withdraw more and more troops set it into an irreversible motion. The majority's investigation and this resolution, of course, is not concerned about the facts. What it is really concerned about is the politics. Why do I say that? That is evidenced by the fact that Republicans released their partisan, misleading report, a report into which, I might say again, Democrats had no input and didn't even see until just hours before Republicans made it public, so it was their secret. It is evidenced by Republicans' rush yesterday to baselessly hold Secretary Blinken in contempt, even though the Secretary of State, who was with President Biden, engaging in high-level diplomacy with world leaders at the U.N. yesterday, has stated time and time again that he is willing to testify. Why? What is the rush? What is the urgency? It is not to get answers. It is not to get the facts. The withdrawal was completed more than 3 years ago. Why? The majority wanted to make a spectacle before the November elections. It is clear. Nothing underscores their partisan theater more than Republicans, get this, naming Vice President Harris over 200 times in their report, and we don't know when the majority added it or not, I believe it was at the last second, and 5 times in the resolution. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle put that in there, despite the fact she is mentioned only three times in over 3,000 pages of transcript interviews. She was mentioned three times. Vice President Harris was only mentioned twice in the Republicans' interim report in 2022. I wonder what changed. I wonder why, all of a sudden, the majority wants to put her name in it more. Could it have something to do with the elections that are coming up in less than 45 days? This did not need to be a partisan exercise. No one has claimed on our side of the aisle, or any party, that the withdrawal was perfect. There are clear lessons to be learned. The State Department even admitted it. The State Department did its own investigation. However, facts are facts, and witnesses consistently made it clear that the Biden administration developed a plan after the Trump administration failed to do so. I remind Members that the former President initiated this withdrawal when he went from 14,000 troops, upon his taking office, down to 2,500 troops by the end of his term. Multiple witnesses told us that the former President did not have a plan in place to evacuate our Afghan allies or our American citizens, but my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't want to talk about that. Witnesses also told us that the dynamic situation on the ground changed dramatically when Afghan President Ghani fled the country, leading to the collapse of the Afghan Government and the military. I remind my colleagues that President Ghani was here in Washington, D.C., in a meeting with leaders. I was there, and the Republican leadership was there, where he had said that he and the Afghan Government would stay and that they would be there to monitor things. Just a week later, they fled. Witnesses of the GOP investigation repeatedly told us that while the situation in Kabul was chaotic, the administration's response was not. Our military and diplomats adapted quickly to facilitate the largest airlift in U.S. history to relocate over 120,000 people, and that is why President Biden said it was a success and pulling out of Afghanistan was the right thing to do. Despite what my Republican colleagues say, our withdrawal did not begin the moment that President Biden took office, though planning for it did. It was the Trump administration's flawed deal with the Taliban that Republicans don't want to talk about. It is called the Doha deal. It is the deal that initiated our withdrawal and forced the Afghan Government to release 5,000 Taliban prisoners back into the battlefield, which the Republicans don't want to talk about either. This fundamentally changed the power dynamic in Afghanistan. That is not in their report. They don't want to talk about that. Testimony reaffirmed that Trump's troop drawdowns were not conditions based, but that he even erratically ordered a full withdrawal in his last days of office, a decision that the military leaders essentially overruled. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't want to talk about that. Trump had also frozen the SIV program, leaving the Biden administration with a backlog of more than 17,000 cases to start addressing, and they did. That is not in the majority's report. The majority doesn't want to talk about that either. Republicans are trying desperately to clean up a candidate who clearly has a flawed record, Trump's record, on this withdrawal, but President Trump himself has bragged that the Biden administration couldn't stop the process if they wanted to. In this case, President Trump, a rarity, was accurate. Witnesses said that if the withdrawal was reversed, then the only condition in the Doha deal that the Taliban had honored, to stop firing on U.S. troops, would be broken. We would be back at war, and we would have had to send more troops back into Afghanistan. The President had two options upon taking office: End America's 20- year war in Afghanistan, or massively surge troops for an undeterminable amount of time. As President Biden has said, yes, he made the right decision not to send another generation of Americans to spill blood in Afghanistan. That was the right decision. Our country owes a deep debt of gratitude to the 2,461 Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice in Afghanistan, including the 13 servicemembers tragically killed in the ISIS-K attack at Abbey Gate. They deserve honest oversight of our longest war, which spanned four administrations. An honest oversight would look over all four, as we thought on our side of the aisle, was the appropriate thing to do if we really wanted to get the facts and make sure that we correct things that took place over that long 20-year time. This resolution and the report it affirms are not oversight or accountability, they are really election season props to use for political gain. Thankfully, the nonpartisan Afghanistan War Commission will provide that serious oversight that is necessary, and there is legislation that Congress can pass now to move forward with something impartial and something that will have real credibility. It is something that I believe could really console all of the families of those who lost their lives for our great country in Afghanistan. We reported bipartisan legislation by Representative Titus to authorize the coordinator for Afghan relocation efforts. I know negotiations continue on legislation by Representative Crow to improve how the State Department responds to crises. It is responsible legislation. The Afghan Adjustment Act and the Afghan Allies Protection Act, which are longstanding, bipartisan proposals, would keep the faith with the Afghans who fought and worked alongside us. If we are going to do these kinds of reports, they should be bipartisan. I deeply regret that this is one of the final bills we are likely to take up before election. I don't think it is by accident. We are getting out of here tomorrow. The last thing we are going to be doing is this. I know Republican leadership wanted to make sure of that-- politics. Even before we voted to keep our government open, this is what my colleagues want to do. This is an unfounded, partisan attack. We should be focused on and at least have the vote on the CR to keep this government open. The American people deserve better. Let's reject this resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, let me quickly rebut my dear friend before I yield to Mr. Sherman. Number one, it sounds like nothing was done by the administration or anyone else for the last 2, 3 years. The administration has provided over 20,000 pages and made over 15 witnesses available over this entire Congress. Secretary Blinken has said he did not want to testify. He said he is willing to testify. The first time he was subpoenaed to come was when he was in Egypt negotiating a cease-fire and return of hostages. I think everyone has known that this particular week is U.N. week, so that is not something that is secret. The record is clear on that. The fact of the matter is, Secretary Blinken has testified over 14 times in Congress to Members of Congress, four of which were in our committee. Delay the investigation? I think not. Then he is questioning whether or not our memo doesn't cite transcripts. In our memo, 43 of 59 total pages were cut and pasted directly from witnesses' testimony. What we asked for was transparency for the people, and for some of those transcripts, I had to almost beg for them to be made public. It wasn't automatically made public. Lastly, Jen Psaki had nothing to do with these decisions. That is just politics. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from California. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, let me just say this because I heard this at the hearing the other day. When we were in charge, we held the first hearing after the withdrawal for a Cabinet Secretary on September 21. Who was that witness? Tony Blinken. The administration sent several Cabinet officials to Congress to discuss the withdrawal. We held hearings with Members because our position was trying to work in a bipartisan way and trying to make sure that we were going to get to the facts and understand so that we would never have this situation again after 20 years. What did we do? We had hearings with people from the Bush administration, from the Obama administration, and from the Trump administration to look at the entire 20-year period of time, not playing politics, not looking at a month or two because they all were interconnected. It wasn't about politics for us. As clearly stated here, there was no delay. The administration was cooperative. The fact of the matter is, this Congress, the 118th Congress, doesn't end until December 31. If it is about the facts, if it is about learning the lessons, the Secretary has already said he is willing to testify. He didn't want to turn his back on his responsibility as the Secretary of State, where he is now in a meeting, unfortunately. I know maybe some of my Republican colleagues don't want him to talk to President Zelenskyy about what is going on in Ukraine and Russia's invasion into Ukraine. That is what he is doing. Maybe some of my Republican colleagues don't want him to have that discussion. Well, I think my side of the aisle wants him to have that discussion because that is his job; to have a discussion to try to have a cease- fire and return of hostages, to talk to our allies in the Indo-Pacific and NATO that is now stronger than ever because of Joe Biden. That is his job. That is what he is doing. Maybe some don't want him to do that. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, this is a link to the full report summarizing the findings of the Committee on Foreign Affairs' investigation in the 118th Congress into the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. Https:// democrats-foreignaffairs.house.gov/_cache/files/a /0/a05d09c4_4b27- 4382_9818_0227a0156896/70CCFC2998DF 868322F60057FF59079D.hfac- democratic-staff-memo-afghanistan-investigation-final-for-posting.pdf. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MEEKS

Mr. MEEKS. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation. We all recognize the challenges posed by the People's Republic of China. The Biden-Harris administration and this body are clear-eyed that the PRC is our foremost geopolitical challenge, but how we manage this relationship will have consequences not just for us but for the entire world. This requires sober policies and shrewd diplomacy, not fear or partisan grandstanding. It is for that reason I oppose H.R. 3334. If signed into law, this bill would sabotage high-level diplomacy with Beijing. Why else would we sanction all of the PRC's top leaders, including the President, the Premier, the senior ministers in one fell swoop, an action that would immediately rupture the U.S.-China relationship? Such a unilateral action would undermine the United States' interests, divide us from our partners and allies, and endanger our national security by making a conflict more likely in the Indo-Pacific. Over the last few years, the Biden-Harris administration has competed vigorously with China. They have sanctioned Chinese officials and companies for human rights abuses in Xinjiang and Hong Kong. They have provided Taiwan with the weapons that it needs to enhance its self- defense. They have imposed unprecedented export controls against China to ensure our technology isn't bolstering China's military or its human rights abuses. They have done so while revitalizing our alliances and partnerships in the region and stabilizing relations with Beijing so that our competition does not slide into conflict. All of this is endangered by this bill before us. The State Department has warned that this bill will bluntly curtail the United States' ability to engage with Beijing at senior levels of our civilian and military leadership to advance our national interests. For example, earlier this month, the head of U.S. forces in the Indo- Pacific spoke to his Chinese counterpart for the first time in years. During the call, Admiral Paparo underscored the importance of sustained lines of communication between the United States military and the PLA, noting that ``such discussions between senior leaders serve to clarify intent and reduce the risk of misperception or miscalculation.'' If we want to keep the American people safe and lower the chance of an accidental crisis in the Taiwan Strait or the South China Sea, we have to talk to China. We already know that sanctioning its leaders is counterproductive. Beijing's last defense minister refused to meet with Secretary Lloyd Austin because of U.S. sanctions. Engagement is necessary. Through senior-level, including engagements between President Biden and President Xi, the Biden-Harris administration has restored open channels of communication with Beijing. Remember, even during the Cuban Missile Crisis, we were talking with Russia at the time. There was always dialogue and conversation. That probably prevented a nuclear war back then. That is something that we should take knowledge of. Conversation, diplomacy, preventing an accidental war, that is why this bill is not the right bill. I thank the Biden-Harris administration. For the first time in years, Beijing has agreed to take action to crack down on fentanyl precursor chemicals and pill-presses that are killing 100,000 Americans a year. We still have to deal with issues that most people believe in, that there is a climate crisis. We cannot solve problems like that unless we are talking with each other and Beijing takes action. Just this month, the Biden-Harris administration's diplomatic efforts led to the release of an American citizen, David Lin, who was unlawfully detained in China for over 18 years. Let me assure you, if this bill becomes law, it will be next to impossible to secure the return of the two remaining wrongfully detained Americans in China. Sanctioning the top 200-plus CCP officials all at once would limit the United States' future leverage if China engages in more problematic policies and behaviors. The legislation does not include basic exceptions that are standard in all bipartisan sanctions legislation. While the waiver in this legislation sunsets after just 2 years, the authority to impose sanctions does not. This is poor policymaking, plain and simple. I oppose this dangerous and counterproductive bill, which will do nothing to help the Uyghurs, the Hong Kongers, and the people of Taiwan, while making it incredibly difficult to engage China to advance any U.S. interests, whether it is fentanyl, regional security, Taiwan, human rights, or IT theft. Madam Chair, I must oppose this measure and urge all of my colleagues, all Members, to do the same. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MEEKS. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Chair, if you think that unilateral sanctions on 200 members in China is going to work, I got a bridge to sell you. Nothing is going to work--unilateral, none of it. All it will do is drive us against some of our Indo-Pacific friends, colleagues, and allies. H.R. 3334 is a deliberate effort to undermine all of what we are trying to do. It would rupture the U.S.-China relationship. It would create collateral damage that would impact American workers, families, and companies. It would make America look like the instigator and divide us from our partners. It would make a conflict more likely by undermining the ability to have open lines of communication with the PRC civilian and military leaders about Taiwan or the South China Sea. Shutting down communication channels is not what diplomacy is about. That is not what this committee is about. Shutting down communication channels, specifically with the PRC, is not a strategy for success. American officials, diplomats, and military leaders must be able to engage directly with their PRC counterparts in Washington and elsewhere to address concerns and reduce tensions. Ambassador Burns, who was recently here, urges communications even between Members of Congress and members of the PRC, not to back down from them but to make sure they understand what we say and what our positions are. Dialogue and conversation, that is diplomacy. That is how we get things done, and that is how we can prevent a misunderstanding or a miscalculation that could lead to devastation. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MEEKS

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

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, I stand in opposition to H.R. 1425. We can't forget the dark times that COVID-19 brought to our communities across the United States and around the entire world. The pandemic resulted in a tragic loss of lives. More than 1.2 million Americans and more than 7 million people around the world died. The next pandemic is not a matter of if, it is a matter of when. During the response to COVID-19, we saw inequities, inequalities, and unfairness across the international system--vaccine manufacturing capabilities benefiting wealthy nations and vaccine access being denied to less wealthy nations who were forced to wait in line and, in some cases, punished for sharing COVID samples with CDC labs and other global health institutions that helped improve the efficacy of U.S.- produced vaccines. The American people understand that the United States' leadership is critical to addressing the world's most pressing challenges. A key way to do this is through multilateral institutions, including the World Health Organization. Working multilaterally is critical to strengthening our national security and to securing our public health systems. Don't just take my word for it. In a nationwide poll conducted at the height of the pandemic, it was found that 82 percent of American voters supported the United Nations' role in helping to stop the spread of COVID-19 overseas. That included 98 percent of Democrats and 69 percent of Republicans. The pandemic accord aims to strengthen global pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response. The United States is a linchpin in ensuring a pandemic accord not only serves our global health security interests but also helps coordinate a global response to public health threats that don't see our borders. H.R. 1425 is a sadly, nakedly partisan attempt to subvert U.S. diplomatic efforts to reach a pandemic accord agreement alongside 194 World Health Organization member states. The draft pandemic agreement strengthens the global workforce, improves distribution of medical countermeasures, and provides funding for WHO members to improve their response capacity. We must not miss this opportunity to improve global health systems response capacity, including to prevent the tragic loss of life in the United States of America and globally. Only by learning from our mistakes made during the global response to the COVID-19 pandemic, this agreement could be a watershed moment in advancing global health security. We must support the ongoing pandemic agreement negotiations, as it could prove essential to saving American lives. Unfortunately, this bill only serves to undermine diplomatic efforts seeking to strengthen global health security. House Foreign Affairs Committee Democrats unanimously opposed this measure at markup, and we made clear when this bill was marked up by our committee in July, the President has the authority of acceding to an agreement through executive action. Executive action does not require the advice and consent of the Senate. The vast majority, 90 percent, of all U.S. international legal agreements are approved via executive action rather than formal approval by the Senate. The draft pandemic agreement under negotiation is not a treaty. If it were, I would be standing in support of H.R. 1425. While framed as an effort to increase congressional oversight, this bill really is a part of Republicans' politicization of COVID response and antiscience-based policy. It puts the safety and national security of Americans in jeopardy, simply because they don't like the WHO, or any multilateral institutions for that matter, under their isolationist--they like to isolate themselves from everything and everyone. It is the MAGA platform. If the U.S. is not allowed to sit at the table or our negotiating leverage is weakened by this bill, our adversaries and those who do not have our best interests in mind, guess what, they will be the ones to fill the void. The Biden-Harris administration has made a good-faith effort to notify Congress of its planned actions regarding U.S. negotiations, and these efforts have been met with unanimous opposition from Senate and House Republicans who have voiced their opposition to any agreement no matter what its contents are. One of the misleading claims made by critics of the draft pandemic agreement includes the idea that it would subvert U.S. sovereignty. Yet, in fact, the draft pandemic agreement explicitly states that it does not give the WHO any power to dictate specific policy to member nations and that member states may implement policies according to their sovereign laws. Simply put, the draft pandemic agreement expressly affirms the sovereignty of nations to address public health matters. False claims that the agreement would undermine our sovereignty have been thoroughly debunked by multiple reputable sources. The Biden- Harris administration has made it clear that they will not support any agreement harmful to U.S. interests, including our sovereignty. Securing the pandemic agreement would be essential to saving not just American lives but many lives around the world. This bill undermines diplomatic efforts seeking to strengthen global health security, and I, alongside all House Foreign Affairs Committee Democrats, unanimously oppose this measure. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me say, Mr. Chair, that I believe that one of the things that my Republican friends are trying to do here is to divert the actions, the inactions, and the failure of the prior administration during the pandemic. I think that is what the real issue is here and that is what the problem is. That is why they are putting this bill forward. It is because they know about the former President, and they know what he said during the time of the pandemic. It is still there for all the world to see about what he said at that particular time. It is this debate, and this bill is why they are debating this and are against the bill vigorously. So what happened? What did Donald Trump say? Let's go back, because sometimes it seems as though our memories fail of what took place during the pandemic. One way we can do that is let's look at what the President said because he loves to tweet, or now whatever else he puts it on, but he said: ``We are in very close communication with China concerning the virus. Very few cases reported in USA, but strongly on watch. We have offered China and President Xi any help that is necessary. Our experts are extraordinary!'' That is what he said. Then he came right back after that: ``I think our relationship has never been better. We're very much involved with them, right now, on the virus that's going around. We're working very closely. I spoke to President Xi. We're working very closely with China. And, honestly, I think, as tough as this negotiation was, I think our relationship with China now might be the best it's been in a long, long time.'' He goes on, and on January 29 he said: ``Just received a briefing on the Coronavirus in China from all of our great agencies, who are also working closely with China. We will continue to monitor the ongoing developments. We have the best experts anywhere in the world, and they are on top of it 24/7!'' That is the former President of the United States. What I think has to happen is that we must apply some of the very painful lessons from COVID-19. One of those lessons that we learned is we must strengthen our global health systems. The pandemic agreement, if secured, could do just that. We learn from the past. It would help us, but if we do H.R. 1425, we would be effectively sending and torpedoing the United States' membership in the WHO's pandemic agreement. Now, I know as, I said before, my Republican colleagues don't like to be a part of multilateral organizations. However, when we have a worldwide pandemic, it is multilateral organizations working collectively together that can save lives because it doesn't stay in one part of the world. It travels all over the world, and it means that we have to conversate, negotiate, and work with others. The world is much smaller today. You can't isolate it. We have got to work with people. Multilateral organizations are for that purpose. Oftentimes our experts' voices lead. If you take our voices away, then it hurts the American public, the American people, and our friends and allies and others all around the world. We have got to strengthen our multilateral relationships, especially when we are talking about WHO's pandemic agreement. That is because what that agreement aims to do is strengthen global pandemic prevention and strengthen preparedness and response. We can't let this noise and we can't allow Republicans to politicize the response of COVID pandemic and utilize antiscience-based policies to derail our diplomatic efforts. This is something that we really should be working together on to get done. Doesn't it just make sense that we are part of the process of improving and moving forward for the next pandemic because we know it is not a matter of if, it is a matter of when the world will have it? Don't you want to learn so the lives that we lost previously are no longer lost? Preventing them should be our goal in a bipartisan way, not coming up with something that virtually takes away our negotiating power with the WHO and move forward. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman indicated that he had not seen or known of the draft. I would refer him to the WHO's website. There is plenty of information. Just go to the website. On the website, Article 24, Paragraph 3 of the draft agreement--I am reading from it now--goes on to say that: ``Nothing in the WHO pandemic agreement shall be interpreted as providing the WHO Secretariat, including the WHO Director-General, any authority to direct, order, alter or otherwise prescribe the domestic laws or policies of any party, or to mandate or otherwise impose any requirements that parties take specific actions, such as ban or accept travelers, impose vaccination mandates or therapeutic or diagnostic measures, or implement lockdowns.'' It is clear, concise, and available. Furthermore, I understand that the Biden administration has issued a statement of policy on this bill strongly opposing it. I include in the Record that statement of administration policy. Statement of Administration Policy H.R. 1425--No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act--Rep. Tiffany, R-WI, and 59 cosponsors Pandemic preparedness was a day one priority for the Biden- Harris Administration. Under this Administration's leadership, the United States has coordinated global efforts to end the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic and ensure the international community is better prepared to respond to the next pandemic. The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 1425, which provides that any international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response reached by World Health Organization (WHO) member states pursuant to the recommendations, report, or work of the International Negotiating Body (INB) established by the second special session of the World Health Assembly ``is deemed to be a treaty'' and require the advice and consent of the Senate. Presidents have historically taken a variety of approaches to making and carrying out international agreements, and this bill would improperly purport to constrain the President's authority to do so in furthering the important work of achieving advancements, with the international community, to prevent, prepare for, and respond to pandemics. If enacted, this bill would undermine efforts by this Administration and future Administrations to better protect the United States by preventing international public emergencies like COVID-19 from happening again. The Administration will continue to engage with the Congress and adhere to well-established principles in assessing the outcome of the work of the INB as these negotiations continue.

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the esteemed gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee). My colleague is the ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations' State, Foreign Operations, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. First, I thank my colleague, the indomitable Congresswoman from California, Barbara Lee, for her remarks on the bill and on PEPFAR, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. She is a true leader and a tremendous advocate on many issues, but especially on PEPFAR. I support her bill that reauthorizes PEPFAR. As she stated, it is one of the most successful U.S.-led global health interventions ever. She did it in a bipartisan way with a Republican President and Republican Senate. That is the way we used to do business around here. PEPFAR, as she said, has saved over 25 million lives in more than 50 countries. I was pleased by the statements made by my Foreign Affairs Committee chair, my friend who I have talked to about this bill over and over again, Mike McCaul, during a hearing we had where we recognized the importance of PEPFAR's programming in Africa. Chairman McCaul emphasized the need to ensure the extension of PEPFAR, ``a 20-year success story.'' He highlighted the President of Botswana's gratitude toward PEPFAR, who noted its public health impacts have saved a generation. I was pleased by Africa Subcommittee Chair John James, who today praised PEPFAR as the most successful foreign policy tool since the Marshall Plan and declared we have to have a long-term reauthorization plan--bipartisanship at its best--and recognition of the value of PEPFAR. The unprecedented 1-year reauthorization has done little to reassure our African partners, our diplomatic corps, and PEPFAR implementers that Congress is committed to ending the scourge of HIV/AIDS once and for all. We must have a clean 5-year reauthorization of PEPFAR, and I am willing to work with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to stop playing politics with people's lives and get a clean 5-year reauthorization done. I work with Mike McCaul. I work with John James. I work with my colleagues on the other side, especially on this committee, in a bipartisan way. We work with Republicans in the Senate. We worked with a Republican President. This should not be something that is difficult to get done. I, again, thank Congresswoman Lee for her leadership, for her vision, and for saving millions of lives. I agree with her that H.R. 1425 is a distraction from responsible global health legislation. Let's keep PEPFAR in bills that target malaria, tuberculosis, and other neglected tropical diseases. Let's get rid of them collectively together for all time. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, even though I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this amendment as we need to expand Taiwan's international space and enable its participation in international forums. Taiwan is a friend, a democracy, and a critical part of the international community. As such, Taiwan should be contributing its expertise and participating as an observer in the World Health Assembly. This is why last Congress, when I was chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, I helped get S. 812 signed into law to direct the State Department to support Taiwan's participation at the World Health Organization and obtain observer status for Taiwan at the World Health Assembly. As a result, the Biden-Harris administration has consistently pushed for greater participation by Taiwan at the WHO. This amendment sends another signal to the WHO as to where the U.S. Congress stands. I agree with Mr. Ogles' amendment, but I do think that we should be precise and careful in how we talk about important policy matters. I want to emphasize that I read this amendment as being consistent with the spirit of current U.S. policy, which supports Taiwan's meaningful participation in the WHO's World Health Assembly. Supporting Taiwan's full membership in the WHO, however, is inconsistent with U.S. policy and would undermine our longstanding One China policy, given Taiwan is not a U.N. member state. Taiwan should, as I believe this amendment properly states, have full observer status in the WHO, so I urge all of my colleagues to support Mr. Ogles' amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. The draft pandemic agreement advances global health security without impacting the United States' international sovereignty. The draft agreement explicitly states that it does not give the WHO any power to dictate specific policy to member nations and that member states may implement the policies according to their own sovereign laws. Many of the issues the United States delegation in Geneva is currently negotiating in the draft pandemic agreement are to ensure a final agreement is in compliance with U.S. laws rather than subverting them. Mr. Chair, for these reasons and others, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this misleading amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chairman, it is explicit in the agreement that our sovereignty is not threatened, so this is duplicative, and that is why I oppose it. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment because it is within the President's authority to negotiate treaties and agreements without Senate ratification. While inserting findings clarifying the role of Congress and ratifying treaties would be entirely appropriate for a treaty under recognition, the draft pandemic agreement is not a treaty. As I have previously stated, the United States President has the option of acceding to a treaty or agreement through executive action alone without the advice or consent of the Senate. Over 90 percent of all U.S. international legal agreements have been approved via executive action rather than normal or formal Senate approval. These findings insinuate that the Biden-Harris administration is attempting to sidestep the Senate in these pandemic agreement negotiations. This is absolutely, 100 percent wrong. Mr. Chairman, it is for these reasons that I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.