Mono Lake Kutzadikaa Tribe Recognition Act

I claim time in opposition.

The Acting CHAIR: The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, I rise to oppose H.R. 4665.

This bill would impose devastating cuts on programs meant to keep both America and the world safe. With all due respect to my friend and colleague and the chair of this committee, I am not an adversary of the United States. Democrats are patriotic, and we want our country to lead in global security and peace. This bill does just the opposite.

This Republican bill would slash the allocation for international programs by nearly one-third, a level not seen since 2009. Do my Republican colleagues really think that our international challenges have shrunk? I don't know what world they are living in. The bill undermines the fight against climate change, and it would destroy our influence at the United Nations during a time when China and Russia are working to expand their voice and their role.

Most outrageously, the bill would gut programs intended to help the most vulnerable people in the world, undermining American global leadership and making a mockery of our human values and leaving a huge void for adversaries to fill.

I have spent much of my time in Congress talking about the three d's of our

national security: diplomacy, development, and defense. Each of these has a role to play in keeping our country safe and secure, and creating a world where kids and our grandkids can prosper.

The SFOPS bill is supposed to fund two of those d's, diplomacy and development. Instead, this Republican bill throws the three d's completely out of whack.

If House Republicans get their way, the Pentagon would receive 20 times more--let me repeat that, 20 times more--what this bill invests in diplomacy and development combined. Even our military leaders have spoken out against cuts to diplomacy and development because they know gutting these programs makes their jobs harder. Former Defense Secretary Mattis has famously said: If you don't fully fund the State Department, then I have to buy more ammunition.

Mr. Chair, the PRC now has more embassies and diplomats around the world than any other nation, including more than the United States, but Republicans would cut funding for our embassies and diplomats by $1.2 billion.

We have watched as the PRC challenges us at the United Nations and other multilateral institutions, working to insert their values of authoritarianism and disrespect for human rights, but Republicans are proposing to cut funding to the United Nations, leaving our adversaries waiting to fill the void that we leave behind.

The Republican bill asks our diplomats and development professionals to do more monitoring, reporting, and oversight, but then it shortchanges them on the funding that they need for operations and staffing. This is quite sinister.

The bill invites the culture wars into foreign policy by making diversity, drag queens, and critical race theory bogeymen and bogeywomen, distracting us from the real life-or-death challenges facing our world. It doesn't make any sense.

The bill also takes a really dishonest approach to the threat posed by climate change. Right now, people all around the world are confronting the impacts of human-caused climate change, life- threatening temperatures, crop failures, floods, and severe weather. They need help confronting the problem we largely created. Yet, the majority pretends that our climate finance investments are about controlling the planet's temperature, like some sort of global thermostat. That is not how it works. We have countries that might literally not exist in a generation because of the changes that are already happening.

We are spending billions each and every year, both here at home and overseas, dealing with humanitarian emergencies and responding to ever- stronger storms, raging fires, and devastating droughts. Failing to invest and adapt to the new reality means continued and escalating conflict and crisis, which puts Americans and people everywhere at risk.

Around the world, 218 million women still do not have access to the tools needed to decide when and how to have a baby. While hundreds of thousands of them die in childbirth, we are going to make it harder for women to access care through both policies and reduced funding in this bill.

I am very upset about how this bill attacks efforts to strengthen diversity in our foreign policy workforce. The rich diversity of the United States is one of our greatest strengths. People around the world--religious and ethnic minorities, people with disabilities, LGBTQ+ people--look first to the United States for support and inspiration as they seek to claim their human rights. It is unimaginable to me that my Republican colleagues--well, no, it is not really, given what is taking place in our own country. Once again, you all see a threat in our efforts to make sure that our diplomats and development experts reflect and respect that same diversity.

The world is watching us. The world is full of threats that don't respect borders, from climate change to pandemics to assertive dictators. Most countries would prefer to partner with the United States to confront these challenges. By bringing this bill to the floor with these cuts, to the House floor, mind you, the Republican majority broadcasts a clear message to the world to take a hike. Trust me, the PRC is ready to take advantage of our absence, and I think everyone has seen this around the world.

Mr. Chair, it is September 28. The government may shut down, unfortunately, even though we are fighting as Democrats to prevent this from happening, but today, we are considering a bill that has no chance of becoming law. We should be working today to make sure that we keep our government open.

House Democrats will not support a bill if it means turning our backs on the world's most vulnerable women or the looming threat of climate change.

In the end, final appropriations bills will need bicameral and bipartisan support, and today, we will likely get further away from that goal, not closer. This really is wasting everyone's time.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this destructive bill. We are not adversaries. We are patriotic, and we want our country to succeed in its mission and its role as a global leader leading peace and security efforts throughout the planet.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Meng), a member of the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Subcommittee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lois Frankel), a member of the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Subcommittee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), the ranking member of the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First, let me take a minute on the many partisan riders included in the bill being considered today and raise a couple of points.

The number of prohibitions seems to be really enormous. They have proliferated, often with little concern for what the actual ramifications might be.

It appears to be the approach of: If an organization has ever done something that you have not liked or a wild theory has circulated about it, we will just prohibit it. We will pick up our ball and take it home.

This is not just ineffective; it is really immature.

The bill prohibits funds for the Chinese Communist Party. This sounds tough. I was the previous chairwoman of the subcommittee, and this bill has not provided funding to the Chinese Communist Party. It is a red herring.

It prohibits scientific cooperation with countries we do not like, not stopping to consider that while there may or may not be active collaboration currently, there may come a time when it is in the United States' best interest to partner, not with the government, but with the people, with scientists, to pursue common goals.

Indeed, we carried on scientific cooperation with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, not because we agree with their government, but it was in our own interest.

The bill prohibits gain-of-function research. That sounds good but consider that this same prohibited research is producing new therapies for cancer and cystic fibrosis. This research also helps us produce insulin for people with diabetes.

Has the majority considered what the cost will be of cutting this off?

The bill prohibits funding for the World Health Organization because they won't admit Taiwan. It is the member countries of the WHO that are making this decision, not the organization. With this bill, the PRC will continue to work against Taiwan's inclusion, but the United States won't be there to help.

We are told that this bill is strong against our adversaries. I would argue just the opposite. This bill takes the easy route and leaves the field open for those who would challenge us. It makes dialogue and engagement harder and leaves our potential partners and allies who are deciding who they can turn to for help high and dry and, of course, that won't be the United States.

A couple points on the United Nations. The U.N. is the forum for every country in the world. The United States, to my knowledge, does not get to pick who gets to be a sovereign country. Leadership of the United Nations committees, the general assembly, they all rotate among members, which the chairman knows. This makes it even more important that the United States fully participates. This bill endangers that.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the chairman and I respect each other. We have different points of view, and I consider us friends also.

I know, and I think the chairman knows, that many of our Republican colleagues do support robust investments in the SFOPS bill because I have seen the thousands of requests that Members have submitted this year and in prior years.

There is a long legacy of enlightened Republican support for foreign assistance. Congressional Republicans worked with Harry Truman to create the Marshall Plan which rebuilt Europe after a devastating war.

I worked with President Bush to create PEPFAR, which has saved 25 million lives from HIV and AIDS.

Yet, the majority has chosen to force this bill to the floor because they cynically believe that their Members will be happy to sacrifice the world's poorest people to make a political point.

To my Republican colleagues--I see you here on the floor today, and I am asking you to stand up and, yes, oppose this terrible bill. Please vote ``no,'' and let's get back together and write a bill that helps build the better and safer world that we want for our children and our grandchildren.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this en bloc. There is a list of bipartisan amendments in this to address various Members' priorities. I appreciate the collaborative way in which we have agreed on this package.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chair, it is really hard to believe that you all want to eliminate funding for the Institute of Peace, P-E-A-C- E. The Institute of Peace is one of the best tools the United States has to bring people together to prevent wars--government officials, civil society practitioners, and defense experts--to really to creatively solve our world's thorniest issues.

Congress created the United States Institute of Peace for this purpose in 1984. USIP applies practical solutions in conflict zones, and provides analysis, education, and resources to those working for peace. Peace is patriotic, my Republican friends.

USIP has specialized teams of mediators, trainers, and others in some of the world's most dangerous places and works to equip communities with the skills necessary to prevent or resolve their own violent conflicts before they threaten the United States.

Mr. Chair, I hope they understand that peace is the only option that we have to war. USIP works on the ground with local partners on the root causes of conflict that all too frequently result in America's military gains or diplomatic and development investments going to waste.

In a world that becomes more dangerous and complex every day, we need the services and the creative thinking of the United States Institute of Peace.

It is hard to believe the Republicans oppose peace. I guess that says that war is the option for settling conflicts, and I think the American people are war weary and support our efforts for peace. It is really a shame and a disgrace that you are uncovering this issue in terms of your opposition to peace.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chair, the OSCE is the world's largest regional security organization and has been critical in addressing the violent aggression of Russia.

The OSCE is actively engaged in conflict prevention, conventional arms control, peacekeeping, promoting good governance and human rights, rule-of-law programming, also border security measures, counternarcotics work, efforts to combat organized crime, anticorruption and anti-money laundering activities, and election support.

The OSCE is currently leading a Special Monitoring Mission in Ukraine. This mission is an unarmed civilian mission tasked to observe and to report on the situation resulting from ongoing Russian aggression to facilitate dialogue among all parties to restore peace, p-e-a-c-e, and to monitor and support the implementation of the cease- fire and other tenets of the Minsk peace agreements.

It is the only nonpartisan international body that maintains a continuous presence at the line of contact between the Ukrainian Armed Forces and Russian-led forces in eastern Ukraine. Peace in Ukraine, that is p-e-a-c-e, will be through organizations like the OSCE.

I am completely perplexed by my colleagues and can't figure out why they would not find this a good investment

of taxpayer dollars. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

Mr. Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the United States Agency for International Development's global operations are essential to defending United States national security, asserting United States leadership and foreign policy influence, and advancing stability, security, and prosperity worldwide.

This account supports a direct-hire workforce focused on advancing the most critical and effective foreign assistance programs and ensuring strong relationships and stewardship and accountability of U.S. taxpayer dollars. A 50 percent reduction to the operating expenses account would devastate USAID operations, including its workforce, and its ability to implement critical foreign assistance and humanitarian assistance programs.

At this level, the Agency would be forced to reduce permanent U.S. direct-hire levels by about 1,845 positions. USAID would cut approximately 965 Foreign Service and 880 civil service positions. This 50 percent workforce reduction would require a reduction in force since eliminating the backfilling of positions lost through attrition would achieve only about an 8 percent cut.

USAID would significantly reduce its presence overseas, including closing some missions, once again leaving this void for our adversaries. This would leave these missions without American personnel to deliver aid from the American people and ensure our national security through development and humanitarian assistance.

This drastic staff cut would leave programs extremely vulnerable to waste, fraud, and abuse, and impair the Agency's ability to respond to ongoing and future natural and human crises, pandemics, and development challenges. It also will result in the termination of programs overseas, once again creating a void for our adversaries to fill.

This amendment is really counterproductive. We can't short fund staff charged with managing our foreign assistance programs and expect them to be effective. If we reduce our development efforts, we are not countering Russia and the PRC's influence. We are, instead, opening the door for their expanded global influence. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart).

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the United States Agency for International Development's capital investment fund supports facility construction, information technology, and real property maintenance.

These include efforts to accelerate the construction of new, secure, safe, and functional office facilities for USAID personnel overseas. Without this funding, these diplomats would be vulnerable and at greater risk for harm on less secured compounds.

This fund also supports information technology security, including efforts critical to cybersecurity and real property maintenance and repairs.

I don't hear the gentleman talking about the fact that the policy of countering Chinese influence costs a little bit of money, also. I think this provides us a bigger bang for our buck.

Without this funding, the Agency would be unable to upgrade and secure the IT environment against external and internal threats that could damage our national security and expose personally identifiable information of not only Americans but the participants we assist in times of crisis.

Mr. Chair, this amendment is shortsighted, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, while this amendment does not have a budgetary effect, I thank my colleague for raising such an important issue for millions of women around the world.

For more than 200 women, female genital mutilation can mean health problems that haunt them for the rest of their lives.

The quest for gender equality will not be complete until women are no longer subjected to these practices, and I thank my colleague for raising this important issue.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Salinas).

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, once again, I have no idea what my colleagues are trying to achieve.

All this amendment would do is double down on the harm Russia's aggression has already wreaked on the poorest countries of the world through higher food, fertilizer, and fuel costs.

This amendment would cut $750 million each from global health programs and the International Disaster Assistance accounts. These cuts would impose tremendous harm and suffering to the most vulnerable, including:

4 million children with malaria will go untreated;

350,000 deaths attributable to tuberculosis;

13 million fewer children vaccinated resulting in a possible 115,000 additional deaths; and

A reduction by over 45 percent of humanitarian assistance to Sudan compared to FY 2023 levels.

This doesn't sound much like pro-life to me, Mr. Chairman.

It would also eliminate the entire Official Development Assistance accounts, affecting agriculture and food security programs, education, and clean water for millions of the most vulnerable people in the world.

Development assistance is also used for Countering PRC Influence programs, which represents one of our most effective tools to counter and compete with the PRC globally.

It is really ridiculous, it is cruel, and it is not pro-life. These are not funds that would be targeted to Ukraine in any significant way. It has no impact on the Ukraine debate and would inflict harm on millions of people.

Mr. Chair, I would be happy to discuss with my colleagues about how we support Ukraine's pursuit of freedom, but this amendment would only alienate the rest of the world and forsake many of our allies' reliant on assistance from the United States.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, let me just suggest this: It really is an unrealistic position for the United States to allow 4 million children with malaria to go untreated, to allow 350,000 deaths attributable to tuberculosis, to allow 13 million fewer children vaccinated, resulting in a possible 115,000 additional deaths, and a reduction of over 45 percent of humanitarian assistance to Sudan compared to 2023 levels.

Very unrealistic, cruel, and unusual.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

USAID's International Disaster Assistance Account, or IDA, is a critical tool which supports our country's foreign policy objectives and serves as a lifeline for millions of people.

The IDA account provides lifesaving support including food, water, shelter, emergency healthcare, sanitation and hygiene, and critical nutrition services to the world's most vulnerable and hardest to reach people.

This assistance is needed now more than ever. After 20 years of decline, there are more people facing hunger now than in 2019, almost 30 percent of the global population.

Regardless of whether you have faith or not, I think that our values compel us to really address those in most need, not only in our own country, but, yes, throughout the world.

It is important to provide this humanitarian assistance because it is morally the right thing to do. Once again, those who are people of faith, or not, do this because it really does solidify our commitment to humankind, and, also, yes, our leadership and influence throughout the world.

It is unthinkable that the United States would stop providing this support to those who have lost everything through a natural disaster or conflict.

I am really ashamed that the Republicans want to do this. It is really a disgrace.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is shortsighted. It would potentially cut programs to strengthen democracy and human rights, protect religious freedom, and support economic reforms, among others.

Many of these programs counter malign influences and provide an alternative to the PRC's influence, financing, and activities.

These programs also offer and demonstrate another narrative from the authoritarianism promoted by the government of the PRC. The Economic Support Fund also advances critical security programs, such as countering terrorist radicalization and recruitment and improving governance and accountability. These are bigger challenges than they were just 5 years ago.

The fiscal year level that is sought by this amendment is totally unrealistic to accomplish our goals.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, this budget, first of all, is less than one half of 1 percent of the United States' GDP.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Kim).

Mr. Chair, the migration and refugee assistance account supports protection and assistance to ease the suffering of those who had to leave everything behind and become refugees. The funding also contributes to broader USG and international efforts to resolve conflicts that cause displacement.

This humanitarian aid saves lives and upholds the dignity of tens of millions of forcibly displaced and crisis-affected people, including refugees, victims of conflict, stateless persons, and vulnerable migrants.

There were more than 108 million forcibly displaced people globally at the end of 2022. This is the largest ever annual increase and represents the largest number of forcibly displaced in history.

Without assistance, nations will not accept the growing refugee populations in their countries, potentially destabilizing regions and threatening global peace, security, and stability. We should be doing more, not less, to support these individuals.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, the Peace Corps is one of the best investments in public diplomacy that we make. There is no way that Democrats have prioritized Peace Corps over veterans. We support our veterans. We support the Peace Corps.

What better ambassadors do we have than young American people willing to spend 2 years overseas and build goodwill with people around the world?

I know many of us have met these young people when traveling overseas or have discussed with our own constituents after they have participated in this life-changing experience.

The Peace Corps account in this bill is already $20 million below its current level, endangering the return of volunteers in the field after COVID and the reopening of new sites, particularly in the Pacific Islands, where strong American diplomacy is sorely needed.

Cuts are already threatening the ability to support the 5,000 volunteers across 51 countries that the Peace Corps has responsibility for.

Once again, Democrats support the Peace Corps. Democrats support and thank our veterans for their service.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I am not so sure that our veterans would appreciate being used as a pawn in this game to try to defund and cut funding for young people. I have talked to many veterans who appreciate the Peace Corps and appreciate the work that they are doing to help ensure that Americans have the best ambassadors in the world. Our veterans would not want to hear of this pawn game being played in opposition to the Peace Corps.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, this amendment would reduce the contribution of the United States to the Global Environmental Facility by $10 million. The Global Environmental Facility is a multilateral trust fund that provides grant-based funding to developing countries to address the real global environmental challenges.

Last month was the hottest August, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's 174-year record. In that one month, Hawaii had a devastating wildfire, the Southeast suffered from Category 3 Hurricane Idalia, and southern California had its first-ever tropical storm watch, with many areas receiving more rain in 48 hours than they typically get all year. These disasters come with huge costs in the communities they directly affect and impact our entire planet.

The Global Environmental Facility fund benefits the United States economy and environment by addressing problems that affect our domestic health, safety, and prosperity, such as by protecting tropical forests, reducing global levels of transboundary pollutants, and combating illegal wildlife

trafficking, which I know is of concern to many on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, first, the executive branch has the ability to determine how the United States engages and manages our relationship with Taiwan. It had that ability during the last administration. That is because Congress left it to the executive branch to conduct diplomacy and the recognition or nonrecognition of foreign states and governments in this case.

If you wish to legislate how the executive branch should engage with Taiwan, then markup a separate bill in the Foreign Affairs Committee that just deals with that. In the absence of that, the executive branch needs to determine how to handle diplomatic engagements abroad. Again, the last administration did just that.

It is their job to weigh multiple equities and balance delicate factors that are simply not considered by this amendment today.

The gentleman knows that Taiwan is a sensitive geopolitical subject with respect to our relations with the People's Republic of China. That is why we have a Select Committee in the House on it. I think this is something that they could examine, but there is too much at stake to have this amendment decide what the guidelines for engagement will be.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this is really despicable to target dedicated public servants and threaten their livelihoods--public servants doing their jobs and carrying out the policy of the administration--regardless of which administration it is--they serve. They should be commended and not demonized.

Our government is dependent on being able to attract the best talent to bring their skills to public service, especially when in most cases they could earn much more in the private sector.

Who is going to be willing to do that if their names can be dragged through the political mud?

Secretary Blinken is a dedicated public servant who has proudly represented the United States while serving in multiple high-level positions.

This is not how we solve policy differences. We should not make it personal and about people doing their jobs.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this, quite frankly, is unconstitutional, first of all. It doesn't make any sense, second. It really sends the worst signal in the world for those young people who want to go into public service serving our country. I am really shocked.

Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, this amendment is a clear attempt to return to the punitive and shortsighted policies of the previous administration with regard to the Palestinians.

Let's get one thing straight. American diplomacy and engagement are not rewards to our friends and things to hold over the heads of those we are trying to pressure to bring about change. Diplomacy and engagement serve our own interests.

United States policy is to support a two-state solution in the Middle East--that is the United States policy, and the only path to peace--and to avoid any steps by any party that makes that goal harder to reach.

By keeping a channel of communications open, the Palestinian Affairs Unit is an important part of that strategy.

I have and will continue to urge the Biden administration to reset U.S. relations with the Palestinian people, and to resume the United States' role as a credible and constructive leader in the region.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, just to clarify and to tell the truth. This is a unit; it is not a mission. It is a unit, mind you, within the embassy.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, Russia's brutal and unprovoked attack on Ukraine is not just a threat to Ukraine and its neighbors but to the world. If Russia succeeds in its aggression, other unprovoked attacks are inevitable.

As my colleague, Representative Hoyer, said last week on the House floor: ``We are locked in a struggle between freedom and fascism, democracy and despotism, might and right. The war in Ukraine is that struggle manifest.''

Ukraine's democracy is being undermined every single day. Entire cities have been demolished. Women and girls are being sexually abused by Russian soldiers. Hospitals and schools, which should be safe havens, are being intentionally attacked. Thousands of innocent children and their families have been brutally murdered. Millions of Ukrainians have been forced to flee their country.

Colleagues, we must continue to ensure that Ukraine has the funding and support it needs to defend itself and that vulnerable people continue to receive lifesaving assistance.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).

Mr. Chairman, Russia's brutal and unprovoked attack on Ukraine is not just a threat to Ukraine, as I said earlier, and its neighbors but also to the world.

If Russia succeeds in its aggression, other provoked attacks are inevitable.

Drawdown of existing equipment has proven to be the fastest and most efficient way to get defensive weapons--mind you, defensive weapons--to Ukraine.

We must continue to ensure Ukraine has the military equipment and materiel it needs to defend itself. This materiel is determined by the Department of Defense not to be needed domestically, and supplying it to Ukraine will not endanger U.S. readiness.

The stakes could not be higher. Russia will not stop with Ukraine if the resolve of the world is not clear.

Remember, this is the most efficient way to get defensive weapons to Ukraine.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, there is no doubt that Lebanon is in full-blown crisis. It has lacked an elected leader for almost a year. Its economy is crippled and the presence of Hezbollah, as both an armed actor and a political party, remains a challenge to national unity. At the same time, it hosts 1.5 million refugees from Syria.

However, the Lebanese Armed Forces are considered by many to be the only functioning institution in Lebanon, transcending sectarian divides. This is largely thanks to the successful United States program to train and equip it.

The Lebanese Armed Forces are broadly respected and traditionally played an important role in promoting national unity with neutrality and moderation. They have also been instrumental in maintaining domestic security and in counterterrorism by tackling threats posed by groups like ISIS or al-Qaida.

The United States needs to pursue a democratic, pluralistic, and sovereign Lebanon and the Armed Forces are a key part of that.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4665--Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2024.

While I am grateful the Rules Committee made my Jackson Lee Amendment 16 in order, I strongly oppose the underlying bill.

I will, however, briefly recap why my amendment is important for this particular measure should we be able to move forward with a feasible appropriations bill that can accommodate this amendment.

The Jackson Lee Amendment 16 increases funds by $1,000,000 and decreases funding by $1,000,000 for the Global Health Programs account to highlight and support the fight against the practice of Female Genital Mutilation.

I have been a dedicated champion against this practice for a long while, working closely with former Congressman Joe Crowley of New York to introduce legislation targeted at supporting the elimination of this ludicrous practice of mutilating young women.

Female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) comprises all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.

This practice is rooted in gender inequality and is often linked to other elements of gender-based violence and discrimination, such as child marriage and recognized internationally as a violation of the human rights of women and girls.

Unfortunately, this means an estimated 200 million girls and women alive today have been victims of FGM/C, with girls 14 and younger representing 44 million of those who have been cut.

For example, consider that around the world, at least five girls are mutilated/cut every hour and more than 3 million girls are estimated to be at risk of FGM/C, annually.

The impacts of FGM/C on the physical health of women and girls can include bleeding, infection, obstetric fistula, complications during childbirth and death.

Other significant barriers to combatting the practice of FGM/C include the high concentration in specific regions associated with several cultural traditions, that is not tied to any one religion.

According to UNICEF, FGM/C is reported to occur in all parts of the world, but is most prevalent in parts of Africa, the Middle East, and Asia.

Due to the commonality of this practice many migrants to the U.S. bring the practice of FGM/C with them, increasing the importance of combatting FGM/C abroad.

Jackson Lee Amendment 16 prioritizes funding for foreign assistance to combat Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C), an internationally recognized violation of the human rights of girls and women comes to an end.

Yet, as it pertains to the underlying appropriations bill, I stand with the Administration and my colleagues to express my opposition for the following noted reasons:

Treasury High-Leverage Programs. I strongly oppose section 7061(b) of the bill, which prohibits funding being made available to the Clean Technology Fund. The $425 million requested for this account would support a loan of $1.2 billion. It is disappointing that the bill does not support loan guarantees at the multilateral development banks, where $111 million in subsidy would leverage $3 billion in loan guarantees to finance energy security. The appropriations for this bill should include the requested authority to use existing resources for loans to the International Monetary Fund's Poverty Reduction and Growth Trust and Resilience and Sustainability Trust, which would leverage billions of dollars to accelerate progress in developing countries.

Global Health. I appreciate that the bill includes full funding for the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and urges the Congress to reauthorize PEPFAR for another five-year period to accelerate global progress toward reaching HIV epidemic control. However, it is deeply troubling that the bill significantly reduces funding available for global health security, which would leave the world more vulnerable to infectious disease threats and pandemics.

Reproductive Health Restrictions. It is also deeply concerning that the bill includes new restrictions on lifesaving global family planning and reproductive health (FP/RH) services and other global health assistance; these excessive conditions would undermine U.S. efforts to combat infectious diseases and to advance gender equality globally by restricting America's ability to support health programs. Section 7058(b) of the bill imposes a ceiling on FP/RH funding levels that is far below the longstanding enacted level, leaving even more women without access to these essential health services. Further, section 7057(a) of the bill prohibits funding for the United Nations Population Fund, which provides essential work to address preventable maternal deaths and the unmet need for family planning, prevent and respond to gender-based violence, and end harmful practices around the world, including in places where the United States does not have its own programming, as well as in many humanitarian crises. In addition, section 7057(b) of the bill would require application of a harmful policy that imposes excessive conditions that would undermine U.S. foreign and development assistance. Similar prior restrictions, which were ended by the President during his first days in office, affected local partners around the world receiving global health assistance, limiting the United States' ability to work with these partners and inhibiting their efforts to confront a range of health challenges.

Diplomatic and Development Workforce. It is deeply concerning that the bill would reduce funding for America's international affairs workforce and operations by nearly 20 percent, which would significantly curtail implementation of U.S. foreign policy, and would likely reduce U.S. presence overseas. This funding level, along with the large number of directives in the bill, would force the Department of State to make very difficult tradeoffs, and could result in hiring freezes, reductions in force, and contract suspensions.

United Nations (UN) and Other International Organizations. It is further deeply concerning that the bill does not include funding for the UN regular budget and many other international organizations. The bill includes more than $1 billion in draconian reductions that would undermine U.S. leadership, compromise America's ability to meet its treaty obligations, and limit U.S. capacity to address shared global challenges, while inviting America's adversaries to take America's place. The bill also provides no funding for the International Organizations and Programs account, which would eliminate critical resources to organizations such as the UN High Commissioner for

Human Rights and the UN Children's Fund, which provide essential life- saving services to women and children around the world.

Humanitarian Assistance. I am also disappointed at the significant reduction, below the FY 2023 enacted levels, provided in the bill for life-saving humanitarian assistance during a time of record displacement and complex challenges worldwide. The bill also provides no new funding for the President's Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund, which is currently depleted and requires replenishment to enable the United States to respond to unexpected humanitarian crises.

Prohibitions. I also strongly oppose the inclusion of prohibitions throughout the bill, such as in sections 7064(e)(3), 7061(a), 7070, and 7059(f), that limit the Administration's flexibility in advancing key national security and foreign policy objectives. These include prohibitions related to funding for special envoys and similar positions, the Green Climate Fund, LGBTQI+ protections, and the Gender Equity and Equality Action Fund focused on advancing women's economic security, among others.

Afghan Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs). I am disappointed that the bill fails to provide the requested increase of 20,000 visas to the Afghan SIVs cap or to extend Afghan SIV program through 2029. This program demonstrates the steadfast commitment of the United States to Afghan allies who have supported the U.S. mission in Afghanistan for over two decades.

Rescissions. I am also deeply troubled that the bill rescinds over $1.5 billion across the Development Assistance, Economic Support Fund, and Peace Corps accounts. These rescissions would drastically reduce the U.S. Government's ability to support U.S. allies and partners to defend shared national security interests and to combat poverty, corruption, and food insecurity.

Clean Technology Rescission. I am also disappointed that the bill would rescind $11 billion in funding provided by the Inflation Reduction Act for the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund program at EPA. This rescission would eliminate funds designed to mobilize private capital into clean technology projects, especially in low-income and disadvantaged communities, that would expand economic opportunities in communities, reduce harmful pollution, and protect people's health while tackling the climate crisis.

Constitutional Concerns. Certain provisions of the draft bill raise constitutional concerns, including by interfering with the President's authority to determine the command of the Armed Forces, to recognize territorial sovereignty, and to conduct diplomacy.

We can do better. We are better than this. The American people deserve better.

I cannot support this bill as it stands, and I urge all my colleagues to vote against this cruel proposal.

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

Mr. Chair, I thank the manager and the chairman and ranking member of this committee.

State, foreign operations, and related programs are the face of America, the most powerful nation in the world, the nation that the world looks to for guidance and direction in the interactions of this world. I am saddened to say that this face has been altered and threatened desperately by some of the shortchanges in the funding.

The threat to national security by abdicating U.S. leadership, and the underfunding of the U.N. Development Program and the U.N., the underfunding of the State Department, and the threat to women's health equality globally around the world, is why my amendment is so very important, and I ask my colleagues to support it.

I thank the Rules Committee, and I thank the subcommittee, for my amendment is an important and potentially lifesaving amendment in an unfortunate and distracting approach to State and foreign relations.

My amendment increases funds by $1 million and decreases funding by $1 million for the global health programs account to highlight and support the fight against the practice of female genital mutilation.

I have been a dedicated champion of this and introduced legislation in years past supporting the elimination of this very difficult and ludicrous practice of mutilating young women around the world.

Female genital mutilation or cutting, FGMC, comprises all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for nonmedical reasons.

My colleagues may be shocked to know that some of this occurs in the United States of America. This practice is rooted in gender inequalities often linked to other elements of gender-based violence and discrimination, such as child marriage, and is recognized internationally as a violation of the human rights of women and girls. That is why it is so important that we fund women's global health.

Unfortunately, this means an estimated 200 million girls and women alive today have been victims of FGMC, with girls 14 and younger representing 44 million of those who have been cut.

For example, consider that around the world at least five girls are mutilated, cut, every hour. More than 3 million girls are estimated to be at risk right now with FGMC annually.

The impacts of FGMC on the physical health of women and girls can include bleeding, infection, obstetric fistula, complications during childbirth, and death.

Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, let me, first of all, thank the ranking member, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, for her consistent, steady, and unrelenting commitment to world affairs as well as to the peace and harmony of women around the world and humanitarian practices.

That is why this amendment and this emphasis on FGMC is so important because other significant barriers to combating the practice of FGMC include the high concentration in Pacific regions associated with several cultural traditions that are not tied to any one religion, so it spreads all over.

I emphasize to this body that girls as young as 14 who can make no determination are put upon by this process. According to UNICEF, FGMC is reported to occur in all parts of the world but is most prevalent in parts of Africa, the Middle East, and Asia.

Due to the commonality of this practice, many migrants to the U.S. bring the practices of FGMC with them, increasing the importance of combating FGMC abroad.

As I said, it happens in the United States. My amendment prioritizes funding for foreign assistance to combat female genital mutilation or cutting, an internationally recognized violation of the human rights of girls and women, so that it can finally come to an end.

With the negatives of this Defense appropriation, let's do something positive with the State Department appropriations.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Jackson Lee amendment, notwithstanding the vast, extensive work that is going on that is without restraint of dealing with FGMC around the world.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in support of the Jackson Lee Amendment 16 to H.R. 4665--Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2024.

I want to thank my colleagues on the Rules Committee for making this amendment in order.

The Jackson Lee Amendment 16 is an important and potentially life- saving amendment in an unfortunate and distracting appropriations bill.

The Jackson Lee Amendment 16 increases funds by $1,000,000 and decreases funding by $1,000,000 for the Global Health Programs account to highlight and support the fight against the practice of Female Genital Mutilation.

I have been a dedicated champion against this practice for a long while, working closely with former Congressman Joe Crowley of New York to introduce legislation targeted at supporting the elimination of this ludicrous practice of mutilating young women.

Female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) comprises all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.

This practice is rooted in gender inequality and is often linked to other elements of gender-based violence and discrimination, such as child marriage and recognized internationally as a violation of the human rights of women and girls.

Unfortunately, this means an estimated 200 million girls and women alive today have been

victims of FGM/C, with girls 14 and younger representing 44 million of those who have been cut.

For example, consider that around the world, at least five girls are mutilated/cut every hour and more than 3 million girls are estimated to be at risk of FGM/C, annually.

The impacts of FGM/C on the physical health of women and girls can include bleeding, infection, obstetric fistula, complications during childbirth and death.

Other significant barriers to combatting the practice of FGM/C include the high concentration in specific regions associated with several cultural traditions, that is not tied to any one religion.

According to UNICEF, FGM/C is reported to occur in all parts of the world, but is most prevalent in parts of Africa, the Middle East, and Asia.

Due to the commonality of this practice many migrants to the U.S. bring the practice of FGM/C with them, increasing the importance of combatting FGM/C abroad.

Jackson Lee Amendment 16 prioritizes funding for foreign assistance to combat Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C), an internationally recognized violation of the human rights of girls and women comes to an end.

While the negatives of this State appropriations bill disappointedly outweigh my positive amendment, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Jackson Lee Amendment 16--notwithstanding my strong opposition and encouragement to vote down the underlying bill.

Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, let me indicate my appreciation to the chairman and to the ranking member for their support of this amendment.

I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment. Let's end FGMC against women and girls around the world forever.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 4665, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Madam Chairwoman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, I am proud to speak on the fiscal year 2024 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs appropriations bill for floor consideration today.

Anybody who has read the bill knows that it is pretty straightforward. If you are a friend, an ally of the United States, this bill supports you, but if you are an adversary or you are cozying up to the adversaries of the United States, then, frankly, you are just not going to like this bill.

I am extremely proud of this legislation, which was carefully and thoughtfully developed over many, many months. In my judgment, it reflects the values and the interests of most Americans. We carefully reviewed all the organizations and programs that receive U.S. taxpayer dollars in this bill. And among the key factors--let me be very blunt-- it is whether investments advance our national security interests, whether they can show demonstrated results and our need to reduce the national debt and to reduce spending in a responsible way.

So the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs bill totals $51.5 billion. It cuts $8.2 billion; that is a 14 percent reduction, below the 2023 enacted level, and $17 billion or 25 percent below the President's request. In fact, it is $2.7 billion below the fiscal year 2019 enacted level, and it is even $288 million below the fiscal year 2015 enacted level.

So because of those cuts, of those responsible reductions, we are now able to prioritize funding for the national security threat posed by the Chinese Communist Party.

Look, it is time that the U.S., that we get serious about that maligned destabilizing negative actions of the Communist Chinese Party around the

world. This measure, this bill does precisely that in an unprecedented manner.

Let me talk a little bit about that. The bill includes $4.4 billion, which is $1 billion above the President's budget request to fund programs to counter the threat of the Chinese Communist Party around the world.

For the first time, this bill includes half a billion, $500 million, in foreign military financing for Taiwan--first time ever. These funds, as everybody knows, are critical to support our friend and our democratic ally, which is on the front lines of China's bullying and China's constant threats. This bill provides unwavering support for our democratic ally, Israel, and other key partners around the world.

Another priority is to strengthen efforts to counter fentanyl production and trafficking. I don't have to tell you all that deadly opioids, particularly fentanyl, are affecting every area, every district, every neighborhood in our entire country. Madam Chair, three hundred Americans die every single day because of fentanyl poisoning. We must and we do use every tool to combat this horrific deadly epidemic.

Obviously, the migration crisis at the southern border is really just symptomatic of the administration's lack of a clear strategy toward the Western Hemisphere. That is as nice as I can say it.

Mr. Chairman, for too long countries cozying up to our adversaries have been rewarded, rewarded, and this bill puts a stop to that practice. This bill also recognizes the growing threat of authoritarian regimes even here in our own hemisphere and around the world. Therefore, it fully funds democracy assistant accounts in support of freedom and human rights where they are most threatened.

Now, before discussing funding for the United Nations, I just want to remind folks, Members, and also anybody who might be watching, who is running the show at the U.N. It would be hard to even make this stuff up, but, unfortunately, remarkably what I am about to tell you is true. So Russia was chair of the U.N. Security Council during the month of April. Yeah, you heard me right. Iran is currently an elected vice president of the U.N. General Assembly.

Communist China, whose genocide against Uyghurs and their bullying around the world is notorious, and Cuba, one of the world's oldest, most brutal dictatorships, both of those countries sit on the U.N. Human Rights council. Yeah, you heard me right. North Korea--well, I can't even begin to talk about the atrocities of that dictatorship--is a member of the World Health Organization, while Taiwan, a responsible democracy, has been blocked from membership of that institution by Communist China. You can't make this stuff up. Therefore, it should come as no surprise to anybody that no funds are included in this bill for the U.N. regular budget.

Now, my dear friends on the other side of the aisle argue that by cutting some of the funding to the U.N., the U.S. has given up its leadership. I could not disagree in stronger terms. You see, simply continuing to unconditionally channel funds to a deeply flawed organization, despite multiple failures and, frankly, appalling, even continuously antisemitic actions by that institution, that is actually abandoning our responsibility to the U.S. taxpayer, and it ensures that nothing changes in that institution that I just mentioned.

Actions need to have consequences, and the U.N. finally will feel the consequences of their irresponsible actions because of how we deal with them in this bill. This bill also prohibits funds for the Green Climate Fund and the Green Technology Fund. We also address a frivolous expansion of State Department bureaucracy. This bill eliminates funding for special envoys and special representatives that are not authorized or have not been confirmed by the Senate.

If they are that important, then for God's sake, have them authorized by Congress or at least confirmed by the Senate.

Finally, this bill includes all longstanding pro-life protections, which includes a prohibition on taxpayer funds from being used to pay for abortions abroad, and it builds on those requirements by applying the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance policy to all global health funding.

It is not surprising that after this bill was released, my colleagues on the other side immediately released a press release condemning it. Now, what might surprise you is what the minority party in their written press release actually chose to highlight that they are objecting to in this bill. Their press release criticized that this bill prohibits funding for the Wuhan Institute of Virology--Heck, yeah, we prohibit funding to that institution--or that we prohibit funding to the EcoHealth Alliance or gain-of-function research. And quoting from my colleagues on the Democratic side, their criticism of this bill, that we reduce funding for ``any lab controlled by China, Russia, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela.'' I am quoting from their press release.

Heck yeah, we are cutting funding for institutions from those countries. These countries are, in essence, on the official list of the United States foreign adversaries, and three, by the way, are on the State Sponsor of Terrorism list. Does any taxpayer think that taxpayer funds should be going to labs in those places? Really?

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle also expressed in writing concerns of what they call partisan riders that specifically highlighted the provisions on funds in this bill to the government of the PRC and the Chinese Communist Party; and, also, that we prevent lending from international financial institutions to the PRC. They put that in writing.

Well, one thing is true. They got that right. They caught me. We are eliminating funding to adversaries of the United States of America. I would argue it is about damn time we did that. I look forward to hearing my colleagues on the other side of the aisle explain why U.S. taxpayer money should be funding those programs, and, by the way, why writing a blank check to any organization is a demonstration of leadership. It is not.

Mr. Chairman, before I close, I thank the staff from the Appropriations Committee for their amazing work on this bill: Susan Adams, who is here with me; Craig Higgins; Jamie McCormick; Trey Hicks; Meg Gallagher; John Muscolini; Clelia Alvarado; and Joe Cutler; and equally from the minority side--and I always butcher her last name, and I apologize because I will probably do it again--Erin Kolodjeski, Laurie Mignon, and Lillian Wasvary.

I thank members of my personal staff from my office: Cesar Gonzalez, Gisselle Reynolds, and Autumn Morley.

I thank our Chairman for bringing this crucial legislation to the floor, which supports our allies and protects our national security in a smart, efficient, effective, and thoughtful way.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), a champion of human rights.

Mr. Chair, I want to be very clear that I have heard now that somehow this bill damages the reputation of the United States. No.

Do you know what damaged the reputation of the United States, Mr. Chairman? That irresponsible withdrawal from Afghanistan that showed the entire world what bad leadership is all about.

This bill confronts our adversaries--$1 billion more to confront China than the President could do while we spend a lot less money. It stands by our friends. It confronts our adversaries.

The problem about credibility is not with this bill. It is with the President of the United States that, at best, is confused.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for the ranking member of this subcommittee because, I will tell you

what, she is consistent, and we have developed a very good relationship.

You have heard it right now. Yes, this bill prohibits funding for the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the EcoHealth Alliance, gain-of-function research, and it also prohibits funding for any lab controlled by China, Russia, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela.

We have a difference of opinion.

I believe that taxpayer money going to labs controlled by these countries is just not something we should be doing. There is an absolute difference of opinion on that. If anybody believes that U.S. taxpayer money should be going for those things, then you are going to have a problem with that part of this bill.

If you, however, believe that U.S. taxpayer money should not go to fund those labs controlled by those countries, I would then ask you to support this bill.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I think we have discussed some of the issues in this bill. I think it is a very positive bill. It supports our allies, and it confronts our adversaries. It also controls wasteful spending. Wasteful spending is one of the reasons we have inflation at the highest level we have had in decades.

Mr. Chairman, since the ranking member has yielded back her time, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 723, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this bipartisan en bloc amendment, which represents amendments with support from both sides of the aisle.

The amendment includes 15 noncontroversial amendments that advance the priorities of both sides, including support for Taiwan and addressing the passport processing backlog, which is happening everywhere in the country.

Mr. Chair, I would respectfully urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, we spoke on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I respectfully rise in opposition.

The gentleman from Arizona brings up, I think, really legitimate reasons for his concern about the out-of-control spending and, frankly, what this administration has done. However, because of that, the operating account of USAID in this bill has been significantly reduced below the FY 2019 enacted level.

As the gentleman is aware, we get to the point if we do further reductions, that this account, frankly, stops our ability to actually do some serious oversight.

While I agree with his concerns, I don't think this is the right way to do that. Further reductions to this account would mean less oversight, less efficiency, and, frankly, I think fewer positive outcomes.

By the way, in the manager's amendment, we reduce it even further. I totally understand and look forward to working with the gentleman about his concern. I think we are addressing it in this bill.

Again, it is one of those issues that I understand where he is going, but I think this is not the right way to do it, so I respectfully oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this amendment.

Look, this is a horrifying practice of literally just mutilating women around the world. An estimated 200 million women and girls have undergone this form of female genital mutilation, including, by the way, ones who are 15 or younger.

Mr. Chair, I don't have to tell you about the extreme psychological and physical harm that this does to these young girls and women.

I thank my colleague, Representative Jackson Lee, for condemning this practice wherever--wherever--it is occurring. Anywhere in the world we should object to minors, young girls, young women, having genital mutilation performed for whatever reason.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to strongly support this amendment.

Mr. Chair, as the designee of the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger), I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chair, something that has to be recognized on this floor is that my colleague from Georgia who is presenting this amendment has been transparent, open, and clear from day one, and that is something that is not always seen in this body. I think we need to recognize that, and I think that is something that has to be respected regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with her. I think that is something that has to be recognized.

Now, I just want to take the opportunity to talk a little bit about the bill. I clearly recognize my colleague's frustration--and it is not only her--about the administration's lack of transparency, lack of articulation, lack of a strategy how the funds have been used, the communication from A to Z, I get that.

While there are no funds directed for Ukraine in this bill, there are a lot of directives in this bill for accountability for any assistance going to Ukraine.

Let me just take a moment to read the list of requirements that must be completed before one single penny would be used to go to Ukraine from this bill now or later or whenever:

A strategy within 90 days. We have not gotten that from the administration;

In-person monitoring of all programs;

Cost-matching requirements, making sure that other donors must do more, more than the United States before one penny can go out;

A certification that comprehensive oversight mechanisms are in place;

A notification to Congress so we can assess how those funds may be used;

An obligation report every 90 days accounting for all moneys provided;

An oversight report every 90 days detailing any allegations of waste, fraud, and corruption, and how those will be addressed;

Finally, and I think this is key, all reports must be clearly posted on the internet so that every American can see where their taxpayer dollars are going.

The reason that I am so optimistic and so gung ho about this bill is that we need to pass this bill in order to have these requirements in order to not have a blank check. I am looking at not only the short term but also the long term. We need to have accountability. We need conditions. We need oversight. We need to take away as much flexibility from the administration. That is precisely what we are attempting to do in this bill.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk as the designee of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, which eliminates $230,599,000--a lot of money whether you are in Arizona, Pennsylvania, or Washington, D.C.--in funding to the U.S. Agency for International Development, funds appropriated to the President capital investment fund.

I once again bring up the amendment to address the massive spending that is appropriated to USAID. The capital investment fund is for expenses for overseas construction and related costs and for the procurement and enhancement of information technology and related capital investments.

We all want a new office. We all want a new computer. We all want a new phone. We have massive debt right now. We are going to run $2.2 trillion behind this year alone.

I don't know who at home when they can't pay their bills, when they are literally borrowing money from their enemy, goes out and spends more.

We are not even talking about spending more on our own home or our own phone or our own computer. We are talking about spending more on somebody else's and, quite honestly, in many cases in places where they don't even like America.

Mr. Chairman, our country is now $33 trillion in debt. How in good conscience can we continue with this spending?

This is the time to invest in the United States of America and our constituents who are struggling to pay for their groceries, to pay for gasoline, to pay for their ever-rising electricity bill, and it is going to keep on rising.

Your gas prices are going to keep going up, and so are your food prices because of the policies of this administration.

Mr. Chairman, we don't have any more money to spend on things that might be great to have, might be nice to have, might make us feel good. We don't have the money. When you don't have the money, you don't spend it.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I agree with the gentlewoman from the other side of the aisle. We should be countering China. If we are going to use USAID to do that, well, that is all well and good, too, but let's enumerate how we are actually going to use this money to counter China.

What we are expected to believe is that they need this money, and we are

going to counter China somewhere in Eastern Europe. Maybe we are, but let's make the case.

What you are asking is the American people to borrow money from China to then somehow counter China and just give all these folks that are smarter than all the rest of us all the money, and I am sure they will figure it out.

I don't know if you are keeping up with current events, but China is eating our lunch right now while we are spending all this money that we are borrowing from China.

I think the case makes itself. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, when everyday Americans, like the folks I have the honor to represent in Pennsylvania's 10th Congressional District, have too many expenses, they are simply forced to cut back. They don't have any choice.

That is what they had to do in this high inflation, high cost of living, Biden economy where gas, food--seemingly everything. I don't know that anything has gone down. For sure, food, gas, electricity prices are just going up and up.

So what do folks do at home?

They don't go out to eat as often. They don't have a meal out with their family. They might have to cancel a few subscriptions, put off some repairs around the house, put off buying a new pair of shoes, you name it. The point is that they pare back their spending sometimes to the bare bones because they have to keep a roof over their head and food in their bellies.

Now, the paring back that I just discussed is something that this body, this institution has been unwilling, unable, and simply refused to do now for decades. Decades, $33 trillion worth of that.

Many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle have highlighted via amendment the wasteful, bloated spending that this place has perpetuated, especially during the pandemic; unbelievable amounts during the pandemic.

I appreciate the work of the chairman. He has worked diligently to bring this thing back closer in line with some reality, but there are still places we can cut.

This amendment reduces the amount of international disaster assistance from $3.9 billion to zero.

Now, everybody is going to take a gasp.

Zero international disaster assistance?

Ladies and gentlemen, in our country, the International Disaster Assistance account is zero. It has dried up.

The good gentleman from Florida, his State just suffered a hurricane. There isn't any disaster money for them. What about the folks in Hawaii? What about the folks all across the country dealing with floods and fires?

There isn't any money in the United States of America for them, but heaven forbid, we have to make sure we are all around the globe helping all those folks at the expense of the people in America.

I am not trying--and no one is trying--to be punitive or cruel here. The fact is that this process is broken and the results of it are broken, and the American people are tired of being broke from what we do here in Washington.

This is a nearly $4 billion line item that we simply can't afford. We want to be helpful. Every single one of us wants to help, but we are using the money that other people earn to help other people overseas while the people that earn the money are struggling, and that is immoral and unacceptable.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I am glad that the gentlewoman mentioned people of faith and their care for people, not only in their community but around the globe. It is awesome. In the church that I attend, that is exactly what we do, and that is exactly what we should do--be our brother's keeper, be our brother's and sister's keeper--but the good Lord never said force your brother to be someone else's keeper. That is between them. And that is exactly what we are doing here is forcing people that can ill afford their own bills and their own tragedies that they are suffering in the United States to pay for the tragedies in other places. That is immoral.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, this amendment reduces the amount of economic support funding from $2.9 billion to $1.8 billion.

Like a few of my colleagues on this side of the aisle have said this week, this is a necessary haircut to a program that has ballooned massively just since two Presidents ago.

In the 5 years from fiscal year 2018 to 2023, this account went from $1.8 billion to $4.3 billion. People wonder, how do we get $33 trillion in debt? You get it a billion at a time just adding up.

Let's look at the use of these funds from the report of this bill. Cooperative projects, sustainability challenges relating to water resources, agriculture, and energy storage. That is interesting. Have you ever heard of Flint, Michigan? They are concerned about their water resources.

Agriculture? Our farmers aren't allowed to buy fertilizer--or can't afford it in this country based on the policies of the administration.

Energy storage? We are paying for batteries overseas. It is not enough that we force our own constituents to use unreliable power, now we are going to force the rest of the world to do it and pay for it.

How about scientific research collaboration in the Middle East? That is awesome because other than our one ally there, there is not much scientific collaboration that I am interested in participating in-- certainly not with Iran.

The Middle East partnership initiative, which according to the State Department supports governments and their citizens to achieve shared political economic and stability objectives, how much money are we going to throw in this money pit year after year after year, decade after decade?

In the administration's budget request they will say the use of funds to foster economic resilience in Greenland. Are they in peril in Greenland?

Strengthen transparent governance and promote civil society and independent media in South Asia and provide rapid, flexible support and assistance to government and civil society in Africa.

These are all laudable things. The question is can you afford them, and we cannot. I remind everybody we are simply borrowing from China to pay for these things--all of these things.

Reasonable people can disagree about whether the American taxpayer dollars need to promote civil society or scientific collaboration abroad; however, the fact remains we must find places to save, and this reverts a highly inflated item--highly inflated. Again, $1.8 billion to $4.3 billion in 5 years.

I would just ask what is the metric we use to determine whether this is successful or does anything at all to support the American people?

Mr. Chair, I urge support, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, again, we all want to do what we can, but we shouldn't be borrowing money from China, our number one adversary. We are borrowing it from them allegedly to counter them, and, oh, by the way, while we are borrowing it from them to counter them, we are allowing them to operate in our financial markets without the same controls and restrictions we place on American companies.

That is ridiculous. It is so ridiculous that it probably costs us more to counter them. We could do much more by just not allowing that, but, instead, we are going to allow that and take taxpayers' money and spend it to do this. It would cost so much less to do this if we would just do the right thing in the first place.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, this amendment cuts migration and refugee assistance funding from $2.5 billion to $0.

This money, the $2.5 billion, goes toward refugee programs around the world, including for shelter, healthcare, and sanitation.

Again, we all want to do what we can. We all want to help. Nobody is trying to be cruel or punitive here, but we don't have enough money to deal with the refugee crisis in our own country, which is self-imposed.

Our constituents here at home can't afford their own shelter, can't afford their own healthcare, their own food because of the policies of the administration, yet we are forcing them to pay for it around the globe, oftentimes with companies that have encouraged and inspired people to migrate to their countries and become refugees in their countries, and yet we are paying for that.

Furthermore, during the debate on the Homeland Security funding bill this week, many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle rightfully pointed out the disaster occurring at our southern border to the tune of thousands of people every single day coming in.

Oh, by the way, what other countries around the world are helping with our refugee crisis, with our refugee and migration assistance?

So our taxpayers are paying for the one that we are encouraging and allowing in our country, and they are being forced under penalty of law in their taxes to pay for the ones in other countries, too.

All of our districts have been affected by the influx of drugs, including fentanyl. In my district just in the last week, half a dozen people died from fentanyl that came across the southern border into my town thousands of miles away from the border.

One of the refrains of the Biden administration and border czar Harris seems to be that the only way to solve this is to address the root causes instead of simply enforcing our own border.

Mr. Chair, we are not going to solve any of this under the current policies that we are seeing, and we are certainly not going to solve it around the globe by forcing our taxpayers to pay for it, encouraging more of it all around the globe.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, like I said, every single one of us wants to help. Every single one of our hearts breaks for people who are forcibly displaced.

I would say, as well, that I question the numbers of forcibly displaced. There are people in this country saying that all the people coming illegally to this country are being forcibly displaced when that is obviously not true.

By the way, maybe we would be more amenable to taking the taxpayers' hard-earned money and spending it overseas on these migrations if we would solve our problems here in the United States of America. How can we force them, how can we ask them, to spend their hard-earned tax dollars overseas when we refuse to solve the problems right here at home and force them to pay for that, as well? It is insult upon injury.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, when we fund specific programs, we should ask ourselves one question: What is the real return on investment?

In the case of the Peace Corps, we are spending a little over $410 million. Is the investment worth it, given the rising costs of food and gas? Is it appropriate for Congress to prioritize the Peace Corps over our veterans, prioritize the Peace Corps over securing our border?

Keep in mind, my proposed cut is a modest cut. How is the Peace Corps justifying its budget in light of financial hardships borne by millions of Americans today?

In separate testimonies before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Carol Spahn, the Peace Corps Director, pointed out the agency's work on the following: helping illegals at the southern border, promoting DEI amongst its volunteers, promoting COVID-19 vaccinations in low-income areas, and climate change adaptation, just to name a few.

In the latter case, the Peace Corps is working to promote climate- smart approaches in agriculture and to focus on gender equity issues. It is clear the Peace Corps has become more of an activist organization than an organization determined to help people.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, best investments? This is the best we can do? How about we invest in our veterans? How about we invest in our border? How about we take care of America? I want to help those around the world, but not at the expense of Americans.

It should be noted that the Peace Corps has a long and sordid history of covering up sexual abuse of its participants. Think about that. Are we going to aid and abet an agency, an organization, that has this sordid past while our veterans suffer, while our border is open, while we have migrants being abused on the border? I should think not.

This is a modest cut. It simply returns the funding back to pre-COVID levels, merely a $14 million cut. We can do this.

At a time when Americans are suffering, at a time when interest rates are high, gas has gone up, food is more expensive, surely we put hardworking Americans first.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I would argue that the Gold Star families would like us to invest in our veterans. I would argue the veterans who are homeless would like for us to invest in our veterans.

When we look at the suicide rates among our servicemen and -women, we should be investing in our veterans. To say that putting our veterans first and using them as a pawn is offensive.

Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support this. I ask that we put our veterans and Americans first, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, if you want to come up with the right policy position on an issue related to foreign affairs, talk to Antony Blinken first, and then do the opposite.

We have all seen the Secretary's inability to be correct about any major foreign policy concern for the last 20 years, whether that be Iraq, Libya, Yemen, giving the Iranians $6 billion to deploy--as their president says, ``wherever they need it''--or in Afghanistan.

He is undoubtedly one of the most professionally ineffective and incompetent individuals to hold the title of Secretary of State. But if incompetence by itself were sufficient grounds to a Senate-confirmed Cabinet official, the President would have very few advisers left.

In the case of Secretary Blinken, it is about incompetence and perhaps outright corruption. For instance, Secretary Blinken received more than $5,000 in payment from the former Prime Minister of Pakistan, who notably praised the Taliban.

He received more than $5,000 for speaking at a bank opening in China.

He offered advisory services to a Japanese company who invested heavily in a CCP company that was blacklisted by Trump.

Let's take one more. Mr. Blinken's consulting firm, WestExec Advisors, it advertised its ability to help American colleges secure CCP donations without compromising their Pentagon research grants. Think about that. Usurping America's rules for engagement with the CCP.

That advertisement, by the way, was removed just 2 weeks prior to Joe Biden's acceptance of the Democratic Party's Presidential nomination.

We have since learned from the former acting CIA Director Mike Morrell that the infamous spies who lie letter--a letter that impacted our Presidential race--was led by no one other than Antony Blinken. The letter was signed by 51 intelligence experts, and was intended, according to Morrell, to give Joe Biden a way to refute the Hunter Biden laptop story ahead of a Presidential debate.

You would think this would be worthy of investigation, if not outright impeachment, but certainly defunding.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, serving the country or serving Hunter Biden?

Because we know through the work of Senators Johnson and Grassley, that Hunter Biden kept his Burisma colleagues apprised of meetings and emails he held with Mr. Blinken.

Mr. Blinken had previously said to Senate staffers that he wasn't aware of any communications with Hunter Biden, aside from one in-person meeting, which is a materially false statement and should subject him to criminal penalties under 18 U.S.C. 1001.

Of course, the U.S. Congress never holds anyone accountable for misleading Congress. Why tell the truth?

Mr. Chairman, Blinken has lied to Congress. He worked to prevent critical information, including the July 2021 dissent cable from being reviewed by this Chamber until confronted by the gentleman from Texas.

He clearly has a closer relationship with Hunter Biden than he led on, and, further, engaged in questionable activities prior to serving as Secretary of State, very little of which has been investigated or vetted.

These questions deserve to be asked.

Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of this amendment and defunding of Mr. Blinken. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, William Holman, with the Holman rule, did come up with a way to defund someone like the Secretary.

Back to the Secretary, there should be accountability for our botched Afghanistan withdrawal and for helping establish the Islamist theocracy that is in power there today. It is an insult to the memory of those who lost their lives at Abbey Gate. This man is responsible, and he is complicit.

Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of this amendment. He should be defunded. Quite frankly, I would say he should be impeached.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I am a big proponent of Israel, our closest ally in that region. Yet, this administration has stopped at nothing to marginalize that relationship with the State of Israel.

When President Trump shuttered the U.S. consulate in Jerusalem, it was a shot heard around the world. President Trump's action clarified our diplomatic mission to Israel--the U.S. consulate was inappropriately treated as something close to a de facto embassy to a nonexistent Palestinian State.

By getting rid of the consulate, President Trump made it clear that our only diplomatic outreach to that area is and should be the State of Israel. In place of that consulate, the Trump administration established the PAU, and housed its operations within the U.S. Embassy. The PAU reported directly to the U.S. Ambassador to Israel and cannot act independently of that Ambassador.

These actions created transparency in our foreign policy where there was previously confusion. You would think that that would be appreciated by both sides here. Unfortunately, you would be wrong.

Since taking office, the Biden administration has worked to roll back progress initiated under President Trump by announcing the administration's intent to reopen the consulate general.

Joe Biden has since closed the PAU in favor of the so-called Office of Palestinian Affairs, an intended halfway step toward reestablishing their consulate.

If you need further proof of the administration's intent, take note that the Office of Palestinian Affairs, the OPA, doesn't report to our ambassador in Jerusalem, it receives its instruction from the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs at the Department of State here in Washington.

Our commitment should be to Israel and Israel alone, not to the PLO.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, to my colleague, I thank her for the idea of communication.

Mr. Chairman, we need communication with folks from around the world. But as far as diplomatic missions, Mr. Chairman, we should be focused on Israel.

The creation of the Office of Palestinian Affairs is an affront to both our most important ally in the world and to U.S. law, which clearly states that Jerusalem should be the undivided capital of Israel, the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995.

The OPA is, unfortunately, just the latest in a legacy of foreign policy driven by an animus toward the State of Israel. This should be a bipartisan bill. Israel is our greatest ally in that region, arguably, one of our greatest allies in the world, and to diminish that is really unjust.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, it is often the case in foreign relations that symbolism is policy. What the Office of Palestinian Affairs symbolizes is a destructive policy that will only serve to embolden the enemies of Washington and Jerusalem.

Our friends in Israel are under attack daily from bombs lofted in the air to attacks on the streets. To do anything but to have unwavering diplomatic support really jeopardizes lives. It threatens their sovereignty, and we must stand with our important ally, the State of Israel.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of this bill. I urge my colleagues for this to be unanimous, and I yield back the balance of my time.