U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

20–456PDF 2016

STATE SPONSORS OF TERRORISM REVIEW ENHANCEMENT ACT;

NORTH KOREA STATE SPONSOR OF TERRORISM DESIGNATION ACT OF 2016; AND WOMEN, PEACE, AND SECURITY

ACT OF 2016

MARKUP

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

H.R. 5484, H.R. 5208 and H.R. 5332

JUNE 16, 2016

Serial No. 114–197

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ or

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

CURT CLAWSON, Florida 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

DANIEL DONOVAN, New York 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

MARKUP ON 

H.R. 5484, State Sponsors of Terrorism Review Enhancement Act .................... 2

H.R. 5208, North Korea State Sponsor of Terrorism Designation Act of 2016 .. 9

Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 5208 offered by the 

Honorable Ted Poe, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Texas .................................................................................................................. 22

H.R. 5332, Women, Peace, and Security Act of 2016 ............................................ 34

Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 5332 offered by the 

Honorable Edward R. Royce, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California, and chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs .............. 48

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 

5332 offered by the Honorable William Keating, a Representative 

in Congress from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts ....................... 61

APPENDIX 

Markup notice .......................................................................................................... 76

Markup minutes ...................................................................................................... 77

Markup summary .................................................................................................... 79

The Honorable Edward R. Royce, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California, and chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs: Statement 

from the Honorable Kristi L. Noem, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of South Dakota ................................................................................... 80

The Honorable Eliot L. Engel, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New York: Statement from the Honorable Janice D. Schakowsky, a 

Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois ...................................... 81

(1)

STATE SPONSORS OF TERRORISM REVIEW ENHANCEMENT 

ACT; NORTH KOREA STATE SPONSOR OF TERRORISM DESIGNATION ACT OF 2016; AND WOMEN, PEACE, AND SECURITY ACT OF 2016

THURSDAY, JUNE 16, 2016

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:50 a.m., in room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward Royce (chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Chairman ROYCE. This committee will come to order. Pursuant 

to notice, we meet today to mark up three measures. 

Without objection, all members may have 5 days to submit statements or extraneous material on today’s business for the record. 

As members were notified yesterday, we intend to consider today’s measures en bloc. 

So, without objection, the following items previously provided to 

members will be considered en bloc and are considered as read: 

H.R. 5484, the State Sponsors of Terrorism Review Enhancement 

Act; H.R. 5208, the North Korea State Sponsor of Terrorism Designation Act of 2016, with Poe amendment 279 in the nature of a 

substitute to H.R. 5208; and H.R. 5332, the Women, Peace, and Security Act of 2016, with the Royce amendment 123 in the nature 

of a substitute to H.R. 5332 and the Keating amendment 72 to the 

Royce amendment. 

[The information referred to follows:]

2


20456c-1.eps
3


20456c-2.eps
4


20456c-3.eps
5


20456c-4.eps
6


20456c-5.eps
7


20456c-6.eps
8


20456c-7.eps
9


20456a-1.eps
10


20456a-2.eps
11


20456a-3.eps
12


20456a-4.eps
13


20456a-5.eps
14


20456a-6.eps
15


20456a-7.eps
16


20456a-8.eps
17


20456a-9.eps
18


20456a-10.eps
19


20456a-11.eps
20


20456a-12.eps
21


20456a-13.eps
22


20456d-1.eps
23


20456d-2.eps
24


20456d-3.eps
25


20456d-4.eps
26


20456d-5.eps
27


20456d-6.eps
28


20456d-7.eps
29


20456d-8.eps
30


20456d-9.eps
31


20456d-10.eps
32


20456d-11.eps
33


20456d-12.eps
34


20456b-1.eps
35


20456b-2.eps
36


20456b-3.eps
37


20456b-4.eps
38


20456b-5.eps
39


20456b-6.eps
40


20456b-7.eps
41


20456b-8.eps
42


20456b-9.eps
43


20456b-10.eps
44


20456b-11.eps
45


20456b-12.eps
46


20456b-13.eps
47


20456b-14.eps
48


20456e-1.eps
49


20456e-2.eps
50


20456e-3.eps
51


20456e-4.eps
52


20456e-5.eps
53


20456e-6.eps
54


20456e-7.eps
55


20456e-8.eps
56


20456e-9.eps
57


20456e-10.eps
58


20456e-11.eps
59


20456e-12.eps
60


20456e-13.eps
61


20456f-1.eps
62


20456f-2.eps
63

Chairman ROYCE. And after recognizing myself and the ranking 

member, I will be pleased to recognize any member seeking recognition to speak once on any of these measures. 

So I will start here by thanking Mr. Ted Yoho for his work on 

H.R. 5484. This is the State Sponsors of Terrorism Review Enhancement Act. 

Let me share with you why I think this is important. The designation of a foreign government as a state sponsor of terrorism is 

one of our Government’s most powerful statements. In addition to 

imposing sanctions and other restrictions, the designation itself 

earns a state pariah status internationally. And that is deserved, 

because all of these countries have governments who back the killing of innocents, the killing of innocent people, as a matter of policy. 

Yet, under current law, to delist a state sponsor, the administration only needs to certify that the country has refrained from supporting terrorism for a mere 6 months. We shouldn’t be giving terrorist regimes a clean bill of health in such a short time. 

To address this, Mr. Yoho’s legislation quadruples the time that 

a designated country must refrain from sponsoring terrorism before 

the President can remove that country from the state sponsors of 

terrorism list. That means from 6 months to 24 months. And it 

doubles the time that Congress has to review and potentially overturn the President’s proposed removal of a country from that list. 

In other words, it will no longer be 45 days. We will have 90 days 

to review that here. That strengthens congressional oversight. 

And, again, I want to thank Representative Yoho for his leadership on this measure, which I urge all members to support. 

We also consider another bill on this topic, and that is 5208, requiring the State Department to report on the designation of North 

Korea as a state sponsor of terrorism. In 2008, North Korea’s designation was rescinded following commitments that it made to dismantle its nuclear weapons program. North Korea got its delisting 

but kept its nuclear program, as evidenced by its fourth nuclear 

test earlier this year. 

Since 2008, not only has North Korea’s nuclear weapons program 

advanced, but so has its support for terrorism. The Kim regime has 

reportedly continued to supply surface-to-air missiles and explosives to two organizations, both Hamas and Hezbollah. It has 

shelled South Korean civilians on Yeonpyeong Island, and it has 

attempted assassinations of North Korean dissidents that live 

abroad. 

This legislation requires the State Department to examine these 

actions and report to Congress on whether North Korea should be 

relisted as a state sponsor of terrorism. 

And I want to thank the bill’s author, Judge Ted Poe, who has 

long pressed this issue, as well as the ranking member for working 

with our offices on the refined text the committee is taking up 

today. The flawed delisting of North Korea has also been of particular focus to Chairman Emeritus Ros-Lehtinen. 

And, finally, we consider H.R. 5332. This is the Women, Peace, 

and Security Act of 2016. 

In March, this committee held a hearing where we heard powerful testimony about the importance of including women in peace 

64

processes around the world. Simply put, when women are at the 

negotiating table, peace is more likely. This bill recognizes that it 

is in our national interest to advance women’s participation in preventing and resolving global conflict and requires a governmentwide strategy to that effect. 

In 2011, the administration issued a National Action Plan on 

Women, Peace, and Security, and it has just published an update. 

I want to note that the bill before us does not set either plan into 

law. Rather, the bill identifies the many bipartisan points of consensus around this issue and sets specific goals, specific benchmarks, for women’s participation along with oversight from Congress to gauge progress. 

And I want to thank Ranking Member Engel and the bill’s sponsors, Representatives Noem and Schakowsky, for their bipartisan 

leadership. And I want to thank Representative Keating for his 

good amendment today, which further increases administration accountability. 

I now recognize the ranking member for his remarks. 

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, thank you for convening this markup. 

I want to thank the members for their hard work of the legislation we’re considering today. I intend to vote ‘‘yes’’ on all the bills 

that we have before us. 

Let me begin with Mr. Yoho’s bill, the State Sponsors of Terrorism Review Enhancement Act. Under current law, a state sponsor of terrorism must end support for terrorism and be on good behavior for 6 months before it can be taken off the list. This legislation would expand that period from 6 months to 2 years. 

I am certainly open to expanding the timeframe. And, frankly, I 

cannot foresee any scenario in the near term in which we would 

have an interest in removing the countries currently on the list, 

particularly Iran and Syria. As we all know, Iran is the world’s 

leading state sponsor of terrorism, and the Assad regime in Syria 

isn’t too far behind. 

But, as we move forward, we need to think about unintended 

consequences. We may face scenarios in the years ahead with countries that may not even be on our radar screen right now. We need 

to ensure that we are not setting up road blocks to potential diplomatic opportunities that aren’t in America’s national security interest. 

So I am not going to oppose this bill. I will support the bill. But 

I think we need to keep an open mind going forward. After all, in 

its current form, the administration does oppose this measure, and 

we all want to advance legislation that stands a chance of making 

it across the finish line. So I hope with this bill, as it goes forward, 

we can make sure we are taking the best possible approach. 

Along the same line, I will turn to the bill offered by Mr. Poe and 

Sherman, which aims to assess North Korea’s bad behavior and determine whether they should be put back on the state sponsors of 

terrorism list. We all know the litany of the Kim regime’s troubling 

actions, atrocious human rights abuses, assassinations, illegal nuclear program, and targeting other countries using conventional, 

clandestine, and cyber tools. The list goes on and on, yet the Bush 

administration removed North Korea from the state sponsors of 

terrorism list in 2008. It was part of the deal to get North Korea 

65

to abandon its nuclear weapons program. But before the ink was 

dry on the agreement, North Korea reneged on its commitments 

and returned to its dangerous course. 

I can’t say I was surprised by this. I think we all know by now, 

it was a bad deal. And you cannot believe anything the North Korean regime says and does. 

In the years since, we simply haven’t gotten enough of or the 

right kind of information for the administration to correct this mistake and relist North Korea. This bill would press the administration to conduct an evidence-based review on the information we do 

have on North Korea to see if we can in fact put them back on that 

list. 

I think it is worth taking a closer look at this issue, and that is 

what this measure does. I thank Mr. Poe and Mr. Sherman for 

their efforts on this. 

As reprehensible as North Korea is, I think we need to consider 

if they actually are a state sponsor of terrorism. They are awful in 

every way we can think, but I think there is a fine line as to 

whether or not they may or may not be a sponsor of terrorism, but 

I do think that this legislation should be passed. 

Finally, I am happy to support the Women, Peace, and Security 

Act brought forward by Representatives Schakowsky and Noem. 

Violent conflicts around the world hit women and girls especially 

hard. At the same time, women can play an outsized role in providing stability in communities, pushing back against radical 

ideologies and countering violent extremism. That is why, nearly 5 

years ago, President Obama unveiled the National Action Plan on 

Women, Peace, and Security to force on the importance of women 

around the world in helping to prevent and resolve conflicts. This 

legislation would build on those efforts for making sure our foreign 

policy stays focused on including women in conflict negotiation, 

promoting the physical and economic security of women around the 

world, and working to break down the barriers that have prevented 

the full participation of women. 

This is really a very important issue. Representative Schakowsky 

has been driving this effort for years. I am glad we have such 

strong bipartisan support to move this bill forward. 

I would like to enter, Mr. Chairman, into the record a statement 

of support from our colleague, Jan Schakowsky of Illinois, on this 

Women, Peace and Security bill. She is one of the authors of the 

bill, and I thank for her leadership on these issues. 

Chairman ROYCE. Without objection. 

We go now to Mr. Dana Rohrabacher of California. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I rise in support of these—what I consider to 

be—really significant pieces of legislation. And I would like again 

to congratulate our chairman and ranking member for their cooperation and their leadership on so many issues like this and 

making sure that our committee is able to actually get some things 

done. And I appreciate both of you, and I appreciate this legislation 

today before us. 

Let me make this pitch. Let’s pass this bill, and let’s declare 

Pakistan a sponsor of terrorism. That is what it comes down to if 

we really believe this. The evidence is overwhelming that Pakistan 

has been supporting terrorist elements, not just in Afghanistan, not 

66

just within Pakistan, but in different parts of the world. We also 

have an arrogant display by Pakistan of saying: Well, we don’t care 

what you think; we are actually going to put Dr. Afridi in a prison 

just so the whole world will know that you can’t tell us what to do, 

even when it comes to terrorism. 

As we remember, Dr. Afridi was the brave and courageous Pakistani doctor who helped us locate Osama bin Laden. The man that 

was involved with the massacre, in organizing the massacre of 

10,000 Americans—excuse me, 3,000 Americans on 9/11. Let us remember that, as I am saying this, that it wasn’t just that they got 

Dr. Afridi in jail, but we should remember where did Dr. Afridi 

find this man, find this criminal, this person, this terrorist leader? 

Probably the worst terrorist in the 20th century or the 21st century 

and they found him in the middle of Pakistan, right next to their 

school where they trained their military officers. And he was there 

for years. It strains credibility of anybody who suggests we should 

accept the idea that the Pakistani Government didn’t know that 

Osama bin Laden was right there as their guest for that many 

years. 

So, with that said, that alone should put Pakistan on the list. 

But, right now, they are deeply involved in domestic terrorism in 

the slaughter of Sindhis and the slaughter of people in Baluchistan. What the people in Baluchistan are trying to apparently 

get a vote so they can determine their own destiny, which is their 

right. And I believe people everywhere should have a right to vote 

on what country they are going to be part of or whatever. In some 

cases, people were denied a vote. In other cases, they were not only 

denied a vote, but they suffered enormous murders of their people 

and suppression. And that is what is going on in Baluchistan, and 

that is what is going on with the Sindhis in Pakistan. And the Pakistani Government is still engaged in helping groups like the 

Taliban and others. 

There was a Taliban leader, as we know, who was recently 

tracked down and eliminated, thank God, by our military forces. 

But where was that? Where was that Taliban leader? He was in 

Pakistan, of course. And, of course, the Pakistani response to us 

killing this terrorist leader was: You shouldn’t have had—your 

drones shouldn’t have overflown our territory. 

This is getting to be a sick game with the Pakistanis, with us 

trying to ignore the fact of how evil they have become in their cooperation with terrorism throughout the world. 

So I support what we are doing here. I certainly agree with the 

chairman’s comments and Ranking Member Engel’s comments 

about North Korea, but I want to make sure that we know that we 

are setting a standard, not just attacking North Korea here. Thank 

you very much. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. 

Dr. Afridi should not have been jailed, and he should be released 

immediately. 

We go now to Mr. Brad Sherman from California. 

Mr. SHERMAN. First, I would like to say I agree with at least half 

of what the gentleman from California said about Pakistan and 

would like to meet him halfway. If we don’t designate it a terrorist 

country, at least we could cut half their aid until we see a substanVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:51 Sep 01, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\061616M\20456 SHIRL
67

tial improvement in their behavior, starting with, of course, Mr. 

Afridi and his family coming here to the United States. 

I want to thank the chairman for holding this markup. I support 

each of the bills, and two bills deal with the process of designating 

countries that support terrorism. Our current law gives considerable, I think, excessive discretion to the executive. In general, in 

foreign policy, we have seen the growth of the imperial executive 

branch over the last 20 years, and not only is this bad for our constitutional values, but it hasn’t led to a particularly good foreign 

policy over the last 20 years. 

So we have one bill, the State Sponsors of Terrorism Review Enhancement Act, which would give the Congress 90 days to look at 

removing from the list a country that has changed its government. 

There are other rules for those where there has not been a change 

of government, but we should remember that the primary—and I 

would—future legislation might establish the exclusive way to take 

a country off the terrorism list is to submit a bill to Congress. So 

90 days may be too long. A 2-year period may, in some cases, not 

be the right one. But the best way to get a country off the list is 

to submit a bill to Congress, and it is Congress’ obligation to act 

on that promptly. When you look at the three countries that are 

on—Sudan, Syria, and Iran—none of those countries should be 

taken off without an act of Congress. 

We have another bill, H.R. 5208, dealing with North Korea, 

which Mr. Poe and I have introduced to have a process where 

North Korea might be put back on the list. They should be on the 

list. I would like to have legislation that simply puts them on the 

list. But, at this point, I think it is a step forward to have a process 

that I think should lead to that conclusion. And others who have 

spoken have detailed all the reasons why North Korea should be 

on that list today and should have not been taken off. 

I think we all support the Women, Peace, and Security Act, and 

I think we will all support the Education for All Act. It is true, as 

the bill states, that tens of millions of children are not getting an 

education, and that is a crisis. But keep in mind, in the year 2000, 

only 83 percent of the children attended school. In 2015, that figure 

is up to 91 percent, but we still need to do more. 

I think we should take that opportunity to encourage USAID to 

focus its expenditures on providing free textbooks. In sub-Saharan 

Africa, where we have the greatest problem with children not attending school, one of the reasons is that the books cost $2 to $4 

for the family. In many countries, kids can’t get the books. In Cameroon, there is 1 reading book for every 12 students and 1 math 

book for every 14 students in the second grade. 

By providing free textbooks, we have some control over the content. I am not saying that the book has to meet all American 

standards, but we can at least have some influence on the content 

of the education. 

And, second, we prevent corruption. If textbooks in the country 

are free, it is going to be hard to sell them on the black market. 

It is a lot easier to steal cash than it is to steal textbooks and then 

find a way to sell them in a country where they are already free. 

So I look forward to dealing with the crisis that continues in children not getting an education and hope that it can be the United 

68

States rather than very poor parents who are paying for the textbooks. 

And I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. 

Mr. Chabot of Ohio. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I was going to be brief, and I still will be brief, but since my colleague brought up Dr. Afridi, I would just also like to join in the 

chorus here to saying how outrageous it is that the true hero of the 

effort in finding and dealing with Osama bin Laden, rather than 

being treated as a hero, is rotting in a jail cell in Pakistan. It is 

absolutely outrageous. 

And we have tried. Our leaders have recommended being quiet 

about this. We are negotiating behind the scenes. I heard this from 

the Obama administration innumerable times now: We don’t want 

to be too public about this. We are negotiating behind the scenes. 

He is still rotting in a damn jail cell, and it is outrageous that 

the hero—so I commend my colleague Mr. Rohrabacher for continuing to bring this up. Although, he is still rotting in a jail cell. 

Relative to North Korea, my colleagues have already said it 

much better than I could. There is little question that North Korea’s antics are developing into a real threat to the United States 

and our allies around the world. 

China is the key, as it always has been, in putting pressure on 

North Korea, but they do nothing. They give us happy talk but, ultimately, no real pressure on North Korea. They like keeping us off 

balance. I think that is the bottom line there. But it is—North 

Korea is becoming a threat. And they are becoming even more of 

a threat when there is little doubt that they are transferring technology, nuclear technology, and others to other bad actors around 

the globe in the Middle East and elsewhere. So I commend my colleagues. I commend the chairman and the ranking member for 

working in a bipartisan manner to bring these bills before us, and 

I hope they all pass. I urge my colleagues to support them. 

I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. David Cicilline from Rhode Island. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank you and Ranking Member Engel for holding this markup 

today. As always, I am pleased that this committee has come together in the spirit of bipartisanship to pass legislation that deals 

with a variety of important issues. 

In particular, I want to express my strong support for H.R. 5332, 

the Women, Peace, and Security Act of 2016. I commend my colleagues, Congresswomen Noem and Schakowsky, for leading this 

bill, which highlights the critical role of women in the prevention, 

management, and resolution of conflicts, peace negotiations and 

peacebuilding, humanitarian response, and post-conflict relief and 

recovery efforts. 

This bill codifies and builds upon the Obama administration’s 

2011 Executive order, known as the U.S. National Action Plan on 

Women, Peace, and Security, a governmentwide effort to institutionalize, amplify, and coordinate initiatives directed at strengthening the role of women in peacebuilding and conflict-prevention 

processes. 

69

Women are often the most vulnerable victims during conflict situations, but they have also played prominent roles in the pursuit 

of peace. It is critical that we engage women around the world in 

conflict prevention and resolution and strive to ensure that their 

voices are heard. Women are key to conflict resolution and 

peacebuilding, not only because they constitute half the world’s 

population but because of their roles as leaders of their families 

and communities, especially during times of war. 

Women are also advocates for peace as peacekeepers, relief workers, and mediators. The difficult task of peacebuilding must be 

done by men and women in partnership. It is critical that we recognize, reinforce, and promote women’s leadership in the realm of 

peace and security and do everything we can to ensure their lives 

are protected, their experiences taken into account, and their voices 

heard. Deadly conflicts can be avoided and peace sustained when 

women are empowered as equal partners in all aspects of 

peacebuilding and conflict prevention. 

I strongly support H.R. 5332, the Women, Peace, and Security 

Act of 2016. And I urge my colleagues to support this essential legislation. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. CICILLINE. Yes, happy to yield. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would like to commend you, having gone on 

a codel with you recently, and after what we suffered in Orlando, 

we need to make sure that—and those of us who have differences 

on what this means and how far you go on certain rights issues, 

you have been a spokesman to make sure that people overseas understand that we believe in individual rights and freedom for all 

people, whatever their sexual preference is. And I want to commend you for that. It raises this issue. And, again we don’t agree 

on all the details about what to do, but we want to make sure that, 

especially after things like Orlando and this horrible thing, that we 

stand together as Americans and all these things. We have things 

that separate us, different values and choices that we make in our 

lives, but, in essence, we are Americans and stand together as a 

family. And your vocalizing that has been very good overseas, so 

thank you. 

Mr. CICILLINE. I thank the gentleman for the kind words. 

And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you Mr. Cicilline. 

We go to Mr. Joe Wilson of South Carolina. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Chairman Royce and Ranking Member 

Engel, for convening this markup today. 

We will be considering important measures to improve our national security. I also appreciate Congressman Dana Rohrabacher 

for his persistence for releasing Dr. Afridi, the hero of identifying 

Osama bin Laden. 

I would particularly like to thank Chairman Ted Poe of the Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade Subcommittee for his vision for 

authoring H.R. 5208, the North Korea State Sponsor of Terrorism 

Designation Act of 2016. 

I am grateful to be one of the few Members of Congress to have 

ever visited the Hermit Kingdom with the opportunity to travel 

there in 2003 with ranking member Eliot Engel. I saw firsthand 

70

the struggle and oppression of its citizens which they have endured 

under the totalitarian regime. It is no secret that since the designation of state sponsor of terrorism was rescinded in 2008, numerous 

reports have come out of Pyongyang indicating that their support 

for terrorist groups has continued. 

Recently, we have also seen numerous acts of aggression, which 

further demonstrate that the Kim dictatorship is just as unpredictable and dangerous as ever. I am grateful Chairman Poe’s bill ensures the State Department does its due diligence and strengthens 

congressional oversight of this important issue. 

I would again like to express my support for all the measures 

considered by the committee today and urge their passage. 

And I yield back my time. 

Chairman ROYCE. I think we are—Judge Ted Poe of Texas is the 

next member seeking recognition. 

Mr. Poe. 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

For 20 years, North Korea was designated as a state sponsor of 

terrorism for its repeated support for international terrorism and 

proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. But, in 2008, the government, our Government, took North Korea off the list for completely diplomatic reasons. North Korea was delisted because it 

promised to dismantle its nuclear program. We were conned. 

Eight years and four nuclear tests later, it is clear that North 

Korea lied, but they are still not on the list. Not only did they not 

dismantle the nuclear program, they continued to support international terrorism. In 2009, reports indicated three North Korean 

arm shipments were bound for terrorist groups like Hezbollah and 

Hamas. They were seized by the UAE, Israel, and Thailand. 

In 2014, Hamas reportedly brokered an agreement to purchase 

communications equipment and rockets from North Korea. 

And North Korea continues to proliferate weapons of mass destruction to some of the most dangerous criminals in the world. 

They have worked with Iran on intercontinental ballistic missiles 

and have set up a nuclear reactor in Syria. 

When I visited with Admiral Harris of the Pacific Command, I 

asked him the question, of the five countries that are threats to the 

U.S.—China, North Korea, Russia, ISIS, and Iran—which of those 

is he the most concerned about? And he quickly said North Korea. 

And so H.R. 5208 lays out a number of these concerning incidents 

and requires the State Department to respond to each one of them. 

I want to thank Mr. Sherman from California for his support and 

sponsorship of this. It also requires that the State Department to 

justify in writing why North Korea is not back on the state sponsor 

of terrorism list. And if they can’t justify it, then put North Korea 

on the list again. It is time to call North Korea what they are: A 

state sponsor of terrorism. We should look at them that way, especially in light of the fact that they work with Iran, who is another 

state sponsor of terrorism. 

Very briefly, I do want to weigh in on Mr. Rohrabacher’s comments about Pakistan. Pakistan has proven they can’t be trusted 

as an ally. They play everybody. They support the Taliban in Afghanistan, but they go after the Taliban in Pakistan. They have 

imprisoned—who I think is a hero—Dr. Afridi. They poisoned a 

71

CIA Director. At least he thinks they were poisoned and he was 

poisoned by the military, ISI. 

And the new Taliban leader, as has been pointed out, when he 

was taken out on May 21st, where was he hiding? He was hiding 

in the same country that Osama bin Laden was hiding, Pakistan. 

And so they cannot be trusted as well. So I agree with Mr. Rohrabacher and Mr. Sherman that at least we ought to reconsider and 

maybe put half of Pakistan on the state sponsors of terrorism list. 

With that, I yield back to the chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Poe. 

Now we go to Mr. Alan Grayson of Florida. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate the comments that the members have made regarding the specific countries that are coming under scrutiny regarding 

their status as state sponsors of terrorism. 

I want to address a completely different issue, and it is a procedural one. I notice that the State Sponsors of Terrorism Review Enhancement Act has in it, on page 6, a provision that allows for a 

joint resolution regarding the rescission of a country listed as a 

state sponsor of terrorism. In other words, the procedure involved 

contemplated here is the President rescinds someone on the list, 

and then Congress purportedly has the power to prevent that from 

happening and keep someone on the list. I regard that as unconstitutional, under the INS v. Chadha decision from 1983. There is no 

such thing under our Constitution as a legislative veto. It is a violation of the Presentment Clause. We went through this actually 

just last year with Senate Joint Resolution 8, where the President 

had to issue a memorandum of disapproval reminding Congress 

that we can’t do that under the Constitution. 

I also want to point out that this particular bill has no saving 

clause in it. So, unfortunately, by including in this bill a provision 

of extremely doubtful constitutionality, we are running the risk 

that the whole bill ends up being for nothing. 

I would encourage my colleagues not to put legislative veto provisions like this one in bills that pass through this committee or are 

offered otherwise in the House of Representatives. I think that they 

will lead to a great deal of mischief down the line. And I want to 

remind all of our colleagues that we took an oath to uphold the 

Constitution, including the Presentment Clause in it. 

I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. I think Mr. Grayson has raised a point here. 

I would point out that, under current law, under the Arms Export Control Act, this is in fact the law. What we are talking about 

doing is extending the period of time from 45 days to 90 days. But, 

in point in fact, this has not been yet overturned by a court, nor 

has the issue been raised by the State Department, nor has a court 

challenge been raised to this issue. So, arguably, under the law of 

the land, the current interpretation is that the existing statute is 

legal and so what we are talking about is getting an across-theboard agreement in terms of the timeframe when Congress could 

act which would be more effective, and that it would be a 90-day 

period. 

Mr. GRAYSON. If I may reclaim my time. 

Chairman ROYCE. Yes, Mr. Grayson. 

72

Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

This issue has come up twice now with the Supreme Court, both 

with the INS v. Chadha case and also with the line-item veto 

cases. On both occasions, the court made it clear that the only way 

that we can act is if we pass a bill or a resolution, as the case may 

be, the Senate passes the same bill or a resolution, and the President signs it, or we overturn his veto. Joint resolutions simply don’t 

work. 

I am aware of the fact that the, under the Arms Export Control 

Act, no one has put the screws to that provision the way we have 

seen with regard to the Chadha case or with regard to the lineitem veto case yet, but it is inevitable that it will happen. It will 

happen sooner or later. And because we want our bills that we pass 

here in the House to pass and meet constitutional muster, we really should be a little bit more circumspect about putting very aggressive provisions in our bills, in my opinion, that could very well 

lead to the unconstitutionality of bills and throwing out the baby 

with the bath water. 

I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. I understand the gentleman’s point. 

A joint resolution is a new statute under the interpretation of the 

House and the Senate. And so, in fact, if a joint resolution is a new 

statute, then we would have standing. But perhaps this would all 

be taken up at some point by court challenge, but as of to date, we 

haven’t had any challenge on this particular issue. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Reclaiming my time. 

Chairman ROYCE. Allowing Mr. Grayson to reclaim his time, and 

then I will go to Mr. Sherman. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Yes, one last time. The fact that a joint resolution 

can be deemed as being equivalent to a bill doesn’t make it kosher, 

if you will, under these circumstances because the bill, as written, 

indicates that the joint resolution itself is enough to rescind the 

President’s action when, in fact, in order to make it proper, under 

the Presentment Clause, you would need a joint resolution and the 

President’s signature, which is something that still does not provide for and, therefore, in my opinion, is in fact unconstitutional. 

I yield. 

Chairman ROYCE. Yes, but this joint resolution will require a 

Presidential signature, just by way of explanation, that we are 

passing here. 

But let me go to Mr. Sherman for his point. 

Mr. SHERMAN. We could avoid these constitutional issues by just 

passing a bill that says: North Korea, Iran, Sudan, and Syria are 

on the list, and they can’t be taken off without congressional approval. That would take a more robust statement of Congress and 

a willingness to override the veto of whichever President is trying 

to trivialize the role of Congress in foreign policy, which is to say 

all of them that I am familiar with. 

So I do think that the chairman may be right in distinguishing 

between a joint resolution and a concurrent resolution, but I would 

prefer we be passing stronger legislation today and avoid whatever 

pitfalls the gentleman from Florida brings up. And I want to thank 

him for bringing those to our attention. 

73

Chairman ROYCE. I would like to also—if the gentleman would 

yield. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Yes. 

Chairman ROYCE. I would also like to thank Mr. Grayson for 

raising these points, but I would conclude with the argument that 

a joint resolution is a new law, just like an H.R., in that it does 

require—in this case, it requires a Presidential signature, just to 

reiterate that point. 

Mr. Yoho of Florida has requested time. 

Mr. YOHO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Engel. 

I appreciate the bipartisan support, and I stand too with the release of Dr. Afridi. Currently, there are two common paths for removing a foreign government from the designation. The first option 

is that the President certifies that there has been a fundamental 

change in the leadership and the policies of the government and 

that the new government does not support terrorism. This is obviously a more difficult standard. 

The other path to a rescission from the list is that the President 

certifies that the government has not provided support for acts of 

international terrorism during the preceding 6 months. This is a 

woefully inadequate metric to be considered for removal from the 

state sponsors of terrorism list, more so in today’s environment 

with so much uncertainty and instability in the world. This easier 

path has often led to politically motivated rescission from the Presidents on both sides of the aisle. 

In 2008, President Bush removed North Korea, and in 2014, 

President Obama removed Cuba. This again is something Republican and Democrat Presidents have used throughout the past. For 

instance, as has already been pointed out, Iraq was removed from 

the list in 1982, relisted in 1990, and removed again in 2004. 

My bill will make it more difficult for politically motivated removals and increase congressional oversight and scrutiny. It will 

increase, as you pointed out, or quadruple the time a designated 

country must refrain from sponsoring terrorism before a President 

can remove it from the sponsor list from 6 months to 24. This will 

beseech countries with bad habits, like sponsoring, supporting, or 

harboring terrorists, to create good habits for a longer period of 

time for review. 

In addition, as you pointed out, it increases congressional oversight by doubling the time Congress has to review the President’s 

proposed removal from 45 to 90 days, and as Mr. Grayson pointed 

out, the President’s authority to designate and remove from the 

designation of terror states, he is right. But also Congress has a 

role, and we are just asking to increase that. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Yoho. 

And if no one else is seeking time, the question then occurs on 

the items considered en bloc. 

All those in favor, say aye. 

Those opposed, no. 

In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it, and the measures 

considered en bloc are agreed to. 

74

Without objection, the measures are favorably reported, as 

amended. 

Staff is directed to make any technical and conforming changes. 

Also, without objection, the Chair is authorized to seek House consideration of these measures under suspension of the rules. 

And that concludes our business today. 

Again, I want to thank all the members. 

I want to thank Ranking Member Engel and everyone’s contributions here and assistance with today’s markup. 

This committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:32 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(75)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

76

f


20456n.eps
77


20456m-1.eps
78

f


20456m-2.eps
79

f


20456s.eps
80

f


20456g.eps
81


20456h-1.eps
82

Æ


20456h-2.eps