[inaudible conversations] >> the rules committee will come at a order. good morning, everyone. thank you for joining us here president biden's weaknesses have not only shouted our national security, it is shattered global security. from the disastrous retreat in afghanistan to an unprecedented attack on our greatest ally, the president's week this has created a state of affairs that was unthinkable just a few short years ago. america and our partners deserve far better. house republicans have warned president biden the time of the gentleman has expired to get of the simple truth, weakness invites aggression.

he obviously did not listen. but don't take my word for it. take the word of president obama's former secretary of defense, president bush's former secretary of defense, secretary gates where he said joe biden has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades. end quote. nevertheless, we are stepping up and delivering critical ager allies in the world peace stabilize by the failed leadership. today the rules committee will consider several bills designed to aid israel, taiwan and ukraine as the each face grave threats to the very existence. they are in these dangerous situations not in spite of president biden's leadership but because of it. h.r. 8034 the israeli security supplemental appropriations act will provide much-needed material support to the jewish

state as it faces twin threats from hamas and the islamic republic of iran. for decades america's ironclad support for israel always formed the foundation of their security. president biden dismantled that foundation through his continued efforts to appease his radical base at their expense. what's more, his financial appeasement of iran has added fuel to the fire. for example, his administration we issued a sanctions waiver and renewed it again last month that gave iran access to more than $10 billion. it certainly did make it harder for the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism to wage a campaign of violence. h.r. 8034 delivers $26.38 billion to support israel and its ever to defend itself against iran and its proxies, and that reverses the united states military for operations in response to recent attacks.

notably, the legislation set aside $4 billion to replenish iron dome and david's sling missile-defense systems, israel desperately needs this aid now. iran was a field when taking note of president biden's weaknesses. china is happy to watch the united states abandon our place of leadership, and is undoubtedly plays taiwan in its crosshairs because of this. we cannot stand by as the likelihood of another authoritarian adversary invading and neighbor increases on this presidents watch. h.r. ad-36, the indo-pacific security supplemental appropriations act provides over $8 billion to continue efforts to counter communist china and to ensure a strong deterrent in the region. within that figure, 3.3 billion is appropriate for submarine infrastructure and $2 billion for the foreign military financing program. we cannot afford to wake up in a world where we are too late to

come to taiwan's aid. ukraine is another flashpoint in biden's broken world order. before vladimir putin's brutal invasion, the president recklessly signaled that he would accept a quote minor incursion close quote ukrainians pay for that horrific step each and every day. h.r. 8035 the ukraine sigar to supplemental appropriations appropriations act provides for critical funding while also safeguarding american contributions. the bill supplies $13.8 $n for procurement of advanced weapons systems, defense articles and defense services and also appropriates over $23 billion to replenish defense articles and services provided to ukraine. finally the rules committee will also consider h.r. 8030 the 21st century peace through strength act picked this last item will bolster the tools we have available to respond to the

revolving threats and president biden's dangerous new reality. as always, i know i can look forward to a wholesome that are false meant robust debate on the pressing issues that are facing this nation. i am happy to you to our ranking member mr. mcgovern for any comments he wishes to make. >> thank you, mr. chairman and all i can say after hearing her opening statement is wow. you guys never miss an opportunity to blame your own incompetence on joe biden. i mean, you plain joe biden for everything you're surprised if employment for the earthquake in your opening remarks. you don't blame iran. you don't win any of the bad players but everything is blamed on joe biden. i guess that's the republican talking points. but it is unbelievable to me that it has taken this long for this republican majority to do their job. the incompetence and the indifference is stunning.

i mean, i, i really can't believe it. i don't expect much of this republican majority, but this is really the on the pale. the senate found common ground months ago, and meanwhile the world has been watching your car allies have been waiting and waiting and waiting for the gop to get their act together. well guess what? our allies are out of time, and the republican party is out of excuses. the ukrainian people have suffered as a result of this u.p. majority. ukrainians are engaged in a brutal war, not of their own choosing, and brutal war against an expansionist russia at the hands of vladimir putin wants to rebuild the old soviet union. mark my words, he will not stop in ukraine pick out and tell you right now if we do not help ukraine fight for their democracy, fight to protect

their sovereignty, this war will not end. it will grow. it will grow. at this republican delay has helped putin and hurt ukraine. and maybe that's what the intent is. but if that's the purpose of all of this, it really is horrific. so again i want to congratulate my republican colleagues for finally realizing the gravity of the situation and urgency with which we must act. this is the right thing to do but it's also what this country want. six in ten americans favor providing both economic assistance to ukraine and sending additional arms and military supplies to the ukraine government, according to ipsos. cbs even reports that a huge number of republicans want to help ukraine. because they know if ukraine falls, putin will not stop there. he will not.

he will keep going until he drags all of europe into his vicious war. and i hope my colleagues across the aisle understand, that is what is at stake here. and i'm hopeful that now we can come to the table, tune out the extremism, and do what our constituents want us to do. that is why we are sent here, to compromise, to work in divided government to get things done. compromise is not a dirty word. it's our job especially in a divided government. i hope my friends use this moment as a time to reflect on how the majority is going. because it's time for them to stop following the maga extremists off a cliff. and it's time for all of us to make sure that our allies get the aid that they need. i mean, this is, this is a moment of urgency. this is a time for us to act. and it may even be too late.

i hope it's not but i hope we will act and hope we will act decisively and quickly. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> the chair thanks a gentleman for his remarks. without objection in a prepared statement that all witnesses and will be included in the record. i would like to welcome our first panel, no strain to this committee, chairman tonko homeland, former chairman of the rules committee. mr. cole, were grateful to have you back. ranking member rosa delauro also from the committee on appropriations, chairman mica call and ranking member beats from the committee on foreign affairs. chairman called, begin. welcome back to the committee. i can't tell you how badly we miss you. [laughing] but you are now recognized and i welcome your testimony. >> thank you very much mr. johnson. i know you miss me. i don't think anybody else does. but it is a a flight to be bak in. chairman burgess, ranking member mcgovern, distinguished members of the rules committee, i want

to thank you for your warm welcome. when i cycled off the rules can you last week and and i woue back in this room. and at this witness table at some point. i did not anticipate it would be quite the soon, but as we've all seen events move at their own speed and house of representatives that i come before you today to testify on a series of critical security supplemental bills that provide much-needed defense assistance to our allies and partners around the world. we are confronting a tinderbox of hunter biden aggression on multiple fronts and america must stand firmly on the side of freedom. peace through strength cannot be delivered through appeasement. taken together, these measures protect our friends and partners and replenish american stockpiles with ammunition, weapons and supplies. this is not only about safeguarding the ideals of democracy and peace are alsl to our own national security. tyrants and dictators at the helm of russia, china and iran

showed disdain for sovereignty and their acting on it. we are here because of the short order of the free world is at risk. it's not hypothetical, and that's not hyperbole rhetoric. two years ago vladimir putin launched a forcible and illegal invasion of ukraine. the onslaught was brutal, yet the uk people have fought valiantly. they have refused to let moscow take the homeland of the conflict is now a war of attrition. it incumbent upon ukraine friends to provide needed aid so that ukraine can continue to resist. israel, too, is literally on the front lines. last year hamas launched a vicious terror attack on our great ally. 1200 israelis were murdered, and hundreds of people taken captive. 130 hostages including 30 hostages including american citizens remain in prison in gaza today. iran has taken note and looking to prolong violence in the region.

this past week in tehran executed an unprecedented aerial assault on israel firing hundreds of missiles and drones. most of these were intercepted by an israeli forces and those of israel's friends and allies including the united states. but the threat from this known state sponsor of terrorism cannot be understated. nor can the threat from iran's proxies not just hamas and hezbollah, the houthis and others all of which are capable of and willing to commit themselves to warfare against israel. taiwan mima faces real and serious threats from the chinese communist party which looks across the taiwan strait and into the south china sea. taiwan continues to show the world what a free and democratic china could look like and its security is critical to american security interest in the asia pacific theater. we are at an inflection point and i would not everyone here remember history where living in what feels like a time of the past. in the 1930s nations seeking

any opening to exploit their neighbors. at the time the democratic west had opportunities to confront and in this aggression. we fail to do so. from that failure nazi germany, fascist italy and militarized japan took the message that we could do and would do nothing to stop them. the result was a bloody and devastating, you know, war, accumulating in the most largest and destructive deadliest war in history. the ayes of the world are upon us again today. russia is watching. iran is watching. the chinese communist party is watching. what are they going to show them? failing to pass this critical national security aide is a gift to our adversaries. i would encourage all members to vote to support this critical legislation and want to thank again this committee for your kind invitation to appear before you. and to testify today. i look forward to your questions. questions. >> the chair thanks adjustment.

mr. meeks, you are recognized. >> -- thanks adjustment. >> thank you, mr. chairman, thank you ranking member. you know, i wish we were not here. i i believe the appropriate thig would've been months ago we just have to pass the bipartisan supplemental that the senate passed and sent over. because the clock is going take talk on our allies -- tiktok. we need to get them what they need immediately. ukraine is on the brink. they need this supplemental and what's contain trick in fact, they needed it months ago. the camera of history is

rolling, and it's watching what we were doing at this time. this is a critical time in history of the united states of america and our allies all around the world. the quickest way to get them what they need would have been to pass the senate supplemental bill. it would be signed today, and the ammunition needed by our ukrainian allies, our israel allies, our friends in the indo-pacific, and the american aid that is statically needed in gaza around the world would be out. but here we are. and had to say that this has been an utterly chaotic process past 72 hours, to put together a so-called sidecar supplemental package. and i'm very disappointed that

every component built in the foreign affairs section of this legislation was sponsored by the majority. that is not the appropriate weight to craft bipartisan legislation. democrats have tremendous number of good ideas for how to strengthen our sanctions and impose costs on bad actors and human rights violators around the world. yet, those views are currently not reflected in this bill. that said, context is important. and the context is this. the ukrainian army and the training people have shown tremendous bravery and astounding courage to resist the invasion of their nation by putin's forces. they have the will to fight. they have shown that for over two years. they have the ability to fight and win. they have also shown that peer we just need to give them what

they need. they need the weapons to do so. and right now they are running out of everything from defensive vessels to basic ammunition. we need to get them aid and in the middle is our ally israel just faced an unprecedented onslaught from iran. we need to have their backs. and for the people facing humanitarian crises, it would simply be against my values not to support individuals facing deprivation and starvation. we need to act to prevent a famine. given this context, i will support h.r. h.r. 8038, tht century peace through strength act. this is not a bill i would have crafted. all of the legislation in my

jurisdiction was sponsored as a set by the majority. the process of putting this package together has been quite frustrating. one bill which was never negotiated, and i still do not know how it ended up in the package, , includes a new sanctions authority without a waiver. but for the most part the collection of legislation included in the sidecar is bipartisan, and the republicans were willing to make at least some notable changes to improve the legislation. enrico, , pertaining to the seizure of russian sovereign assets, there is no doubt that russia should pay for its crimes against humanity and would ukraine. as vice president harris turned it, this bill importantly irons out legal questions and make sure that the united states does not act alone, but rather in a coordinated fashion with our g7 partners. and there are a array of middle east sanction bills included in

this package, including several we voted on this week. important also the majority agreed to add humanitarian exception in three of the bills that i had long been requesting. i hope that going forward we could make including these exceptions as a matter of cost rather than last-second negotiations. but i do want to thank my friend and the chairman of the foreign affairs committee, mr. mccaul, and his team for the good faith negotiations on the middle east section of the legislation, including the corporation of certain exceptions and carveouts that i believe will bolster our moral ratably without undermining our tough does. as is a policy on committee, mro work together in in a bipartn way. and i appreciate working with him. the legislation also contains several bills in the financial

service of energy and commerce. important changes were made to these bills. and while i voted against h.r. 7520 on the floor as i'm concerned it is a blank check authorization that could go far beyond what people in washington are talking about, i think the bill at least took a step in the right direction with a more realistic timeframe for a complex divestiture process. and again i would point to the context of the moment. i've been saying for months we need to support our friends and allies around the world now. this was not idle talk. it was not political talk. it was a fact. we need to support ukraine immediately. we need to find humanitarian aid. we need to back israel and taiwan, i cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good. and, therefore, i support this legislation and hope i can continue to do so if amendments

are made for this bill. and i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. my apologies, i should've gone to as chairman first. now you are recognized. a rookie mistake. were anxious to see what you bring to us. >> chairman burgess, it's great to say that and congratulations on your chairmanship. ranking member mcgovern, this is a critical time in history. i think this is in my 20 years in congress we are at a real pivotal point in history as a look at the map and her adversaries mr. meeks and i -- refugees fleeing out of ukraine. you could've taken a black-and-white photo and it would've looked like 1939 and that's exactly what the polls told us was this is 1939 all over again. and after the fall of afghanistan we saw the russian federation satellite imagery moving toward ukraine.

we knew was going to happen. we want them. it happened. i could that, chairmanship of the olympics met with their allies and chairman xi is watching what happens in ukraine to determine whether the invades taiwan in the pacific. and then the ayatollah now has raises its ugly head. these dictators including north korea are all tied to give any idea that we can separate them, we don't pick and choose her enemies. they choose us. and this bill is probably one of the most important votes we will have in our careers picked because it does confront all of those threats and we saw last saturday rockets coming in from iran for the first time in history out of iran into israel itself. over 300 of them, fortunately 99% of them were shot down because we have provided with the necessary defenses. but looking at ukraine, it is a

dire situation or talk to to the ambassador yesterday, kharkiv is on the verge of collapse. second-largest city in ukraine, and the power grid could go out any day. time is not on our side and while we are finally here to discuss this. also chairman xi intention in taiwan and the threats i associate when i visit the island surrounded battleships and aircraft carriers and threats, their intentions very clear and what happens in ukraine as a japanese ambassador or prime minister said, that this is joint session what happens in ukraine affects taiwan. so we're at that moment and it's a time for choosing edit think the choice is you want to be churchill or you want to be chamberlain? i want to thank the speaker.

speaker has had a lot of pressure on him, very difficult circumstance. i was with him the night before he made his decision. add a note he takes it very personally. and he is a met the fate and i think he doesn't wear is honestly. he got down on his knees and he prayed for guidance and said, tell me, what is the right thing to do here? and he told me the next i want to be on the right side of history. i i want to be on the right side of history. and i think he is following the legacy of churchill. he is choosing to confront the generational threat posed by this unholy alliance of russia, china and iran. as reagan set a time, it is time for choosing speech. leave the issues confronting us cross party lines. as chair of the foreign affairs committee i believe that partisanship stops at the water ships edge. in fact, after october seven, we

were crafting a resolution and something we need to make that a partisan resolution. mr. meeks and i disagree with that. we need to speak with one voice, one nation when we are addressing particularly our adversaries. they need to know that we are not divided as a nation. we have decided democracy and that's a democracy. but in matters of this, we need to be unified. and that's why i'm proud to support the 21st century peace through strength act, which is largely made up of house passed bipartisan bills. i i want to thank mr. meeks for his contributions. it provides a a critical secuy assistance to our partners, and makes great policy changes so we can better defeat opponents of freedom and democracy. also includes my bipartisan, bicameral repo act that calls upon the biden administration to

transfer frozen russian sovereign assets in the united states to ukraine or reconstruction and other purposes like budget support. it's a narrow targeted piece of legislation that ensures that russia pays for the war it started, that russia pays for its war crimes. putin's war crimes and genocide cannot be reversed by money, however. the horrors, the pictures we see, murdered civilians including women and children and maternity hospital bonds cannot be brought back, and the trauma will live on in that country for generations. and we have a moral responsibility. there is human suffering. critical infrastructure homes and towns can be rebuilt though. making russia pay for that is not just the morally and strategically right thing to do,

it's also fiscally responsible on behalf of our constituents. let them pay for it rather than the american taxpayer. putin caused this devastation, and he can pay for it. this act ensures americans especially our children will be protected from the line influence from the ccp controlled tiktok. this app silently gathers americans personal data in their pockets picked that manipulates its users allowing the ccp sensors to dictate the content its users seek. tiktok is modern-day trojan horse of the ccp to surveilled and exploit america's personal information. this legislation is the first step in protecting americans against foreign subversive data collection. and i would like to thank ranking member pallone for this contribution. it also targets elicit fentanyl

supply chain from the chemical suppliers in china to the cartels that traffic the drugs in from mexico. synthetic opioids primarily fentanyl killed more than 100,000 americans last year alone. over 200,000 since this administration. that's more than world war ii and vietnam combined. it's time for this to end. michael also includes most comprehensive sanctions against iran that congress has passed in years, including the chips act which imposes sanctions on foreign ports, vessels or fighters who deal an iranian oil. imagine this, mr. chairman, $80 billion of energies and exported from iran bought by china, that they used to fund their terror operations we saw last weekend. we need to stop that. also, the hamas international

financing prevention act imposes sanctions against hamas, the palestinians, islamic jihad and other terrorist organizations. more importantly, my crime act imposes sanctions on anyone involved in the supply, sale, or transfer of iran's missiles and roads. think about this, mr. chairman, iran makes the drones and the missiles that are bought by russia to kill ukrainians. they are manufactured and iran to kill israelis. they are given to their proxies and they are given to russia. again, this is all tied together. that act alone will stop the export of these iranian drones and rockets and missiles that we saw last saturday night in israel. it will stop it from happening in ukraine as well. this will codify export control

restrictions to limit iran's access to manufacture these missiles and drones took it's hard for me to even say that that were exporting technology from this country that iran uses to make this stuff. and we do the same thing with china. our adversaries are working together to undermine our western values and to meet our democracy. in closing, i want to quote reagan. i'm a reagan republican. i admired him. when he said evil is powerless if good are unafraid. we cannot be afraid at this moment. we have to do what's right and we have to show strength and peace through strength is what he taught us. evil is on the march. history is calling, and that is the time to answer. i yield back. >> jutland yields back. thank you for your testimony. ranked member delauro, your record for a testament.

>> thanks very much, mr. chairme you on your chairmanship. i see that the chair of the appropriations committee is back and i congratulate chairman cole as well. we have been on this side of the dais for number of occasions and look forward to our working together. want to acknowledge ranking member mcgovern and the distinguished numbers of this committee. i strong support passage of the three supplemental appropriation bills in this national security funding package. this legislation provides the support for our allies that has been desperately needed for months. it supports ukraine against russian aggression. israel and its war against iran and its proxies like hamas, hezbollah, and the houthis. our indo-pacific partners against an adversarial china, and it provides the urgently needed humanitarian aid for millions of civilians who have

been caught in the crossfire across these theaters. innocent families are in danger. children are starving, and civilian casualties are mounting in conflict zones all around the world. the humidity and support in this bill would make sure that we are not leaving -- humanity to the gazans, the ukraine, the sudanese, the haitians, the ruling guns the height. the speaker has to come out and support it for uk. he said and i quote, history judges us for what we do. this is a critical time on the world stage. and the speaker continued, and i quote, i would rather send a bullet to ukraine than american boys. i applaud speaker johnson for taking a stand. he is right. history will judge us for whether we stand strong or we capitulate in this moment.

the moment has met us. to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who do not support this, we cannot retreat from the world stage under the guise of putting america first. we put america first by demonstrating the power of american leadership, that we have to strengthen the resolve and the heart to fight for the most gullible people, to protect the freedom, and preserve their dignity. it is shameful that the urgency of this poem has gone unanswered for so long. our allies and adversaries have seen america all but yield back its central role in defending human rights, freedom, and democracy. it ukraine does not receive the support needed to counter russia's outrageous attack on its sovereign territory, the legacy of this congress will be as spoken by my college or this

point, the appeasement of a dictator, the distraction of an allied nation, and a fractured europe. and yes, my colleague congressman mccall has said we can either the neville chamberlain or went to church and asked the members of the screen what is the difference between drones, missiles, rockets raining down on israel and drones, missiles and rockets raining down on ukraine? we do watch if we're not there for ukraine, gone will be the postwar order that is kept europe free and prosperous. on will be our credibility in the eyes of our allies and adversaries. and gone will be the american that promised to stand up for freedom, for democracy come for human rights wherever they are threatened or whatever they are

under attack. vladimir putin is betting that he can outlast the will and the determination of ukraine, united states, and other western allies. we must prove him definitively wrong. an american general just last week quoted, and i quote, if you cannot fire back, you are losing. ukraine is dangerously at the point where they cannot fire back. we cannot afford to allow them to lose. in the middle east, i i wholeheartedly support funding for israel's defense. israel was attacked by iran, and i applaud the role of the united states and the role that it played to provide israel in its defense against iran and its proxies. and we are still waiting

israel's response to the attack the experience over the weekend. we must enter israel can stand strong in the face of adversaries like iran that seek its annihilation. we must also ensure that every step possible is taken to protect innocent life in gaza and elsewhere. to that end i have called for an immediate ceasefire of at least six weeks to facilitate the safe delivery of aid to civilians in gaza. we must protect aid workers it we must open additional crossings to bring in at least 500 trucks a day, and ensure that food is never used as a weapon of war. we need this time to up get hostages released. and the united states cannot sit by while people are starving to death. our allies are facing existential threats, and our friends and our foes around the

world are watching, waiting to see how american will respond. putin is watching. president xi is watching. the ayatollah is watching. what course will america take? we cannot let any nation around the globe hold any doubt that the united states is a committed partner in the security of the free world. and we cannot shift the goalposts any further. and right now is the time to pass this bill. and i stated this morning on this platform with colleagues, democrat and republican, who are united in understanding that the moment has found us. we need to meet it, and we need to pass this legislation. i yield back. >> the chair thanks the genitally and thank all of our

witness on the panel for tesla. unfortunately the skill to devote from the middle of all this so i would yield to the vice chair of the committee to go vote. i'll be back to join you on the other side. >> thanks, chairman. i appreciate it. chairman cole -- >> no, he went. >> i'm sorry. i was doctor at the beginning. [inaudible] thank you. [laughing] that's right. i have no questions at this time. ranking member mcgovern? >> i did want to thank all of you for your testimony, and it seems like all of you are in agreement on how we should proceed. i appreciated the tone of all the testimonies. i think it was a contrast of the chair of his opening statement to do appreciate your tone. and i think we need to move this forward. so let's get on with it and i yield back my time. >> thank you. the gentlelady from pennsylvania.

[inaudible] >> i want to associate myself with the ranking members remarks. in order to get to the room today we all had to let i call it of our colleagues in the press with the ship and asking what is the republicans plan to pass the national security legislation? does a majority even have the votes to pass this rule out of committee? of your week we seen into convoluted -- to placate the extremes in the house and it's been clear for for a long tw that many members of this party of the speakers party on a participant in legislative process in good faith. their turbulent in this building and beyond that there's nothing the speaker could do to get the votes of the extreme members of the republican party. there's no procedural gimmick. there's no amendment vote. does the bipartisan border security bill or even a partisan

immigration package that can win the votes of the chambers right-wing members. time to stop negotiating with legislative terrorists. let's work on behalf of these vast and bipartisan majority of the american people. we have wasted months dancing around the obvious solution here. just passed the senate supplemental. at any point of the past several months we could've done that under suspension of the rules. the senate bill has broad bipartisan support in the house. the biggest losers in this game have been the american people, our national security and that of democracies across the globe. so we're back in rules committee, no guarantees that republicans can pass this rule, considering a convoluted package is no different than the senate supplemental that his downstairs in the hopper right now and could be called up in a moment notice. quit the game, past the supplemental. i yield back. >> are right they could. my from south carolina. >> i want to thank the panelists

for coming. i agree with what most of you said to be honest with you. mike, i agree, chairman cole i agree with your assessment of the speaker. we met with speaker johnson yesterday. you know, i'm, it's amazing to me when you hear look at xi is watching, other leaders. the american people are watching. i only ask let's include a border bill. i only ask was to include the border bill in this rule. not a standalone which the senate will sit on as they have h.r. two. give us something that come in the senate so-called bipartisan bill i don't called bipartisan when you're letting five, , the 14,000 illegals in this country. that's not bipartisan. austin summed it up yesterday

when i think he asked a number of you, how long of a going to do this was how long i'll be putting america last? the only linchpin leverage we have is hunting for ukraine. i fear for your green. i feel for israel but i feel for the american people. and having his flood of illegals in this country, that he's talking about on the brink. we saw, chairman mccaul, the vision of the refugees into green, i feel them. what about the vision of the illegals basically throwing, pushing our border patrol agents down? what about the victims? how long of a going to have? how long are we going to have the picture laken riley? how long of a good have kate steinle who was gunned down? how long i'm going to put up with a 14 year old girl in campbell county virginia who was brutally raped? how long of a going to stand by and let the impersonator in

minneapolis, minnesota, who went in and shot, , he went in as the deliveryman and shot three people in the head in front of his two children? we're ignoring the main issue that the american people have said is keep our own border security now i've heard the argument that wealth the senate will not buy. while i'm sorry commit the sin without will not buy it will not get funding is my opinion. they should not get funding for anything because america, our sovereignty is at stake here. that's why i'm voting no on this. i cannot sit back and let something that does not have the security of this country, mr. meeks, i cannot do it as we have an invasion at the board that affects everybody. it's an insult and i think austin mentioned it, it's an insult to those who have done it legally. the president is totally responsible for this. it's under his watch over the last three and half years that he's open the borders up. and not even putting the lng

requirement that we buy gas from america in your pic if you really want to support israel and ukraine, stop buying gas from opec countries that don't like us. it's not that complicated. so all, my reasoning, it's tough to do this. it really is. but i'm simply not going i cannot vote at any level. and they get it. we will probably pass it out of here, but it's, is something that i can't live with and it's something that the american people are screaming about, and anything moving forward i would hope would have some type of legislation that will shut the border down and it's not, hopefully that would be bipartisan to shut it down but it's just not. there's one reason that they're having in in the store. chairman mccaul. >> i agree with everything you said. and i live in a border state and we most impacted by it. the violence of the human

trafficking. impeachment manager for mayorka mayorkas. you know, we have a president that is that willing to enforce the law. and we have a senate that will not pass our bills. we passed h.r. two. two. we will pass it again. i come visible of enforcement issue than it is legislative. this is where elections have consequences. because he has all the authorities that he needs. remain in mexico i mark that up out of my committee, and it was a bipartisan. that was one of the few times but it's a 30-year-old statute. he has the same authorities president trump had that he used successfully to get the border shut, and secure. and this president is failing to do that. and so i would ask you not, and i get it, and i wish the senate

with pass h.r. two but the reality is they won't. but i would not, i would not jeopardize the future of democracy and the future of visual and was happening in ukraine and in the pacific. the greatest threat since my dad were, world war ii, threat to europe and the pacific or i would hope you would not make that, they're not mutually exclusive. and so i would hope you would consider that but i totally agree with you on what you were saying. we're stuck in this political situation but i think at this point in time president has all the authorities he needs. he just won't enforce it. >> chairman mccaul do anything about to that, you put your thing understands is leverage. for some reason the senate has wanted this ukraine funding for whatever reason. i can think of some. there's no need to mention why they want it or why they get 60%

of the funds which i would rather more instead of the 26 when going to israel, far more. but that being said, this isn't that complicated defend america. make him do it or he doesn't get the money. that's, that's what i will be voting against this. i will close with this. i went to two funerals, fentanyl has killed two in my hometown, 14-year-old and 40. any, how long of a going to keep this up? >> i been, my children have been too many -- very sad, is killed more than world war ii and vietnam. >> thank you all for adjustment. >> i with the 80% of the of the money for ukraine does go into our defense and social base, and he goes into modernizing and replenishing our stockpile in the united states and is going to create jobs and the united states. but that's why it's important, too, we live in a far more dangerous world and since i took

office. >> yeah. thank you and i yield back. >> picture thanks agenda went. the gentleman gentleman from the mexico is recognized. >> thank you so very much. you know, and i was struck as i was listening to the testament of our witnesses i do want to thank each of you for come. i also want to thank each of you for bringing to the committee and bringing to the american people as house membership, unity of vision that you have send it to us today. the concept that we are in the moment we must act and we must act decisively, and it should be bipartisan. thank you very much, chairman cole and chairman mccaul. thank you thank you verg members. democrats have been asking that we be allowed to vote, that we allow the membership of the united states house of representatives to vote, to support ukraine, to support our

allies, to recognize as you said is so clearly, chairman mccaul, and the we all know that china, iran, russia are not our friends. they are our enemies. and when they attacked our friends we must stand with our allies. and that when we have that vote, i'm going, certain it would be incredibly bipartisan. because there are so many republicans who also want to stand for democracy, who also want to push back the attacks, when they attack the ukrainians, they also have attacked us and the future and attend in the past. chairman mccaul, would you agree that russia has malevolent intent to america and will continue to seek to undermine us from cyber attacks for what they're doing in ukraine.

>> is i grew up in the cold war, and my wife tracked russian soviet submarines in the navy, naval intelligence, and those submarines are back. they are an adversary. the idea that there cannot connected to china. i mean, they're holding hands at the beijing olympics talk about the unholy alliance and how he will invade ukraine. any expert you talk to, every military, general jack keane and mike pompeo will tell you there's a a national security interest year because if ukraine falls and then moldova will fall, then georgia come then the baltics are at stake and to looking parallels to 1939 all over again. and it eventually they're going to hit a chord with nato article v and we will have to send our men and women over there. the reason i want -- they're fighting for us is what the come and do want to give them everything they need to at least

push the russians back so we don't have to send our men and women over there. it's called deterrence. if we fail in that and surrender in ukraine like we did in afghanistan, this that make the united states, doesn't make it it more powerful or weaker? it makes us weaker. we are not projecting strength. and we lose the trust and confidence of our allies. i think that's a big mistake, and it would have a long-term generational impact. i do want our men and women over there. if we do nothing that's going to happen. >> thank you very much. chairman, that's why i'm so perplexed at the fact that there are republicans who oppose supporting ukraine. because the republican history has been condemning russia. i mean, that change speeders what would ronald reagan do? reagan stood up to the soviet union. he brought down the soviet union. he was not anpeak for my other

colleagues. i just did for what i believe as republican that grew up in come have the honor to vote for reagan my first election. so i, you know, i'm with you on the border. god, i mean i thought, we all did and we passed h.r. two. and you know what? there will be an election and we can get back to what works. >> but getting back to russia -- >> we can't abandon our allies that . we abandon our allies at this critical point, then where are we then? >> i think at this point and the sort of understanding of the evil of russia, i think was republican and democrat basically until we hit president trump, but ranking member, recommended you're going to add to that. >> just add a couple of things, which is important. first talk about the ukrainian

people. you know, i led the last codel to ukraine before the russian invasion. and what we did, we talked to ukrainian people. we didn't just go to the political class. we went and we talked to taxi drivers, bus drivers. we went to restaurants, and we talked to the people. and what we were saying to them was about this threat of russia attacking was about to happen. ..

what to premier. he said they have been part of the soviet union, they would never wear those green uniforms. they said don't worry about fighting. all we are going to do is ask america, give us what we need to fight with and we will be back and that's where we are right now. president joe biden we would be divided among thought that it would not work with us for the

diplomacy utilized by joe biden's. nato is stronger than ever. nato now, who would have thought finland and sweden work with all of our allies. a historic meeting 20 japan and south korea. indo-pacific bringing together,

india, australia while bringing our allies together. it's america and our allies a skill joe biden because bringing us together to defeat and beat russia. he was make sure north korea what. what joe biden is doing is putting together those coalitions, back next you combat

around being unified? that's the people joe biden has put back. >> can i make a response to that? i want this campaign after biden is very serious. i will say early rational republican i think a lot of what he said has happened but i have pleaded with the white house two

years and it's been a slow walk. the long-range artillery between russia, crimea, who kept a supply line. either get in or get out. if you don't do it halfway. another with afghanistan and the way it was done was really getting promoted sent waves of weakness empowered them but this

is my time see them coming down to invade. you have to ask, i'm not trying to be partisan from aquinas happening? why is the world on fire? what caused this? old doctrine of chamberlain and churchill. deterrent is key. if we don't provide deterrence we are going to invite more conflict, more work. >> what -- >> bring the people together. had we not, nato wouldn't be

together. we couldn't do all the things we wanted, that's doing it alone but taking into consideration what our allies would say but the biden administration, i'm telling you, let stick together and we can win this thing. they would never giving up up being independent. forget them, let's move without them. we can bring them together, we can work together. biking deserves credit and history will give him the credit bringing allies together.

>> i'll try to get to the fact that we have unanimously among the four of you that we need to get this done. clearly do not agree on the situation because i look at things and have to foreign policy review process history will judge presidency but a coaster and we look at the history and it was destroying lesions and i kind of don't want to talk about the moment we are facing now. america is calling on us to act and depending on where we stand

they will both outweigh but allow us to vote. >> i agree, we are united. i also agree with my friend from texas. my friend from new mexico said we just spoke. that's all we want from the united states on tik tok legislation and it hasn't come to ago. that's all we agreed to on a tax bill for ways and means so i understand the frustration to say all we want is to get about something we think is important.

not just hr to tik tok so i'm glad we are rising above the u.s. senate but we are rising above the u.s. senate. we are not trying to hold list hostage. the united states hostage has held hostage things on the southern border with fentanyl pouring in, child trafficking. i'm pleased the president is doing this in terms of ukraine. the obama biden administration did zero and 2014. i got meals to eat and blankets. we knew for months that i was coming.

did we send anything early to show them we were serious? we did not so i agree with my friend from texas, ukraine was about to. i was in moscow and saw the united states lifting a 20 year commitment entered 38 million people back over to the very people that hosted osama bin laden -- when historians look at this, they will go back to 2014 and it will be a nuanced picture. to be fair, it's water under the bridge. i love history and the moment is now we do agree because we see it and i will leave it to historians. with all due respect people on my side of the aisle are

combined something to agree on, i'm going to ask. i'm not going to try to leverage one against the other. i don't think that works but there's a lot of context here in my friend from texas talking about that we understand where the frustration is. the people i don't agree with mike we are not asking for a predetermined outcome, just ask for a vote.

he's trying to give every member of the body a choice. i think it's a good thing and i wish we saw more of an united states senate. this is asking for the ability to work as well and thank goodness we agree on this. might not agree with what i said but i can be prouder of my friend the ranking member on foreign affairs and i'm happy to act with the president of the united states with whom i disagree but i don't on this one. i don't like the areas i disagree stop me with what i do

agree. right legislatures but this one we agree so i am happy to be here. >> i think it's something again last night, embers of the republican members of his committee had gone over to the senate, there was a bipartisan group week continue do you with revisionist street. the trump administration violated illegally withholding security assistance from ukraine. when we think about what embolden food let's not forget

the words everyone has invoked here today. putin is his dearest friend and don't you think putin is waiting to see another trump administration? they are trying to select not sugarcoat what's going on in terms of trying to indict the biden administration. that is not the moment. i sat in the white house not in the classified meeting where republican colleagues said we won't have ukraine without bipartisan border security and

we accomplished it. shake your head all you want but it was donald trump said don't give biden a win. this moment is now. the u.s. senate in the u.s. senate but it is now, it's the united states, we have the opportunity to do what we do here and that is to govern. what are we doing? be a world leader in for months and months we've been diddling around for people are dying and ukraine. we'll talk about what weapons we need to get them. we are not giving them what they need now and it's been months. we should have picked up the senate and brought to the floor

immediately and would be out of here today doing it. the moment is hours and yes, history will write the story and it's on us we had the moment, we said no. i for one, will not say no and provide ukraine with the weapons it needs to go forward and provide israel but it needs to defense against iran. i am overwhelming in support of being able to deliver humanitarian assistance on a volume that will meet that need because we are standing by watching ukrainians by and palestinians starve to death. at that's the way we want to be a member in history -- it's not the way i want to be a member.

let's cast our vote in favor of the national security. >> vote against deprivation, it's casting a pope democracy, what we are looking for when we are able to look at all and with quoting a democrat president democracy is never a final achievement. it's a calling to an untiring effort. we must continue for value, honor and i look back. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

it sounded like there were new patients that you be uncomfortable with. >> many of these issues, clear focus on vigils negotiate in three of the bills we were able to negotiate humanitarian aid and made good felt better i support in that regards. i was concerned about sanctions. >> all of those concerns of been taken care of.

>> could this be used to purchase cluster munitions? >> i'm not sure, the accuracy always concerned about innocent individuals being entered in the history of the war and people come by and they are devastated so i want to make sure we are abiding by the war powers and in

war. >> would you prohibit the money going to cluster munitions? >> that is something i would consider, yes. >> the money covered by rule recovered? company is already been appropriated. i understand your concerns. ukrainians just want to use them in their own country. they are highly effective but the question on the funding i

think i was the original package. >> i wasn't even going to ask you any questions but i'll give you all the time he want. >> to pass up an offer like that. [laughter] authority is in their and i, things have been deployed by the russians, ukrainians have asked, i'm sure something that would prefer to do but they felt that way and when we dealt with this earlier discussion on this committee on victim want to do that he was put in the position where it felt like he had to. this one with a moral dilemma,

certainly not by ukrainians model to get something i think americans want to do. war is a terrible thing. people defending themselves asked for the ability to do the same within their own country and i know people have endured opinion on this committee but i just want to be honest with you, this is in the bill. >> would you support an amendment to prohibit the purchase of cluster munitions with mike writing in these bills? [inaudible] >> the ability contained or

enabled, what you be in support of removing that with the money in this bill? >> exam much. i think the authority is there and moving forward with diverse opinions but agree on disagree on this issue so i would stand with where the bill currently is. >> i sound like no, he would not support the bill? >> i don't know how many more times i can repeat it -- the bill being started. >> okay, i want to move onto one

of the many bills contained in the course title i believe. there is concern by senators who have experienced at least one senator in the banking industry this could affect the treasury market. if i understand correctly, the russian bank owns treasury here in the united states, we would use those treasures, is that correct? here is the basis for the concern. we have to issue new debt to cover new conductors and when old that expires what the

concern is when they look at purchasing the treasury, if we consummate this act, both countries would have less appetite for what was the most secure investment in the world which is the u.s. treasury and less appetite for purchasing it particularly if they are not extremely close ally, they will end up on the basket list and treasury gets remote. share the concern that it may affect the u.s. treasury's ability. >> this authority in the premises, you cause harm, you essentially wave your sovereign immunity and assets that are

frozen and can pay for the harm and injury done, a country violating international law. i'll be happy to back you look this is a very popular provision because it says let russia pay for its own war crimes. these are russian assets under international law agreed on this before twice wherever country causes harm or injury and assets are seized, thinking for operation. i think once we get into reconstruction, i would be a

wise use as well. they would prefer be from the russian oligarchs and assets to help pay. >> we could end up costing the taxpayers more because the debt could go up for u.s. treasuries when they go for auction so i hope that's been factored into the cost. as i understand, we were in conflict, engaged, this would be iraq kuwait war and we used united nation security council plan to cease those aspects.

the differences we were involved in military action with iraq so i believe this would be the first time united states sanctioned as a despite military engagement. >> i respectfully disagree the 1981 and 92 seizure of iraq he assets transfer, the u.s. is not at work. >> there were some comfort from

the other country who are acting with other countries so we weren't acting arbitrarily but here we are going alone, not a group of other countries and security council. >> we don't do this alone. i trust his economic advisor more. he thinks it's a great idea. >> those of the people i respect. >> for trump, he hasn't strong support of this. strong support.

again, the underlying from of the treasury markets are going to be fine. you want to pay for this? >> i still have a concern and maybe bipartisan support but we just make take to treasuries if you buy them from us may take them back. >> i guess you go back to the sanctions. >> one of the concern is we would tie the hands of future president the president can't do

this, is that something the democrats wanted so trump quickly normalized relations? >> i'm not concerned what mr. trump to you, concerned about what biden would do. just like with nord stream two when we sanctioned the pipeline, the energy to europe and report a waiver and europe became dependent on russian energy. i never thought he would do it but.

having a policy president biden waving sanctions didn't want him to disrespect congress. >> it does does not bind future president? >> we did the two types biden he would have to enforce it. >> haven't had much time to read these bills lately i am incorrect and enter sanctions regime. my concern is that could negotiate leverage and the ability to come to a bill in the russia ukraine for.

if it has to come back to undo the sanctions. >> once the conditions are met then it will complete. >> one of the conditions? >> they pay for not only efforts undergoing today but construction. >> they may have a change of the presidency and of this year and this conflict could still be going on and i understand the desire the president from having will room but it may bring him in a direction the next president -- >> i get it, the intent was the current administration based on the track record not enforcing

sanctions. i'll give some other examples -- iran. not enforcing the energy. iran crystal 80 billing dollars to china think there terrorist operation. the un sanctions, i have a bill to fix that iran is selling to russia. he's not enforcing on. why? they want to keep this i read deal. the hostage, was a great one. six i really spies and we paid six billing dollars. seven going, electricity they could go into iraq and every time i turn around they are given more money. i don't trust them sanctions.

it's not about president trump, it's about this president. if you want me to write that in there, i will. >> i think it does appeal to the democrats, the fact that comes hands would be tied in this regard. another concern is there may be retaliation and believe that repo act and the sovereign aspects, not private individuals of the country but is a possible u.s. assets with these retaliation to the repo act. >> we can only do what is in

this country. there's also provision -- i think the theory is the supports this program, he wants the idea that we will continue to help so when he gets into office, there's a better agreement. there's a provision once accomplished, this would be really. >> speaking of the loan forgiveness loan aspect of the ukraine money, it sounds like a good idea. i think they probably will not have the ability to pay back.

why wouldn't we loan the money to israel and taiwan and other countries? they have the capacity to pay it back. >> i hate to put my colleague on the spot here the but -- >> is a former chairman so i prefer not to put him on the spot. [laughter] the. >> why would we have loan forgiveness -- sorry, i see we have a loan in a program for ukraine, why don't we do that for the money for israel and taiwan next.

>> it's in your bill, man. [laughter] >> it may have been republican to get funding to ukraine. a totally political issue and people do not see the value. the u.s. value providing ukraine you want to think about that. the package being forward with the way it was, this is what the republican majority wanted to do so please talk to your colleagues about that. i do not talk to the democrats

about that. >> as i said in my opening statement, i didn't even want that all. >> i want to put words in your mouth but i would like to sum up your opinion on the loan aspect of the money ukraine, do you believe it's a gimmick? >> i was very supportive using loans for emergency, but hasn't been the way in which we have moved back house republicans

cost ready for that? it is a bad presidents without the only way it could move on funds for ukraine. we are here to try to get something done. wherever you want to go getting 82 ukraine. it did not come out of the senate bill that was the republican fight so please tell your party about it. >> somehow -- >> we need to get need to ukraine. someone mentioned up here, what we do in the appropriations,

everybody gets what they want -- no. we compromise for the greater good to move forward? yes that's what's called governing. we come here to be able to govern and get things done. getting paid ukraine. >> how much money is in here park plaza x.

>> how much will go to gaza? >> you probably know or maybe don't know, find safeco to humanitarian assistance for their needs to be flexibility to provide humanitarian aid and my remarks, you're looking at sudan, somalia, people have talked about country and there's not a specific dollar amount. >> windows come from?

that's what the speaker has talked about and what the agreement was. it was back-and-forth and it was a package. >> so these topline numbers are much senate members are? >> there was a deliberation in the senate from a pathetic keyboard and what they have been proposed are essentially the members earlier on going back several months.

>> speaker told me the reason the members of the same -- >> i have to imagine, you're looking at the estimate and i think it was mentioned that coming from the administration but there is money in here, i think is an estimate overall million dollars from a bus for the industrial base providing real national security. that comes from the

administration. >> by phone generous. >> i was going to yield but intervened. here's the reason, i know they are the experts but any amendment offered i would reduce the money to fail. we talk about something with agreed and this will go through to pass it in the house but i

think it's been over the pentagon to frequently accept the numbers do everything we can to make sure we don't change anything. i think of somebody got an amendment here to reduce the money, it would go down in flames because everybody just trust the pentagon and when we trust in the pentagon, $400 cameras and toilet seats, that might be fair price but in the 90s it was a big deal. should provide more respect and that's what concerns me about the numbers here. the last topic i want to talk about is the so-called tik tok

band not unanimously supported on the floor of the house. mike turned is, why does the bill allow the president website? there are three cases in which a president can band them out or website must concerning to me what it is controlled by a foreign adversary. the article today about me saying i am a friend of putin's because i have voted for eight ukraine so that would declare me

and adversary i think in the tik tok bill that should not be in their give broad authority to declare a novel website. >> they are purchased by dance that would perform the same as tik tok controlled by the algorithm the narrative. tik tok bite dance, i believe

they persuade the control, you type in israel palestinian, a pro- palestinian version. our concern is what they can do with your phone, thinking manipulate your messaging. they know all your websites, all of your personal data so if you want privacy, i want them prc in my phone. what i like about the bill is it requires bite dance to divest

often the united states and that means hopefully an american company would buy it and it just wouldn't be under the control of the prc narrative thinking manipulate with the world. >> isn't it true here in the united states -- >> not there algorithms can we force the company to show us their algorithm? you have to divest your assets. >> what happens if the president and our congress from a be more comfortable with the built a business they may come back and decide there is a successor company essentially the same thing and sending it to foreign countries? built on the greatest so brought

if you have the wrong president cabinet from sacred use this bill to declare an app or website controlled by a foreign adversary not owned by controlled by medicine concern i have because we have seen these programs by executive branch the bill that passed in 2018 abused, they call it the nerve center and i'm afraid we are creating another authority for the executive branch where we have withheld discretion, we don't know who's going to win the next election my whoever got me.

>> the prc. let me remind the committee, congress band tik tok amongst ourselves is every intelligence military with tell you this is a five. if you worry about privacy you are we don't think congress using tik tok, why do we let our children music? >> there are a lot of congressman using tik tok, maybe not on government computers. i'm not one of them.

my concern was shared by somebody's lobbyist who has websites online shopping or reviews for travel reviews and they've got a carveout because they have the same concerns i have so it gives me some concern think about that carveout in their. do you know why they have a carveout? >> applicant declares the restaurateur. i'd be happy to work with them. this will bite dance to divest company sounds owned by either an american or ally and provide

mind control on our children and the only document tracking you are looking at on your website. this go because everything about you and i am stationed by the prc by the way. >> the tik tok bill was authored and passed on saturday, somebody getting a bill after they passed mother to titles -- two bills of his authored and he's not even

going to be here on saturday. >> my understanding is he will stick around for the boat. >> on saturday? >> yes. >> i have one question for the chairman. economic committee and i sense the presence are in africa parties, not congressman and never tried to surprise anybody. i'm disappointed but i've never surprised. i told the terminal i'm going to do.

>> i've not seen it window. >> thanks, i yield back. >> i want to remind members the history, we are generous with our time. >> our colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

>> i like to ask a couple of questions. i thought she gave a defense of the past 65 days. i think it is shameful senate passed national security little to get to this, finally be in a position we can be secure in our allies have been waiting to act.

finally we are poised to do so and disappointed and thinking as long but i'm grateful we have hope and opportunity to spend in the next 48 hours. the rico act, how many bills are this sidebar. >> there are -- i could say there are no democrats. >> nine, ten, 11, 12 -- 15. >> fifteen bowledged into this r agreement. none of them are democratic

bills. chairman mccaul, i have great respect for you and enjoyed working with you but i have to say i'm very disappointed that there isn't a single democratic bill that the republican leadership wouldn't identify to put in this larger package because i'm aware of many bills that passed your committee on a bipartisan basis that would merit. mr. mccaul: every one of these bills are bipartisan. and that was our litmus test. we weren't going to put a bill that was just a republican bill. we took bills that are bipartisan bills and for good reason. mr. neguse: there are many bills in the package that i'm supportive. each one of them are a republican-led bill. i would encourage you in the future, i know we have a number

of hot spots around the world. the committee is engaged in addressing those challenges and i would just encourage the ky because i know you and the ranking member have the productive and robust partnership and i think it's important to include bills from the minority. mr. mccaul: every time we have a markup, which passed democrat-sponsored bills and all sitting over there in the senate. i wish they would pass those democratic bills passed out of our committee. mr. neguse: repo act, my question, chairman mccaul, trying to understand your argument and the exchange you had with my colleague from kentucky. if your position that you have structured that bill to limit president biden because you

believe he won't enforce the provisions of this bill? is that your argument? mr. mccaul: because he has waived sarchghtses, nordstream 2 and others and it is important to protect our children from the p.r.c., we didn't wanted it enforced. it could pass. he could choose not to enforce it. mr. neguse: if the administration put out on an administration policy against the bill? the part of my frustration is that i don't think it's a consistent argument to suggest that this president, president biden, who has forcefully, forcefully made the case against

russian aggression in ukraine your fierce are about his abilities or his capabilities to hold the line and not the former president, which of course was the nature of my colleague's criticism from kentucky. mr. mccaul: we had a similar bill in the committee, they were not very keen about this bill in the beginning. so, i guess it's kind of a trust thing that enforced and don't a waiver like he has done on nordstream 2 and iran. and if i could, in response to mr. massey's not here, the financial markets understand the target nature of this action to address russia's egregious behavior, jerome paul testified it will not undermine the dollar

and u.s. treasury is of the same view. mr. burgess: ask unanimous consent to put it into the record? >> yes. >> it's a trust issue. more trust to former president trump than president biden. mr. mccaul: that was an issue raised by mr. massie about tying his hands and that sort of thing. mr. neguse: i'm talking about the repo act and how an argument could be made that that bill was constructed in a way to somehow limit president biden's hand because you don't trust him to implement this policy than former president trump-p. mr. mccaul: it's not to be insulting to the president. we want this done. he does have a track record of

waiving sanctions and nordstream is the most egregious one that we didn't think a president would do that. >> i'm explaining my skepticism. the bhows has not issued a statement against the repoe act. and they won't faithfully execute the laws we pad. clearly rption the former president's ac lights and will tie president trump's hands if he is elected president. clearly all of his allies believe that you are doing this to tie his happened not. mr. mccaul: i appreciate your

argument. why are you concerned about their not being a waiver if you believe the president won't waive it? mr. neguse: i'm not concerned. mr. mccaul: why care if there is a waiver. mr. neguse: my concern is that you made the reasoning for that your belief that president biden when clearly that is not the case. mr. mccaul: is there some concern there? yes. mr. neguse: let me read you a tweet from former president trump's son. these are not my word. why are g.o.p. leadership losers like mccaul pushing your bill that would do my father's ability to end the war between russia and ukraine? that's his tweet. my point is that president biden

has been clear about holding russia i take from that is it is mistrust of president biden and that's not the case or anyone externally is reading the situation. representative meeks? mr. meeks: i agree with you. i have more concerns about president trump, you know. especially this comes to russia, because if you go by history, if i recall correctly, it was president trump that had the prime minister of russia in the white house showing him classified material. it was president trump who just recently said to russia, do what the hell you want to our ally. so clearly, the concern would be on what president trump would do

with reference to his relationship with russia. it is president trump who said he trusts the information, the intelligence of russia over the intelligence of the united states of america. who are you supposed to trust? that's not president biden. those are the words of the former president of the united states. and you're going to trust him with russia? >> i certainly agree. i support the repo act and glad it's been included in that particular side car. and i just think it's important that we have honest, straightforward debate about the bills that we're considering and the reasons undermining them. i respect you, mr. chairman. mr. mccaul: in the commerce committee, 40-2.

mr. meetings a: very bipartisan bill. very much so. mr. mccaul: i'm not trying to tie anyone's hands. it's an important issue to protect our children from communist china. mr. meetings a: so do i. i yield back. mr. burgess: the chairman from texas vehicle. >> i thank the chairman and gentleman from texas. it's good to see you, mr. cole, a week removed. a couple of questions generally to make sure just for the record. i don't want to belabor this but want clarity because there's a lot that's been flying around. we are all aware, disagreements aside, of the porous nature of our southern border. mr. roy: i'm not going to dwell on it. we've covered it. but obviously as i've stipulated and my friend from texas, chairman mccaul would agree, i mean, we've had, you know, a

godly number of people flooding across the border and dealing with all the issues involving that, tragedies we've recounted numerous times here, in particular the data that was released recently we're at 24,300 chinese nationals that have come across the southern border that we know of, not counting got-aways which is a number that exceeds all of 2023 fiscal year. in six months we've exceeded all of fy-2023 and compares to a number of 381 in fy-21 which was president trump's policies predominantly driving the realities at the border. i assume the chairman would agree that poses a not insignificant national security threat to the united states of america that we've got those kinds of numbers from what i'm understanding to be 85% single adults of that number, so we're not talking about a lot of children and so forth, of that

number of 24,300, does the chairman agree with that? mr. cole: let me say when we were in the white house the beginning of the discussions, there were going to be four threats, threat from iran, the threat from putin, the threat from china, and then the threat from our southern border. that's the backdoor. mr. mccaul: if we don't have the backdoor shut and the threats come in and you know as i do, chairman of homeland security, when you're talking about 350 on the terror watch list, and how many do we not know about? when the world is on fire and hamas is out there, and afghanistan is turning into a terror ground again, they released all these prisoners from the bog recall -- bagram

basis that some are al qaeda and isis. i'm afraid something will. and it's a threat to our national security. mr. roy: there's a whole bunch of stuff and in general those numbers, the extent to which we have the fentanyl seizures running at about 1,000 pounds a month. the numbers last month alone were 190,000 at the southern border, close to 250,000 when you factor in northern border and parole and the number apprehended and not counting the got-aways and then you have the nope suspected terrorists that were already about half of what we had last year which was a real high at 169 is the data i have and that might be a variable. but specifically the policies of parole, for example, we have a known homicide suspect entering the cbp-1 app and in july of 2023 was released in the united states and committed a murder and was arrested in middletown, new york. and without going through all of

that, all that is front and center, a lot of it wrapped into the political drama around hr-2 and whether you do it or don't do it and who has it, all that. the simple fact of the matter is this year, whoever's fault it is, whether it's president biden's or whether it's maga extremist republicans to use the vernacular to republicans on the other shrill, whoever's fault it might be, it remains true today that we've not passed and got the president signed into law anything that would meaningfully change or alter what's happening at the border in any significant way, is that a true characterization? mr. mccaul: we passed h.r.2 out of the house. mr. roy: not signed into law. we passed out of the house but back and forth whose fault it is, but we've not signed into law anything to do with the border. mr. mccaul: can i make a point? i've been doing this for a long

time. this is an enforcement issue. it's not so much as a legislative issue. we can throw more money at this thing but the problem is this, we had policies in the prior administration that worked. remain in mexico has been in the books for 30 years and we finally had a president that would enforce it. a lot of this we can enact but if he's not going to enforce it, and remain in mexico, i marked that up out of my committee as in h.r.2, he chooses -- he would rather us give him cover with some bipartisan watered down bill than something -- he could go back to what the trump administration did with existing authorities and secure that border. he's the one that made the choice not to do it. he reversed the policies. when we present our case to the senate in the so-called trial that didn't happen, get this, mayorkas, there's a statute, as

you know, aggravated felons must be detained, shall be detained, you know as an attorney "shall" means mandatory. who are aggravated felons? murderers, rapist, pedophiles, and he sends a memo to his border agent, hey, don't take prior convictions into account when determining whether to detain. so what was the result of that policy? all these dangerous, violent criminals released into our society. mr. roy: i agree with the chairman and move to a conclusion on this, which is -- i partially agree with the chairman. i recognize his point. i agree with the general point about the blame there. where my position is is that there's an article 1 responsibility to force the administration that doesn't follow the law to follow the law. and importantly, to recognize even under a president who does follow the law, whether obama or trump or anybody before, jay johnson recognized problems and we have problems with the trump administration and with flores

and judicial opinions with the cross section of the law that's hard to enforce, all those things that we need to address and we need to address those issues in order to secure the border and congress does need to act. my question is, and we know the answer and we have disagreements on the merits of weighing what we should do on these things. but to be clear, we had a rule last night that was focused on an h.r.2 play and some of us disagreed with that play because we thought it was frankly eviction, it was a sideshow that wasn't going to result in anything. but this rule will not include anything that touches the border in any meaningful way, corr mr. mccaul: a separate vote with the border with a separate rule. mr. roy: that rule we took up last night and been effectively suspended but we've not -- nothing in this bill, this rule, the set of bills we're talking about here would address the border, correct? mr. mccaul: you're getting above my pay grade a little bit but

let me just say from a pragmatic standpoint, they have not entertained h.r.2 and they will not entertain it now. and the situation is very dire in the spots we're trying to address and you know, i wish it was -- i agree with you. we're both from texas and i wish it were a perfect world. mr. roy: i hear the chairman. i do not mean to put him on the spot about texas and what he's doing and weighing all this. for the purposes of those reaching a calculation is different from some of our colleagues, it's important for the world to know we're going to proceed with a rule here that is going to advance foreign aid to the tune of $95 billion, roughly, of various forms and fashion, predominantly 2/3 of which going to ukraine and another block going to israel and another block going to taiwan and submarines and other stuff that are overall defense needs, and that none of that, none of it, is going to address the southern border. i agree with the gentleman,

money wouldn't help the southern border, you have to have changes to force the administration to follow the law. and parole. the second question is that i believe i'm correct that of the dollars that are going -- the loan -- i'm sorry, the loan program only really applies to the -- i'm going to roughly round the $8 billion-ish of the nonlethal account the ukrainian government can use for other purposes. the loan can only apply to that subset of the money, and so then of that, i'm under the understanding the president can forgive 50% of that and the other 50% could be forgiven in the future but only with congressional action, is that a correct characterization? just the facts. mr. cole, if you have the answer to that, chairman cole. mr. cole: as i understand it, yes.

though trstand it, yes. there is still a congressional component. we could approve the loans. >> so the president can unilaterally -- the president could decide to forgive but we could disapprove of that forgiveness. got it. then in the future, congress would have to be consulted before forgiving the second half. okay. just so i know, there is as i think the democratic ranking member acknowledged that there is humanitarian aid, some of which could go to gaza and we are acknowledging that some amount of the $9 billion would be not be a full amount. right? some of that is for refugees. some of it is for refugees. i think there is like 5.8 or something like that that could ultimately get to gaza. i just thought of the 9 billion, that it was refugee specific and another is -- is that not true? do i have that wrong?

okay. i thought there was a characterization. is that not accurate? that like can five is for something and 4. is for -- >> it is not divided. >> okay. i am just trying to -- for the few members watching all of this, the few americans, i want them to at least know the fax line. i have got concerns about the cash flow that could end up in the hands of hamas. >> sir, one point is that -- and this is a very important point -- we prohibit all funding. as you noted, 12 employees part of the invasion, israel, their headquarters were underneath -- hamas's headquarters were right underneath in the tunnel.

>> sir, i appreciate that. that is a good move. and i introduced legislation three years ago to defund on. it is a tragedy. it is a shame we do not do that before october 7th. we had appropriations bills to do that before. i applaud republicans. but a lot of these funds our fundable and just knocking down that one account of andra does not necessarily prohibit these billions of dollars flowing. in fact, many waters of this, including friends of mine in israel, who have raised the question to me and direct communication saying this additional money while we are funding israel -- while they want the funds and they do -- they work against this money would be used by an administration bent on interfering with israel to find a way to get that money, and if it gets to gaza it gets to hamas. >> my direction is private and gm's. you know? catholic relief services. right? world food program. now sidney mccain. and they are on the ground.

they should be taking over the responsibilities. >> my only observation on that is i do not have a lot of confidence in ngos after what i have been sitting down on the southern border. i will skip a couple things that i wanted to cover. but one general question for you, mr. mccall, which may not be fair to you versus another member, and i want to be careful in the way that i ask this for the purposes of national security and everything else, but hallowed be characterized america's relative -- with any publicly available to talk about nonclassified way if it is possible and it may not be -- relative stockpile of munitions today from where we were say in march of 2022, two years ago, before we were engaging in support for ukraine. israel, too. but for ukraine.

and -- and -- and within the parameters of what we can publicly talk about? >> i don't have the exact numbers but what i will tell you is what we have put into ukraine are the old weapons. the old stockpiles that are sitting around. and this 80%, again, of this funding goes to our own defense to modernize and update our defense industrial base and produce new weapons that are better. we are giving them old stuff. you know, eastern europe has given eastern russia the old equipment they have. that it wants the better and modernize weapons. we are going to fit a lot of money. where all of this is going to go to states to provide a lot of jobs. i have to say, mr. roy, my

friend from texas said we have a defense problem. >> i occur. >> it is 100% a national security problem. >> likewise, 80% of it to fit it to fix the industrial base i believe is broken. >> did you have -- german coal? >> it answers very, very good questions. enormous percentages is replaced. well over $23 billion, $24 billion. at the same time -- and i want to be very careful how i say this -- >> right. right. -- >> let's take an item like a 155 millimeters shell. what we have done so far has more than doubled the capacity of the united states to produce. and what will happen in the

supplemental, you know, from subcommittee work is it will more than double it again. and the chairman is exactly right. my district has air defense artillery. and we trained a lot of the ukrainians. they are training on older weapons systems. there is four different varieties of these. they are buying third and fourth. so there is real effort to increase the capacity to produce and maintain the stockpile that we need and, again, move the older stuff out which is still better than anything they had available. i just wanted to share that. >> just on that issue, because i have asked that question, this is a dod estimate.

at least $50 billion of the packages for the u.s. defense industrial base across 30 states. and that is what dod is estimating. >> there are some of these things we cannot get into detail with here in a public setting and i am aware of that, and i wanted to bring that out for a number of reasons. and everybody is guilty of it. there is a lot of painting of a broad brush stroke of my people are concerned with, opposed, or otherwise land for the have these issues. one i would characterize myself as is fully supportive of wanting to fund israel. fully cognizant of the dangers of not holding a lien against putin. but still be adamant of our need to secure our own border. differences aside of opinion on how but having failed to do so. and simultaneously concerned of whether or not we are going to be able to succeed in ukraine

and how the money has been previously spent. so even here today in the testimony, we have heard in a positive, i think, posturing by the chairman of sink we're going to try to release the administration. at least certain weapons that might help them win it and be more aggressive on that front. but, meanwhile, all of my constituents are going we had $113 billion -- and some of that has been allocated. i get it. but it was already put forward and appropriated and they are saying, okay, how was that spent? now, we are trying to say if you clean -- ukraine needs more, we hold the line. i don't have a clear definition from the administration. i don't know if we are talking about the 1991 lines. i don't know about whether we are talking about every inch of crimea or don bask. or we are trying to hold a lien on the western edge of the front and, you know, east of

kyiv to try to prevent them from coming to kyiv. but then a cease-fire in the territories that have already been disputed and aided by russia. i don't have the faintest clue of what our administration's posture is on that with clarity. because we have gotten different views out of the administration on that. there has been kind of lien into what mr. zelenskyy wants and say we want 1991. we went every inch of the territory. and there has been more, we want to make sure they can hold the line and don't let them advance so they don't get anywhere near the western side of ukraine and therefore be right on the line with poland and our friends there. i am not nearly as traveled as the chairman. but i went on a trip over a week to jerusalem, poland, estonia, and achieve. i think you have because when we went there, that is how we set it. it is kyiv now. and i was very steep and what

they face. it is really important for the entire world to understand mitt. it is not some isolationist who does not want to support our role in the world to prevent a putin democracy. but it is a real and reasoned debate about priorities when, if you look at it during reagan's time and the relative debt to gdp ratio under reagan when we were probably about at a 37% when he did the buildup in the early 80s. today, we are up by $1.10, $1.20, depending on your count on that debt. we are just talking about ramping up to defense industrial base on the back of ukraine. that may be a good thing for our country to get the production level up, but at what cost over there will we win? is there a mission that is

achievable here? hmmm ukrainians have to die in the process, which is a very real concern. and the point was in the negative. have many ukrainians have to die before we act? some of us are saying at least with some reasonable debate that i want to have to to help you. how many ukrainians have to die to make sure that we win it? how many ukrainians are dying right now because we are funding it without a very clear, authoritative path to victory. so i think those are questions that some of us are wrestling with. this administration and how much we should then fund into that and meanwhile our borders are left wide open with chinese foreign nationals coming across the border and so forth. and a last point about how we fund the war. there has been a lot of discussion in the think tank world which is only halfway relevant relatively speaking about what you might call the ghost budgeting.

right? since basically september 11th, we have been funding effectively endless conflicts of various sorts. people say that in a pejorative sense. i don't mean that that way. have been very important events we have been carrying out but we have been doing that with yoko. we have been doing that with budget line items and like we are doing now. whereas prior to september 11th, we were forcing sacrifice among the american people to say if your blood and/or your treasure are going to be sent into battle that you have to sacrifice. there is going to be increased taxes. there is going to be war bonds. you are going to stop buying sugar. you're going to stop buying tires. you will have a stake in that as a country and we have not been doing that. we have literally done nothing but borrow money to fund conflict for the last 25 years. that i believe is a fundamental problem and disconnect here. so the concern i have here is

that plus border equals problem with the roles. last point i will make and then yield back for the purposes of time. it is this notion of this being kind of an open process. and with respect to the chairman of appropriations, i hear what he is saying. but in truth the average american understands what we have gotten out to the approval of our democratic colleagues is effectively the senate bill broken into some pieces. put down on the floor. yes, with some possible amendments largely all predetermined and precooked. and it is going to be called what we call merved. that is a development term for smashing it all back together. and it will be roughly in the structure of the senate bill. reporting confirms that senator schumer in some degree leader jeffries have all applauded that this is the result that they one. the reason president biden

yesterday was saying he was applauding it is it is a result the president wants. this is achieving the executive of the senate bill from 65 days ago. therefore, that is why some of us have strong reservations. and more than strong reservations but objections. this is not putting ukraine on the floor for a week for full unfettered debate like we are having here. heck, this is a good conversation. the panel has laid out a whole lot of really important points about what we need to do as a country but what we have done it decided and we have decided it in the way we typically do without the full debate that i think you should have on the floor on independent bills or if you're going to package it together than the last point i will make is you should honor the commitments that you make, and with all due respect to the speaker, when the speaker said, for example on november 5th, 2023, we can do all these things together but when you couple ukraine and the border that makes sense to people. or when the speaker said on december 2023, i explained that supplemental ukraine funding is

with a fundamental change to our border security loss. or in 2023 when at the rate beginning i handed the gavel and we need to declare the spending of precious taxpayer dollars and we need a transformative change at the border. or as the speaker said down in the border, quote, i told the president we must have change at the border and substantive policy change. i can go on and on. i wont. this is where the people i represent fall and why i have strong reservations and concerns. i will certainly yield to the gentlemen. >> i appreciate the gentleman yielding and i thank you. i am just looking for a point of clarification because there has been a lot of discussion about the border. but when there was a bipartisan agreement overall and the border piece was a part of that, when -- and this was

quite afterwards when the former president indicated his opposition to the bill and then it fell apart and we were no longer going to have any border piece of it. i just think it is important to note because we just keep making reference to border security. okay? this was division b. border security and combating fentanyl supplemental appropriation 2024. and, you know, i don't have time here to read what was then exercised and what the republicans have walked away from what was in this portion. in terms of border security. and in the criminal division, combating human trafficking and smuggling, that affected u.s.

border communities. the texas communities that we are talking about. yes. additional emigration of a team. marshal services. federal prison detention. drug enforcement administration. u.s. customs and border protection. u.s. immigration and customs enforcement. a federal law enforcement training center. i am not reading at all because it is just too much. there were efforts of the unaccompanied children program. u.s. eis direct higher authority. i.c.e. authority. training for u.s. border patrol. electronic notices to appear. it -- it -- it goes on. again, there was substantial

approval in a bipartisan way on border security measures. and when the former president made his determination and said this is not something we want to provide a win for, i think the american public needs not just to hear border security, but i think the american public has got to understand where the republicans have really walked back on border security by saying note to this. they continue to use that phrase. but not to talk about what it is that was relinquished in terms of getting control and i am someone who believes that we do have to have border security and get control.

>> and i appreciate that. i want to give the chairman time to speak. the chairman wanted to quickly add a couple of things. >> i did not want to be drawn into the border discussion but i will add this. it does matter how you arrive at a deal. we produced hr-2 to a committee process. people thought for it and moved the product not only out of committee but across the floor. with all due respect to our friends in the senate, that is not what happened there. i don't think it is fair to say there is a bipartisan bill. there was a bill between three senators. these are friends of mine. i'm not critical of anybody. but with the process that was set up, it would have been better -- it would have been better off to take but we did and change it however they want at a normal committee. that is how people come to deals and the senate has moved

away from that and i regret that. but i think my friend made so many good points about the concerns that all of us have about the conduct of the conflict in ukraine. i can't hardly think of anything that you said that i disagree with. i worry about the lack of defined objectives. i will tell you this and i will say this. maybe not in defense but explanation to the administration. we had a defense subcommittee hearing on appropriations several months ago. it may have even been late last year were these questions were raised that we had the assistant secretary of state for international security and director of operations for the joint chiefs of staff. and the secretary or assistant secretary for international security made the point and

said, look, the objective is probably -- it needs to be obvious that what russia did was a strategic failure. so that nobody does anything like this again. and this was ahead of the counteroffensive which did not go as well as we would have hoped. i think it is fair to say. that may well impact how you define that. now, i look at it and i can say to this point, russia has pushed finland and sweden into nato. i guarantee to you that is not something they wanted to do. at this point they have suffered over 300,000 casualties and that is not something they planned on her wanted to do. to this point, they have been forced into measures they thought they would never have to take. they thought this would be a war that was over and wakes. and the ukrainians deserve the

credit. they have been doing the fighting and dying. we have been pretty indispensable in that effort and so have our friends in europe. i have never seen them step up like this, and there are a dozen countries who actually committed a larger percentage of their gdp and a larger percentage of their budgets then us. and to their credit they are closer. if you are from poland or from the baltic states, or you are from -- you look at this a little bit differently than we do because you don't have the luxury of distance on the relative security of the united states. so i do think this was evolving. however anybody votes on it, i really respect the different points of view in congress on this. i am very careful about not calling people who oppose ukraine isolationists because they aren't. most of them support israel. most of them support what we are trying to do in the western pacific.

how can you be an isolationist if that is it? they have got a problem about how this war is being conducted. the nature of our commitment. the lack a strategy. there are and i will say this in the legislation. i will not say i am 100% satisfied with it because i am not, but there is a lot more oversight requirements than there ever were in the senate bill. there is a requirement that they produce the strategy. as you know, you have been around here in a while too. just because they told him to do something does not mean the administration of either side always does what we tell them to do. but there is more in that. and i will say this. this is not the package senate wanted. they sent us what they wanted. they are getting back something different. now my friends made these points which i agree with. financially, this is broadly the same thing. but it has brought in

components where people can vote individually how they choose to. and you can make it very apparent i am not for this or am for this, or you can be against it all. you know? but the body will work its will. individual members will vote how they want to. if you support israel you do not have to support ukraine. and on the other side of the aisle, some of my friends are very skeptical about the israeli aid and would like to attach a lot of conditions to it. but we are not going to force them to vote for israeli aid because they were for ukrainian aid. that i think is a big difference. and it is also going to force the senate, again, to accept some measures we want. is it perfect? no. but it is governing. it is a compromise. it is kind of the best we can do in the timeframe that we have but that does not take

anything away from the legitimacy. my friends from texas points are about the process and about some of the concerns because i share some of the very same concerns about the matter in which the administration has conducted the war. i think those are fair things to point out. i would just say we are in a critical point. i kind of look at this for penny and for pound. i do not want to leave an ally high and dry and frankly i do not want to see happen in ukraine what happened in afghanistan. i do not want to see the kind of situation unfold and a terrible message for the rest of the world. i think what happened in afghanistan was a terrible message to the rest of the world. i think that is one of the reasons we are here right now. >> i appreciate it. i do not want to cut off any of the panelists.

but on my time, the panel has gone a while so i want to yield back to the chairman but i have to make one response to the ranking members and then i want to yield back and that is on the border issues. the bill of the package bill what have demonstrably codified the master lease of individuals by its own workings. it was structured in such a way that it said a constant flow of individuals into the united states and notwithstanding all the funding mechanisms that the lady outlined, that is funding that would have been used predominantly to continue the processing and the flow of the mass abuse of both parole and asylum to flood more people into the country which has resulted very demonstratively in individuals being in the country who are dangerous and attached to criminal organizations and resulted in the death of americans specifically. and then i will conclude by saying i very much take to heart and appreciate the chairman's comments and the entire panel. i appreciate the dialogue.

i am well aware of the considerations involving ukraine, and the prospects of what occurs if ukraine falls. i believe we should have handled this differently with the $113 billion we have already spent. i am sympathetic to potentially additional dollars. if it were in my view, more targeted and more lethal. and if we were honoring, and this is the back breaker for me, the commitment that we, at least as republicans, have made to secure the border of the united states first. for that reason, i have to remain opposed. and we will continue to have this conversation. i just want to be