Brad Sherman

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3289) to amend the Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992 and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3289.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking Mr. Smith for authoring the measure before us. The Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act is a bill to advance our support for the people of Hong Kong. This bill updates the longstanding U.S. policy on Hong Kong so as to reflect what is happening on the ground today. The foundation of our relationship with Hong Kong was laid back in 1992 when Congress passed the Hong Kong Policy Act. That is where we got the one country, two systems approach that paved the way for our strong partnership with Hong Kong. But we are watching now the Chinese Communist Party trying to break down that system, trying to strip Hong Kong's autonomy and bring it under full control of the government of the mainland. This has motivated millions of Hong Kongers to take to the streets and protest in defense of their rights. To support them, we need to make sure that our policy is brought up to date so it can match the challenges of the U.S.-Hong Kong relationship today. The Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act does just that. It makes clear that the United States will stand up for Hong Kong's autonomy and democratic aspirations of its people. It beefs up reporting so that we can track any efforts by China to interfere in Hong Kong's affairs and to use Hong Kong to avoid U.S. export controls. It slaps sanctions on anyone responsible for undermining Hong Kong's autonomy or violating Hong Kongers' humans rights. This bill sends a strong message to China that the United States stands with the people of Hong Kong. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this measure, and I reserve the balance of my time. House of Representatives, Committee on Financial Services, Washington, DC, October 8, 2019. Hon. Elliot Engel, Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing concerning H.R. 3289, the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019. In order to permit the H.R. 3289 to proceed expeditiously to the House Floor, I agree to forgo formal consideration of the bill. The Committee on Financial Services takes this action to forego formal consideration of H.R. 3289 in light of the changes that have been made to the bill as introduced, which focuses the bill on matters within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. The Committee also does so with our mutual understanding that, by foregoing formal consideration of H.R. 3289 at this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in this or similar legislation, and that our Committee will be appropriately consulted and involved as this or similar legislation moves forward with regard to any matters in the Committee's jurisdiction. The Committee also reserves the right to seek appointment of an appropriate number of conferees to any House-Senate conference involving this or similar legislation that involves the Committee's jurisdiction and request your support for any such request. Finally, I would appreciate your response to this letter confirming this understanding, and I would ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be included in the Congressional Record during Floor consideration of H.R. 3289. Sincerely, Maxine Waters, Chairwoman.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I join with the gentleman from New Jersey in praising the staff members who helped create these bills, not only the one under consideration, but the other two that deal with Hong Kong. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a great champion for human rights.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers on this side, so I yield myself such time as I may consume for the purpose of closing. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Smith for introducing this legislation. Thirty years since Tiananmen Square and Chinese authorities are still turning to violence and intimidation to crush dissent and attack basic freedoms. With this important legislation, we send a clear signal that the United States stands with the people of Hong Kong. Mr. Speaker, I hope all Members will join me in supporting the passage of this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4270) to prohibit commercial exports of certain nonlethal crowd control items and defense articles and services to the Hong Kong Disciplined Services, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 4270.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), Speaker of the House, a woman who has dedicated decades of her life to the fight for human rights.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the author of this important bill, a stalwart supporter of human rights.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), the chair of the full Foreign Affairs Committee, a stalwart supporter of human rights.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume for the purpose of closing. The people of Hong Kong have the right to peaceably assemble without fear of violence. They need to know that their friends in the United States are not providing tools of the violent repression being used against them. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 4270, and I urge all Members of the House to do likewise. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Guam for yielding. I would like to thank our colleague from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy) for working with me on this bill, the Homebuyer Assistance Act of 2019. He has worked hard to ensure that this is a collaborative and bipartisan process. I would also like to thank the chair of our committee, the gentlewoman from California, and her staff for their assistance with this bill and her support in bringing the bill forward. There is no more important day in the economic life of a family than the day that they buy a home, and some 83 or 84 percent of those with FHA financing are purchasing their first home. Appraisers play an important role in the process. This bill would change the rules a bit for FHA appraisers so as to bring them in line with the rules we already have for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are the larger, federally controlled entities engaged in guaranteeing or financing homes, and it will deal with the shortage of certified appraisers that we are experiencing in parts of the country. Let me point out that this bill deals only with single-family homes. You could make the argument, Mr. Speaker, that you should have a certified appraiser in dealing with complex commercial, industrial, and multifamily properties. This bill focuses on single-family homes. The bill has broad support of both consumer advocacy organizations and industry stakeholders. To name a few, the Homebuyer Assistance Act is supported by the Center for Responsible Lending, The Appraisal Institute, the National Association of Realtors, the Credit Union National Association, and the Independent Community Bankers of America. This bill will make it easier for home buyers to buy a home with Federal Housing Administration mortgages by expanding the number of appraisers that are allowed to do the appraisals of those homes. I am pleased to say that in the other body, Senators Thune and Tester have introduced a parallel piece of legislation, a bipartisan piece of legislation, and I look forward to putting this bill on the President's desk. As other speakers have pointed out, including the gentleman from Guam, until 2010, there were no nationwide standards for licensed home appraisers. But since 2010, we have minimum Federal education, experience, and examination requirements set by the Appraiser Qualifications Board, so there is no reason at all to require that certified appraisers be involved, and it is entirely appropriate to have either certified or licensed appraisers. This fix will help first-time home buyers. As I pointed out, over 83 percent of FHA home purchase mortgages are being made to first-time home buyers, and over one-third of all FHA loans were obtained by minority households. The process of purchasing a home is already difficult enough for first-time home buyers. We should not have the additional challenge of finding a certified appraiser. We have a real interest in making sure the FHA process is one that works well just as the process works for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by allowing either licensed or certified appraisers. As I have pointed out, this bill applies only to single-family homes, duplexes, and, I believe, R4 properties. It does not deal with complex commercial, multifamily, and industrial properties. I am pleased to say that with the support of all of our colleagues on the committee, this bill was approved by voice vote at the Financial Services Committee. I was there on July 11; there was not one dissenting voice raised. Mr. Speaker, I hope we can repeat that success again here on the floor, so I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Imran Khan, came to Washington this weekend. As chair of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia, it is appropriate that I comment upon what has occurred so far in the bilateral discussions, and I look forward to meeting the Prime Minister later today. What is unfortunate is the approach taken by the Trump administration. First, as to Afghanistan, the hearts and minds of the Afghan people are critical to our success in what has been our longest war. Tens of thousands of Americans have worked to get the hearts and minds of the Afghan people on our side, building schools and hospitals, under very dangerous conditions. Now, the President takes this high-profile opportunity as an opportunity to say that he might kill 10 million Afghans, or was thinking about it, or raises the possibility that we would use nuclear weapons to destroy Afghanistan. This does untold harm to our efforts in Afghanistan to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people. What the President should have done is talk about the Durand Line and how Afghanistan should accept this border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, a border that Afghanistan disputes but that the whole world accepts. As to Kashmir, it is not surprising that the Prime Minister of Pakistan wants America to arbitrate or mediate. That has been the position of Pakistan for decades. But then, the President said in Osaka, last month, Prime Minister Modi asked the United States to arbitrate or mediate the Kashmir dispute. That is utterly preposterous, and it is embarrassing that we have a President who wouldn't realize how preposterous that statement is. Of course, the record has been set straight by Prime Minister Modi. Third is what the President didn't say. He didn't make a major issue over Dr. Afridi, the doctor who was critical in helping us find and kill Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden was hiding a mile away from the military academy of the Pakistani Army, their West Point. We have not demanded that the Pakistanis who helped Osama bin Laden be put in jail, but we do insist that the one Pakistani who helped us find bin Laden be released from Pakistani jail. The President barely raised the issue. In fact, he didn't voluntarily raise it at all. This is not just a humanitarian concern. It is also a strategic national security concern because who will help us fight terrorism if we leave Dr. Afridi behind? In a news interview, Prime Minister Khan suggested there might be a trade, where Afridi was released and a terrorist named Dr. Siddiqui released by the United States. No friendly country would demand that we release a terrorist in order for them to release a hero, but we have to be practical, and we have to get Dr. Afridi released. Finally, the President failed to mention with the Prime Minister of Pakistan the situation as to human rights. Hundreds of individuals in Sindh have been forcibly disappeared by Pakistani authorities. A prime example of that I should highlight today is a 17-year-old boy from Sindh, Aqib Chandio. He was abducted 14 months ago, in broad daylight. He is still missing. It is time for the Prime Minister of Pakistan to provide information about Aqib Chandio. Where is he? Produce him in court or release him. What is his fate? Of course, we need information about hundreds of others who have disappeared, including Murtaza Junejo, Shahid Junejo, Ayoub Kandhro, and Insaf Dayo. I want to mention Dr. Anwar Laghari, a friend of mine who was shot dead in Sindh in 2015 while working with the Sindh United Party, a party of which he was one of the leaders. Pakistan has not adequately investigated that brutal murder, and it is time for Pakistan to do so. Finally, we focus on the issue of forced conversions in Sindh, young Hindu and Christian girls forced to convert to Islam and forced to marry men many decades their senior. The Pakistani Government needs to stop this pernicious practice. They need to do more. That is why nine of my colleagues joined with me in sending a letter to the President, urging a focus on human rights in Sindh in these bilateral discussions.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chair, one programming note: At this point in the schedule, we were scheduled to deal with three Sherman amendments, No. 20, No. 21, and No. 22. No. 22, also in the Rules Committee numbering No. 83, was included in an en bloc adopted by this House last evening. Amendment No. 20, Rules Committee No. 301, is not being considered at this time because it will be included in an en bloc that comes up later today. So we are now focused on No. 21, Rules Committee No. 82, and I rise in support of that amendment. Mr. Chair, on September 1, 1983, Korean Air Lines 007 was shot down-- 269 casualties, including a Member of this House, Congressman Larry McDonald. On July 17, 2014, Malaysia Airlines number 17 was shot down--298 casualties. If there is one thing this House can agree on, it is that we are opposed to shooting down--especially, deliberately shooting down-- civilian aircraft. And yet the Government of Azerbaijan has stated, with regard to flights going into Stepanakert Airport, that they envision the physical destruction of airplanes landing in that territory. This threat has been repeated several times by Azeri officials, and in times past, Azerbaijan has actually shot at civil airliners going into Stepanakert Airport. That is why this amendment is necessary. It prohibits the transfer of Defense Department articles to Azerbaijan unless the President can certify that the weapons being transferred will not threaten civilian aviation. It would be a tragedy if a civilian airliner were shot at or shot down as it landed or took off from Stepanakert Airport in the Republic of Artsakh. But if that, God forbid, ever happens, let it not be an American weapon. We are on notice that antiaircraft weapons transferred to Azerbaijan may very well be used against civilian aircraft. That is why it is necessary for us to have this provision. After 23 years of studying these issues on the Foreign Affairs Committee, I am not convinced that we should transfer any weapons, under any circumstances, to the Government of Azerbaijan until it comes to the table and resolves the Artsakh dispute. But, certainly, we should not, having been put on notice, transfer weapons that we cannot be sure will not be used to shoot down civilian aircraft. I am pleased to have the cosponsorship of this amendment by Representatives Speier, Schiff, and Pallone, and I believe that this is a necessary step. Because, as we provide weapons to countries around the world, we should not provide antiaircraft weapons that we believe might very well be used to shoot down our civilian aircraft. I would point out that the Stepanakert airport is located in the Republic of Artsakh, previously known as the Republic of Nagorno- Karabakh, a historically Armenian territory that was lumped in with Azerbaijan by no less than Joseph Stalin in a deliberate effort to create ethnic tensions in the Caucasus to the benefit of the Soviet Union and in an effort to punish the Armenian people. The people of Artsakh established their independence decades ago, and whatever your view as to the status of that territory, you should support this amendment unless you believe it is appropriate to shoot down civilian aircraft. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman for including my amendment in the en bloc. This amendment is cosponsored by Chairwoman Waters. Russia interfered in our election. To date, our sanctions have been illusory. A few individuals have been told they can't get visas to visit the United States. They will never see Disneyland. This amendment provides real, serious sanctions on the Russian state by saying that no U.S. person can make additional purchases of Russian sovereign debt. It provides a mechanism for removing these sanctions. If the administration concludes that Russia goes just one election cycle without interfering in our election, and if Congress agrees with that conclusion, then these sanctions are lifted. Finally, the amendment narrowly defines interference in our elections. It makes it plain that if Russian television wants to editorialize or Putin wants to put out a press release, that is fine. Rather, it is interference in our election where Russia interferes with voter tabulation or voter registration processes, where Russia steals information for the purpose of influencing our election, or where Russian hackers use false flag communications pretending to be American spokesmen when they are not. We need a serious mechanism to punish Russia for what they did in prior elections and to deter them from interfering in our future elections. This amendment does that, and I am pleased to include it in the en bloc.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Speaker, as Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia, I want to draw attention to the ongoing problem of terrorism in Kashmir and the often-overlooked plight of the Kashmiri Hindu Pandits. On February 14, 2019, a terrorist attack in Kashmir killed 40 Indian Central Reserve Police Force personnel. This attack was perpetrated by an operative of Jaish-e-Mohammed, a U.S. and UN-designated terrorist group. Then, on June 13, 2019, 5 Indian Central Reserve Police Force personnel were killed in another terrorist attack in Kashmir perpetrated by Al Umar Mujahideen, a different terrorist organization. These attacks are hardly unusual--over the years, thousands of civilians and security personnel have been killed in terrorist attacks in Kashmir. The United States has been attacked by terrorist groups similar to the ones in Kashmir. It is therefore imperative that we stand with India in this time of need. The Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir has historically had a culture of religious tolerance and pluralism, where Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists, and Christians practiced their faith freely in an atmosphere of mutual respect and peace. The violence the region has witnessed in recent decades has eroded this tradition. One group that has suffered as a result is the Kashmiri Pandits, who have lived in Kashmir for centuries. By some estimates, 300,000 Pandits once lived in Kashmir. Today, by some estimates, only 3,000-5,000 remain. This is a tragedy that is too often ignored. Sadly, the violence in Kashmir is likely to continue until different sects restore the tradition of religious tolerance and pluralism. To conclude, I ask my colleagues to co-sponsor H. Res. 408, which Congressman Perry, Congressman Krishnamoorthi, and I introduced in May 2019. Besides condemning the February terrorist attacks, this resolution acknowledges that the House of Representatives supports the rights of religious and other minorities around the world, including the Kashmiri Pandits.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Speaker, I want to join my colleagues, especially Katie Porter who has shown exceptional leadership on this important issue, in calling on Vietnam to release Michael Nguyen and allow him to return home to his family. Born in Vietnam, Michael left the country in 1975 and is a U.S. citizen who lives in my home state of California. Michael has lived in the United States for decades and has no criminal record. In fact, he has been an exemplary citizen. Besides being a business owner and committed family man, Michael is active in his church and his community. In July 2018, Michael traveled to Vietnam to visit elderly family members. He had regularly gone on trips to Vietnam. This time, however, Michael was detained and imprisoned by the Vietnamese police. It was over a week before Vietnam even acknowledged Michael had been detained. Then, for nearly a year, his family, the American consulate, and concerned members of Congress were given no information about his alleged wrongdoings. Instead, despite repeated inquiries into the nature of his alleged crimes, the Vietnamese authorities kept stating that he was under investigation. It is a red flag that Michael was imprisoned for months and months without being formally charged with a crime. Making matters worse, he was not allowed to speak or see his family members, nor was he given access to an attorney. Only recently was Michael officially indicted on the vague charge of carrying out activities against the Vietnamese government. Although Michael's trial is expected to begin later this month, his alleged transgressions are apparently still a state secret in Vietnam. As Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia, I hope to strengthen the U.S.-Vietnamese relationship. Our two countries have many common interests. Despite the scars of history, we have a burgeoning friendship. Many U.S. companies have large operations in Vietnam--including Nike, Adidas, Under Armour, Levi's, and Converse-- helping to propel Vietnam's extraordinary economic growth. Michael's unjust imprisonment jeopardizes this progress. To avoid that outcome, the Vietnamese government should immediately release Michael and allow him to return home to his family in California. That would be a win-win outcome for the United States and Vietnam. Most importantly, it would bring an end to the unimaginable tragedy Michael's loving wife and children have had to endure over the last year.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, we spent many hours in this Chamber talking about the amendments to the appropriations bill, this combination of several appropriations bills, that we will pass later this week. What I would like to take a minute to talk about is an amendment I didn't offer because we got the material in the base text. Our Constitution creates a tension between Article I and Article II when it comes to the power to wage war: the Commander in Chief on the one hand versus the authority of Congress to declare war on the other. Thomas Jefferson determined that it was necessary to get the approval of Congress before he deployed Marines to the shores of Tripoli, our first non-declared war, our first intervention in the Middle East, and a precedent that should have been followed by subsequent Presidents. But in fact, since the days of Jefferson, on many occasions, Presidents just sent our troops in without seeking authority from Congress. That is why in 1973, in the wake of the Vietnam war, this Congress passed the War Powers Act, also known as the War Powers Resolution. It provides that the President cannot deploy for more than 60 or 90 days without an authorization to use military force. Now, that act of 1973 is not everything it should be because it did not encompass the idea of bombing without deploying troops for periods of 60 or 90 days. It is unclear, perhaps. It is in need of revision, perhaps, but it is the only legal restraint on a President committing us to war without any approval from this Congress. But every Attorney General since the 1970s has advised Presidents that the War Powers Act isn't actually binding on them, that a President can send unlimited troops into battle for an unlimited period for any purpose. This is not what should be, and yet many constitutional scholars agree with these provisions, with this interpretation. That is why the provision that we have in this appropriations bill is so important. I want to commend the subcommittee and the full committee for including in the base text the provision that says no funds shall be used in contravention of the War Powers Act. This is a provision I originally proposed as an amendment on this floor in 2011. We lost the first time, but we ultimately prevailed, and now it is part of the base text. This adds the power of the purse to enforce the War Powers Act. I am pleased to report that Attorney General Mukasey, a Republican Attorney General, a strong advocate for Presidential power, testified before the Foreign Affairs Committee that he believes and would advise the President that they need not follow the War Powers Act but that they dare not spend a penny in contravention of the War Powers Act if this provision is included in the relevant appropriations bill. So I commend the committee for including this and assuring that any reasonable Attorney General will tell any President they must adhere to that critical 1973 act. Cryptocurrency

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, in the remaining few seconds, let me deal with another subject. Mark Zuckerberg has announced that he's going to introduce a cryptocurrency, or his plans to do so. The effect would be to undermine our economy by reducing the importance of the U.S. dollar in international transactions and to undermine our national security by making it easier for drug dealers, terrorists, and sanctions evaders to do businesses without using the U.S. dollar. I look forward to addressing this House further and to working in the Financial Services Committee. But it certainly concerns me that a man who has benefited like no other from the protection of the U.S. national security efforts and from the U.S. economy would undermine both in an effort to make even more billions.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for including my amendment, along with one other amendment, in this en bloc. My amendment would transfer $500,000 from the State Department's capital investments fund and put it in the U.S. Agency for Global Media fund. This extra money would allow the USAGM to begin the process of having Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty broadcast in the Sindhi language in Pakistan. There is, perhaps, nowhere in the world where it is more important for the United States to battle extremism and to reach out with a message of democracy and the message of the American people than Pakistan. Pakistan is a nuclear-armed state, the only nuclear-armed state that has ever experienced a military coup, and is a nuclear-armed state with a significant problem with terrorism. Today, the USAGM broadcasts in the Urdu language of Pakistan, which is the primary language of only 8 percent of the Pakistani population. It does not have the funds to broadcast in the Sindhi language, which would reach 40 million people. Mr. Chair, we had hearings in the subcommittee that I chair, the Subcommittee on Asia, where we focused on this issue. Just today, the relevant Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia talked about how important it was for us to reach out to the people of Sindh, to southern Pakistan, in the language that the people actually speak in their daily lives. Accordingly, I offer this amendment, which would provide expanded broadcasting by the entity known as Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. Of course, Pakistan is not in Europe, but it is reached by Radio Liberty. In 2015, the State Department began some efforts to reach out in the Sindhi language with a website and with press releases. Now, we have to take it to the point of radio broadcasting. Since 2001, the United States has invested $30 billion in economic security and humanitarian assistance for Pakistan. This amendment deals with only $500,000 to be invested in winning the hearts and minds of the Sindhi people. I will point out that while this amendment would provide $500,000 for this purpose, it is my hope that, as we go through the legislative process, we can increase that amount to $1.5 million, which is the estimate that the Broadcasting Board of Governors has given me for what it would cost to have a year-round, mostly close to 24-hour Sindhi language service. I know that amount seems low, but keep in mind that they already have most of the content since they are already doing the journalism necessary to do stories about Pakistan in the Urdu language. This would give them a chance to broadcast that same content and some other content in the Sindhi language.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chair, I will simply say that looking at the fact that we have invested $30 billion in our relationship with Pakistan, I cannot think of a better investment than for us to provide $500,000, and, I hope, as we go through the legislative process, $1.5 million in reaching out to those who speak the Sindhi language, some 40 million people.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Chair, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 258. Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. DeFazio

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Speaker, the rules of the House normally provide a substantial amount of time between when members receive a proposed legislative text, and when they are called upon to vote. Ordinary process requires that before voting to add any, or subtract any language from the statutes of the United States, that a member of Congress should review the proposed legislative enactment, its implications, and whether the statutory change will actually achieve the intended purpose of the legislation. It is not enough for a member of Congress to vote for legislation because he or she agrees with the purposes, sentiments, and rhetoric of its supporters. What matters is the actual effect of the statuary language. The minority has adopted the tactic of announcing a motion to recommit just minutes before members are called upon to vote on it. Even when the motion to recommit is only a few pages, it may add or subtract a section of law that requires considerable analysis. It cannot be presumed that the motion to recommit will achieve its stated purpose or will not have unforeseen consequences. If the minority is engaged in serious legislating, they would publish their proposed motion to recommit (or even publish two possible motions to recommit) at least 24 hours before we are expected to vote on final passage. Of particular concern to me is proposing legislative language and claiming that it will be helpful to strengthen the U.S.-Israel alliance. Without a few hours to study a matter, it is difficult to determine whether the statutory language will actually achieve that objective and avoid unintended consequences. Moreover, those seriously interested in improving the U.S.-Israel alliance would share their purposed legislative texts a day or two in advance (or perhaps a week or two ahead in advance) with the members (in my case the co-chair) of the Israel Allies Caucus, and they would also share it with other members who have established their dedication to the U.S.-Israel relationship. Pseudo-Zionists will claim to be supporting the U.S.-Israel alliance while instead weakening that alliance through partisan tactics. On occasion they will spring a supposedly pro-Israel measure for a vote just minutes after it is made available even to the most pro-Israel members in Congress. If a measure proposed a legislative change and I have not had enough time to review its implications, and how the statutory language would dovetail with the existing statutory provisions--in such a case I must vote ``no''. I would hope that the rules of the House would be amended so that motions to recommit must be published soon after the rule for the consideration of the underlying legislation is published.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from the Chamber on Monday, June 3, 2019, Tuesday, June 4, 2019, and Wednesday, June 5, 2019. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Yea'' on Roll Call No. 232; ``Yea'' on Roll Call No. 233; ``Yea'' on Roll Call No. 234; ``Yea'' on Roll Call No. 235; ``Yea'' on Roll Call No. 236; ``Yea'' on Roll Call No. 237; ``Yea'' on Roll Call No. 238; ``Nay'' on Roll Call No. 239; ``Yea'' on Roll Call No. 240; and ``Yea'' on Roll Call No. 241.