Andrew Ogles

Mr. OGLES

Mr. OGLES. Madam Chair, again, I urge adoption of my amendment. This is straightforward and fair. This is sending a message to the Biden administration and to Secretary Blinken: Close our border, support our ally, and stand for America first. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OGLES. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. OGLES. Madam Chair, National Security Memorandum 20 represents a betrayal of our closest ally in the Middle East. Both President Biden and Secretary Blinken developed this memorandum to placate the terrorist sympathizers, quite frankly, within the Democratic Party. The memo is as despicable as it is unnecessary. I encourage my colleagues on the other side to highlight a single new legal requirement mandated by the memo. If the memo does not mandate a new legal requirement on arms shipments, then why do we need it? National Security Memorandum 20 requires that countries receiving U.S. security assistance provide ``'credible and reliable' written assurances from the recipient country that it will use any such defense articles in accordance with international humanitarian law and, as applicable, other international law.'' This thinly veiled attack against Israel, which has done far more than any other nation in its position to preserve the lives of noncombatants, was developed with indifference to the fact that there are already longstanding statutes that govern the delivery of U.S. security assistance and even make such delivery contingent upon compliance with international humanitarian law. As the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and his Senate counterpart pointed out in a recent joint letter to President Biden, the Foreign Assistance Act already mandates that ``no assistance shall be furnished under this chapter or the Arms Export Control Act to any unit of the security forces of a foreign country if the Secretary of State has credible information that such unit has committed a gross violation of human rights.'' Importantly, this memo also does not create any new legal requirement to obtain U.S. security assistance. On March 26, 2024, State Department spokesman Matthew Miller said as much. To quote Mr. Miller: ``It has always been required that these countries that are receiving defense articles from the United States act in compliance with international humanitarian law. . . . That is not a requirement that was imposed by the NSM. It is something that was already required by U.S. law.'' Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OGLES. Madam Chair, I pose the question: If the substance of the memo is already stated in law, then why do we need the memo? The answer is substantive and it is clear: It is political. This functionally useless memo, replete with unnecessarily vague language throughout, seems to attempt to create two classes of countries that receive U.S. security assistance: Israel, then everyone else. This memo was designed to shine a light and segregate Israel. As the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee pointed out in his letter, the NSM requires that written assurances from a country receiving U.S. weapons must be credible and reliable. What exactly does credible and reliable mean? If I was Israel, I would be concerned that Joe Biden would be the one in charge of figuring that out. When the recipient country says it will use defense articles in accordance with ``humanitarian law,'' which law or laws are President Biden and Secretary Blinken referring to? Are recipient countries supposed to know or assume what laws they are supposed to follow? Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OGLES. Madam Chair, the NSM contains language that says recipient countries can't arbitrarily deny, restrict, or otherwise impede U.S.- supported humanitarian assistance. What exactly is U.S.-supported humanitarian assistance? If a national security reason required a recipient country to temporarily restrict whatever U.S.-supported humanitarian assistance is, would that in turn deny Israel weapons it needed to defend itself? The language in this memo is imprecise and could be used against Israel and, quite frankly, other countries as well by a President who has made the conflict in Israel political. Israel is fighting for their existence. They are under attack. If there was a rogue state operator in Mexico that was launching missiles, bombs, or explosives into Texas, we would occupy Mexico City within 72 hours. We may or may not give it back. Israel has a right to defend itself, and it should not be singled out and undermined by this President or Secretary Blinken. I have had enough. Israel has had enough. The American people have had enough. This amendment is important to send a message to Biden: No more politics. Defend our greatest ally in the Middle East. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OGLES

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, the section 1260H was established by the fiscal year 2021 NDAA to blacklist Chinese companies with close ties to the People's Liberation Army as well as other companies, so-called civil-military fusion contributors. The FY 2023 NDAA went even further, applying sanctions for those entities on the list. Section 1260H addition certainly hurts a company's shareholder value, which is the point. It protects American investors from unwittingly supporting companies underwriting China's military modernization and/or genocide. This amendment simply ensures that for the coming fiscal year, the Biden administration cannot remove any CCP company designated for the Department of Defense section 1260H list. I understand there is similar language in the underlying bill, but the language has a waiver so broad you could drive a Chinese tank through it. I am therefore offering it as a stand-alone to continue to push for full funding prohibition. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, this amendment is necessitated by the fact that, at every opportunity, our President has chosen to placate rather than punish China. Appeasement has long been a failed strategy, and it continues to fail us today. Last year, Joe Biden unilaterally removed 27 CCP entities from Commerce's unverified list, all to ensure that Gina Raimondo could simply secure a meeting with her CCP counterpart. Similarly, in November, Joe Biden removed an agency of China's police, an agency which uses DNA to collect genetic information on Uyghur detainees from Commerce's entity list. Joe Biden made this decision on a mere commitment from China that they would cooperate with us on confronting drug trafficking. I can tell my colleagues that the drug overdoses in my State and your States last night would conflict with this idea that China is cooperating with us, that they are doing anything to stem the flow of precursor chemicals for fentanyl into this country, so this amendment is quite necessary. The gentlewoman is right that it amends the law. It removes the Secretary's ability to do so, and it puts Joe Biden in a box, where hopefully he can't get lost. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, increased scrutiny of these companies is a national security imperative, and delisting these companies, these Chinese military companies, cooperators in genocide, and proponents of the PLA's military modernization, must be an absolute nonstarter. We have to put America first, whether that is at our border, whether that is in commerce, and most certainly for our military. We have to take a stand and put Biden in his place and not let him delist these companies for political or monetary gain. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, this is an important issue. We are going to talk about RIMPAC for a moment. It has direct impact on Taiwan and also the United States of America, our beloved country. RIMPAC, Rim of the Pacific, is the world's largest international maritime warfare exercise, involving coordination of dozens of countries. The 2024 RIMPAC exercise will showcase the participation of nearly 30 countries, 40 surface ships, 3 submarines, 14 national land forces, over 150 aircraft, and more than 25,000 personnel. RIMPAC promotes a free and open Indo-Pacific, which itself promotes fairly commonsense priorities, including that all nations, big and small, have the right to freedom of the seas and the right to pursue economic growth consistent with international law and the principles of fair competition. This vital naval exercise deepens interoperability and resiliency with our allies and partners. It serves as a bulwark against malign major powers. It pursues deterrence for the sake of peace and stability. Genocidal nations, like the People's Republic of China, have no business going anywhere near the RIMPAC exercises. This amendment would defund enforcement subsection (b) of section 1259 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019. That subsection is a waiver that, if utilized, would effectively allow the People's Republic of China to participate alongside the United States Navy in the RIMPAC exercises, no questions asked. Consider just how peculiar it is that the Chinese Communist Party, our adversary, can be eligible to participate in this naval exercise. It is all because of a waiver Congress wrote several years ago. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, keep in mind that China is a country that steals hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of U.S. intellectual property every year. They commit espionage against the United States on an unparalleled scale every year. They are doing the bare minimum to prevent fentanyl precursors from flooding into Mexico en route to the southern border. They are directly supporting every single designated state sponsor of terrorism on the State Department's list: Cuba, Syria, North Korea, and Iran. Even considering all of this, Beijing is not fully excluded from participating in RIMPAC. For robust democratic allies like Taiwan, however, participation currently is impossible. The existence of the waiver undermines the precondition on China's participation in RIMPAC. Currently, the Secretary of Defense must certify to the congressional defense committees that China has stopped all land reclamation activities in the South China Sea, removed all weapons from land reclamation sites, and established a consistent 4- year track record of taking actions toward stabilizing the region. If they do all those things, China could be invited to RIMPAC. It is important that we send a message to our adversary that they are a bad actor, it is time for them to behave and to understand that countries in their region, like Taiwan, have a right to participate in the free market, to be free and democratic, and not to be under their thumb. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, in the fiscal year 2021 NDAA, Congress included a fourth precondition stopping the ongoing genocide against the Uyghurs. We have already seen President Biden placate China in more ways than one, in addition to the unilateral delisting of dozens of entities from Commerce's unverified list. Mr. Chair, we are the leader of the free world. Who else is going to hold China accountable? Who else is going to send a message that enough is enough? They are a bad actor on the global stage. They undermine us at every turn. Yes, this is an amendment. Yes, it may take a moment to work through it. Yes, that may require more time, but this is the people's House. We do the work, we take the time, and we get it right. Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OGLES

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to cut the budget of the Office of the Secretary of Homeland Security by $10 million. If we want our government to function, there must be consequences for poor performance. We have a record number of illegal aliens flooding across our borders. Under Secretary Mayorkas' so-called leadership, the U.S. Border Patrol's migrant encounters have reached five times the rate they were even under the Obama administration. Nearly 371,000 illegal aliens were apprehended in the United States in December alone, with over 5.4 million illegal alien apprehensions occurring between fiscal year 2023 and the present day. We know this failure comes from the top. That is why this body voted to impeach Secretary Mayorkas for his willful and systematic refusal to comply with the law. It is a breach of the public trust. My amendment imposes a measured cut to the Office of the Secretary to make it clear that we find his work unacceptable. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, serious? I think this is serious. Actions have consequences. Inaction should also have consequences. A 12-year-old girl, intending to connect with her 13-year-old boyfriend, instead was intercepted by two drunk illegals. They took her. They raped her. They strangled her. Two hours later, they tried to get money to leave the country. I pause because this is serious. We have a Secretary who is not doing his job. Mr. Chairman, this is a modest cut. It is not going to turn out the lights, but it sends a clear message that the Secretary's job is to protect American citizens. It is not diversity. It is not political points. It is to protect America. There were 400 individuals just designated as having potential ties to terrorists, but they weren't apprehended because they weren't on the terror watch list. Inaction has consequences. This is serious. This cut is meant to send a message: Enough is enough. Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, Executive Order No. 14019, allegedly promoting access to voting, is an effort to divert Federal resources to partisan politics. This dangerous executive order instructs a wide range of agencies, including the Department of Health and Human Services and the Small Business Administration, to engage in voter turnout operations. Worse, it instructs agencies to partner with approved third-party organizations to assist them in their voter registration and other election-focused efforts. Who will approve these organizations? What criteria will be used? The executive order doesn't say. Congress has never granted the administration any authority to approve such groups or specified any criteria for doing so. This executive order is illegal. We all know how this will play out. The Biden administration will partner with groups focused on mobilizing Democratic voters. The executive order instructs agencies to let these groups use Federal property to conduct their voter registration initiatives with the assistance of Federal employees. The use of Federal resources may free up their other resources for more nakedly political operations elsewhere. Attorneys general in 13 States wrote to President Biden in opposition to this executive order. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, we all understand the importance of maintaining the American people's faith in our elections. We understand that voting and access to the ballot box is important. My colleague spoke to the idea of outside influence, and that is exactly what this order does. It brings outside influence onto Federal property. The 13 attorneys general raised objections because, with individuals and outside groups being hosted on Federal property, if there is a violation, those AGs may have problems or troubles prosecuting the State law because it is on Federal property. This creates a conflict between the Federal Government and the States, as pointed out by attorneys general. It seems impossible that this executive order can be carried out without violations of the Antideficiency Act, which prohibits the use of funds for purposes not authorized by Congress; the Administrative Procedures Act; and the Hatch Act. Congress must clear this up. This amendment is clean. It is clear. It blocks some of this undue outside influence. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, my amendment prohibits the Secretary from requiring individuals to wear masks to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Mr. Chair, this may seem like an old argument, but when we see the testimony of Fauci talking about how much of the recommendations were made up and fictitious, I think it is important that we keep this conversation in the forefront. I think we remind individuals that our government overreached its authority and infringed on liberty. I think it is important we draw a line in the sand and tell the Secretary that he can't offer a mandate that forces someone to wear a mask. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague for her sentiment, but I would argue that this bill needlessly allows for the Secretary to infringe on the medical relationship between an individual and their doctor. It needlessly forces someone to wear a mask when there is no science to back it up. There was a New York Times article by leading epidemiologist Tom Jefferson, not to be confused with Thomas Jefferson, that said even the N-95, the gold standard in masks, wasn't effective at blocking the COVID-19 virus. It is important that anything that is infringing on someone's liberties be based on fact and science and not on conjecture and panic. Mr. Chairman, I ask adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, following Hamas' brutal attack on October 7, this administration said all the right things. Joe Biden said he was ready to offer all appropriate means to support the government and the people of Israel. The Acting U.S. Ambassador to Israel said he was sickened by the images coming out of southern Israel of dead and wounded civilians at the hands of terrorists from Gaza. The White House said it unequivocally condemned the unprovoked attacks by Hamas terrorists against Israeli civilians. Of course, the Office of Palestinian Affairs, defunded by this act, called on Israel not to respond militarily to the crimes of rape and murder. Aside from that, the U.S. response couldn't have been stronger. Fast-forward to June 2024, the Biden administration is withholding precision-guided munitions as Israel is facing down an existential threat from Hezbollah. The administration and its sycophants in the House and the Senate are attempting to undermine Israel's democracy by telling the Israeli Government not to defend the Israeli people and Israel's security interest. Meanwhile, American citizens taken hostage by Hamas on October 7 have died in captivity, and this administration's response continues to be insufficient, by proposing a cease-fire that is essentially on Hamas' terms. Most importantly, it preserves Hamas. We have done little to apply pressure on the negotiations, particularly Qatar, to use their extensive leverage against Hamas on getting Americans back. We have seen the Biden administration cave to the demands of student protesters who chant ``kill the Jews'' in Arabic. There is an old expression in the ``History of the Peloponnesian War'' in which it is said that: What men did once in private, they now do in public. He spoke of this in the context of the dying Athenian morality. I do fear that Hamas' goal of promoting international terrorism has emboldened far more public demonstrations of anti- Semitism. We have seen pro-terror activists wielding bear spray while preventing Jews from using the entrance to their synagogues in L.A., seizing a building and holding custodial staff hostage at Columbia University, and other outrages. It is one sign among many of our growing societal rot. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.