Washington, DC – House Foreign Affairs Committee Lead Republican Michael McCaul gave the following opening statement at a full committee markup of H.R. 3524, the EAGLE Act. 

Click to Watch

In his opening statement, McCaul highlighted Republican frustrations with the partisan process of the bill:

“Confronting the China challenge is not a Republican issue or a Democrat issue – it’s an American issue. Which is why we should be here today talking about a bipartisan, comprehensive bill that can confront the challenge posed by the CCP. Instead, I believe the bill we are marking up today was crafted, primarily, if not solely, by the Majority with little input from committee Republicans. And Republican requests to improve the bill ahead of today’s markup were not given any meaningful consideration.”

McCaul also discussed some of the many issues with the legislative priorities in the bill – including the focus on climate change provisions – and the significant provisions that were missing.

“I believe it’s more of a messaging bill that is a trojan horse for flawed green climate initiatives. More than 10 billion dollars it is dedicated to green energy and other climate change-related projects in this bill. Eight billion of that goes to a UN slush fund called the Green Climate Fund.”

“Despite being more than 600-pages, this bill offers few new ideas and little substantive actions to reorient our government in this strategic competition. Instead, it is filled with findings, reports, and non-binding Senses of Congress.”

“But what is more striking is not what is in it, but what is missing. One of the strongest authorities this committee has across multiple federal agencies, is the Export Control Act. Export controls, which are this committee’s most powerful tools to slow down the CCP military and prevent human rights abuses is only mentioned three times in these 600 pages. And one of those times it is just a definition.”

-Opening Remarks as Delivered-

“Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your kind words.

Just so the members know, we did attempt to engage in good faith negotiations on this. While some of what is in this bill is very good, we got to point where we have to agree to disagree. But we always do so with civility and respect. That has always been the historic tradition of this committee and I know the chairman and I are committed to carrying that tradition forward. Just yesterday we passed a slate of bipartisan bills, we passed more than any committee in this Congress already, that have been bipartisan. I want to thank you for that as well, and your friendship.

So, moving forward we will have a spirited debate, but that is what the Congress is all about. And we don’t always agree on everything, so I think this will be, I hope, a very civil discourse and a respectful debate on something of paramount importance. And that is how our foreign policy when it comes to Communist Chinese government.

I want to start out by saying my father’s generation fought in World War II. I grew up in the Cold War, as did the Chairman. My children, lived through 9/11 – as did most in this room. But the greatest challenge for this generation is the Chinese Communist Party. Not the Chinese people, but the Chinese Communist Party. And it’s a generational struggle. 

A serious approach to the China threat needs to be coordinated across committees of jurisdiction – just like we did when I chaired the China Task Force. Our task force was a result of six months of work between 11 committees of jurisdiction. It involved 60 engagements with 130 Republican, Democrat and non-partisan leaders. The final product had more than 400 recommendations. And of the legislative recommendations, well over half were bipartisan.

Recent Pew polling finds roughly nine in ten U.S. adults consider the PRC a competitor or an enemy. In other words, confronting the China challenge is not a Republican issue or a Democrat issue – it’s an American issue.

Which is why we should be here today talking about a bipartisan, comprehensive bill that can confront the challenge posed by the CCP.

Instead, I believe the bill we are marking up today was crafted, primarily, if not solely, by the Majority with little input from committee Republicans. And Republican requests to improve the bill ahead of today’s markup were not given any meaningful consideration.

This committee has a long history of working in a bipartisan manner, as I have stated, to address some of the most complicated issues facing the world. So, it is regrettable, and disappointing, that at least today that tradition, perhaps we will carry that forward, but we will have this debate.

The EAGLE Act, and I respect the views of the Chairman on this bill, I know he has put in a lot work into it. But I don’t believe it’s a strong bill, I believe it’s more of a messaging bill that is a trojan horse for flawed green climate initiatives. More than 10 billion dollars it is dedicated to green energy and other climate change-related projects in this bill. Eight billion of that goes to a UN slush fund called the Green Climate Fund.

The Majority says it wants the United States to lead on climate change, and many of us on this side of the aisle agree with that. But under this proposal, the United States would outsource that leadership to this unaccountable UN agency that we have virtually no control over. And what’s worse, some of these initiatives may actually end up helping the CCP while harming U.S. foreign policy interests. The Green Climate Fund has already cut a 100-million-dollar check to the CCP to finance climate programs it should be paying for. That will likely happen again if this bill is passed. 

In other words, some of this money – money provided by the American taxpayer – could end up going directly into the CCP’s coffers. Moreover, nothing would prevent the Green Climate Fund from paying solar panels made in China, in the Xinjiang province under slave labor. Even though forced labor has tainted the PRC’s solar panel supply chain – as Secretary Kerry admitted to this committee just a month and a half ago to me.

Even without the serious concerns I have on climate provisions, the remainder of the bill is underwhelming.

Despite being more than 600-pages, this bill offers few new ideas and little substantive actions to reorient our government in this strategic competition. Instead, it is filled with findings, reports, and non-binding Senses of Congress.

It claims to impose costs on the CCP for human rights abuses. But it does so by recycling bills that we already passed our committee – and some that have already passed the House.

It claims to strengthen American economic diplomacy. But it offers no solutions to the CCP’s unfair trade practices and illegal behavior. That includes CCP-controlled companies violating our stock market listing rules. 

But what is more striking is not what is in it, but what is missing. One of the strongest authorities this committee has across multiple federal agencies, is the Export Control Act. Export controls, which are this committee’s most powerful tools to slow down the CCP military and prevent human rights abuses is only mentioned three times in these 600 pages. And one of those times it is just a definition.

So, this bill deliberately excludes a Senate provision to increase scrutiny on CCP companies that violate our stock market regulations.

With an ongoing genocide and a military-driven economic system, now is not the time to put industry profits ahead of our values and security.  

And this bill is so far away from the comprehensive and bipartisan approach the Senate took. When the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed a very bipartisan package, one Democrat bill for one Republican. That is not this bill.

I was hopeful we could take a lot of what the Senate did, and some of that is in here, but we are nowhere near a place where our two chambers can get to a Conference Report the president could sign.

So, I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to heed President Biden’s CIA Director’s words about China itself when the Director is quoted: ‘It is hard for me to see a more significant threat or challenge for the United States as far out as I can see into the 21st century than this one.  It is the biggest geopolitical test that we face.’

I couldn’t agree more. So, Mr. Chairman, I know we disagree on this, but respectfully. And I am hopeful in the future we can get work together to treat the Chinese Communist Party as the most significant national security threat to the United States, as it truly is.

And with that I yield back the balance of my time.”

###