Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 40th anniversary of Living Jazz and their steadfast commitment to jazz rooted music education and performance programs for the San Francisco Bay Area. I want to congratulate Founder Stacey Hoffman and new Executive Director Lyz Luke on building and cultivating an organization that identifies and supports areas of need for all ages in music and performance. Their combined passions have had an immeasurable impact on the music culture in our community.

Founded in 1984, Living Jazz has worked tirelessly to provide access to transformative programming that not only preserves and promotes the music, spirit, and culture of jazz in the Bay Area, but fosters an eminent and vibrant sense of community and shared humanity among all who take part. All ages, all abilities, all backgrounds are represented in their dynamic offerings, as the programs of Living Jazz are known not only for their artistic quality, but also for their commitment to build community based on diversity, inclusion, and accessibility. The distinctive way in which Living Jazz encourages and supports artists of all skill levels and the artistic and personal growth they foster in participants has bolstered the cultural ecosystem of the areas they serve for the last 40 years.

Living Jazz has developed a reputation for designing and launching programs that go on to become Bay Area treasures, as well as for incubating programs to the point of maturity at which time they successfully spin off to stand on their own and continue to develop and grow independently.

During the pandemic, Hoffman and Luke ensured the survival of Living Jazz by identifying and securing relief funds and pivoting all programs to online, and even launching new programs focused on imminent mental wellness needs as a response to social isolation. Luke launched the Living Jazz Pickup Sessions to address serious issues around Oakland food insecurity and, in the summer of 2021, Living Jazz was able to safely and successfully bring back the internationally recognized in- person summer programs--Jazz Camp West and Jam Camp West.

The organization's jazz-rooted performing arts education programs have expanded rapidly with the Living Jazz Children's Project in 14 underserved East Bay schools. Living Jazz is launching new mentorship programs, reigniting localized jam sessions, and renewed partnerships with local schools and businesses.

It has been a fantastic journey watching Living Jazz support and transform the lives of people of all ages over the years. Their work honors the Black roots of the artform and continues to inspire generations of musicians. I thank Living Jazz for their dedication and commitment to music education. I want to wish Living Jazz the best of luck in their continued success. On behalf of the 12th Congressional District of California, I am proud to honor Living Jazz for their tremendous achievements. Congratulations on 40 years.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 40th anniversary of Acts Full Gospel Church located in Oakland, California.

As this occasion also marks his 40th Pastoral Anniversary, I want to congratulate the church's founder, Bishop Bob Jackson, for his enduring service and commitment to the East Bay community.

Deriving from a small bible study, the church held its first service on May 6, 1984, with just 15 members. Four decades later, Acts Full Gospel Church has a congregation of more than 6,000 members, with 30 ministries diligently working to improve the lives of Oaklanders.

As Senior Pastor, Bishop Bob Jackson has continuously used his platform to give back to those in need. Working alongside his wife, First Lady Barbara Jackson, they have made Acts Full Gospel Church a community pillar.

Additionally, he has founded several non-profits, educational institutions, and small businesses. This list includes, the Acts Christian Academy, Men of Valor Academy, Acts Anointed Acres, Oakland African American Chamber of Commerce, Oakland House of Ruth, amongst others.

In his establishment of the Acts Community Development, Inc., he has also developed 59 units of affordable housing in Oakland. Given the significant need in the Bay Area, he is currently working to develop 58 more.

In his spare time, Bishop Bob Jackson also holds several leadership positions in local organizations, including serving as the Chairman of Oakland's Chapter of the Our Kids ``OK'' Program. In this role, he helps empower young Black men and boys to transform their communities via their unique mentorship program.

Through his incredible work and commitment to Oakland, in 2022, Bishop Bob Jackson was awarded the President's Lifetime Achievement Award--one of the nation's highest civilian honors.

Therefore, it brings me great joy to celebrate Bishop Bob Jackson, and the entire Acts Full Gospel congregation. I am tremendously grateful for their 40 years of service to the East Bay community and wish them continued success.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of a civil rights icon, a fearless truthteller, this country's ``Father of Black Studies,'' Dr. Nathan Hare.

Born on April 9, 1933, Dr. Hare was a son of Oklahoma sharecroppers. Academically gifted, he excelled through the state's segregated school system, earning a bachelor's degree from Langston University. He went on to receive a master's degree and Ph.D. in Sociology from the University of Chicago, finishing his education with a second Ph.D. in clinical psychology at the California School of Professional Psychology.

Throughout his academic and professional career, Dr. Hare was a champion of Black history and power. In 1965, as a professor at Howard University, he published ``The Black Anglo-Saxons,'' the first of his many ground-breaking works.

In 1968, he arrived at San Francisco State University, where he sought to develop an interdisciplinary program dedicated to understanding the Black experience. After significant pushback from the university's administration, which resulted in a five-month strike with students and faculty, Dr. Hare completed the proposal for the program. With its adoption, Dr. Hare became the first head of a Black Studies Department in the United States

In 1969, Dr. Hare co-founded the Black Scholar magazine. Through this publication,

he granted me the privilege of writing an edition about the Non-Aligned Movement. The Conference on Non-Aligned Nations was held in Havana, Cuba and I received credentials as a journalist to cover this impactful summit on behalf of the Black Scholar and the Sun Reporter newspaper.

He also asked me to write an article about the nonviolent revolution in Grenada. Through our friendship, work, and his mentorship, he taught me what a Black perspective on foreign policy and international relations meant as an African American. For this, I am deeply grateful.

Dr. Hare was preceded in death by his loving wife, Dr. Julia (Reed) Hare, an activist and scholar who joined him on the frontlines of his academic efforts. In 1979, they founded a research institution, called the Black Think Tank, where they wrote several books about Black life in America.

Dr. Nathan Hare was an incredible scholar, whose contributions to Black academia and media have made a lasting impact on our world. He will be greatly missed by those who had the honor of knowing him and remembered by all who stand upon his shoulders. May he rest in eternal peace and power.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the achievements of Carol Christ as she celebrates her retirement from the University of California, Berkeley after serving as Chancellor of the university since 2017. I honor Chancellor Christ for her dedication to this distinguished university in California's 12th district and wish her the best of luck in her retirement.

Carol Christ has had an incredible career in higher education that has made a lasting impact on the Berkeley community. Before becoming Chancellor, Christ was a professor and administrator at UC Berkeley for more than thirty years, serving as executive vice chancellor and provost from 1994 to 2000. During that time, she was the highest- ranking female administrator at the university. She then served as the president of Smith College from 2002 to 2013 before returning to Berkeley as the director of the Center for Studies in Higher Education and interim executive vice chancellor and provost in the years leading up to her being named chancellor.

Christ received her Bachelor of Arts from Douglass College and her Master's degree and Ph.D. in English from Yale University. In 1970, she joined UC Berkeley's faculty in the English department, focusing on Victorian literature. She later served as both chair of the department and dean of the Division of Humanities.

As Chancellor, Christ has been a champion of women's issues and diversity on UC Berkeley's campus. She has fostered a positive campus climate for students, staff, and faculty of all backgrounds. She has addressed critical issues such as the housing shortage and has embraced and celebrated UC Berkeley's spirit and commitment to free speech.

I am happy to congratulate Carol Christ on her retirement from the University of California, Berkeley. Christ has made a lasting positive impact on UC Berkeley and California's 12th Congressional District, and I honor and thank her for her continued contributions to our community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 100th anniversary of the San Francisco Bay Chapter of the Sierra Club, and their continued dedication to conservation and environmental action and advocacy in the Bay Area.

The Sierra Club was originally founded in 1892, and the San Francisco Bay Chapter was established in 1924, including Alameda, San Francisco, Contra Costa, Marin, and San Mateo counties.

Since its founding in 1924, the San Francisco Bay Chapter of the Sierra Club has persisted in its mission to advance conservation and environmental action in the San Francisco Bay Area and beyond. Throughout their history, the chapter has advocated for the preservation of natural landscapes, the protection of wildlife habitats, and the promotion of sustainability in public policy. Now in 2024, the Sierra Club continues its work to be a leader of climate action and environmental justice.

Early accomplishments of the Bay Chapter include supporting the creation of Mt. Tamalpais State Park and the East Bay Regional Park District, a system of parks and trails throughout Alameda and Contra Costa counties. In the decades that followed, the chapter played a key role in the creation of landmark legislation such as the Wilderness Act of 1964, the Save the Bay movement of the mid-'60s, and the creation of McLaughlin Eastshore State Park in Berkeley, California.

In more recent years, the Bay Chapter has focused on addressing pressing environmental challenges such as climate change and urban sprawl. Through grassroots organizing, advocacy campaigns, and community outreach, the Sierra Club has worked to promote renewable energy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and advocate for sustainable land use policies. The Bay Chapter balances its important campaign priorities with a love of the outdoors, encouraging community members to experience the outdoors for themselves through one of their vibrant activity groups.

The Bay Chapter's commitment to environmental justice and equitable access to nature is a central part of its mission. From tree-planting campaigns in Oakland to passing Climate Literacy resolutions in local school districts, the Sierra Club aims to create a Bay Area where the outdoors and healthy, livable communities are available to all.

I honor the San Francisco Bay Chapter of the Sierra Club for a century of environmental advocacy and critical service to our community. Their legacy of leadership and commitment to action will inspire positive change in California's 12th Congressional District and beyond for years to come. Here's to many more years of inspiring dedication to exploring, enjoying, and protecting our environment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as my Republican colleagues continue to rail against everything woke and for their Project 2025 agenda.

Now, most Members don't even know what woke even means, so let me just try to lay it out. As the NAACP reminded us in a 2023 resolution, the word ``woke'' has been used by Black Americans even as far back as the 1940s when the Black mineworkers issued the statement: ``We were asleep. But we will stay woke from now on.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert this official NAACP resolution titled: ``Resolution-Reclaiming the Word `Woke' as Part of African-American Culture'' be inserted into the Congressional Record.

In 2010 it began to be used widely, primarily by Black Americans to bring awareness to social inequities such as racial injustice, sexism, and denial of LGBTQ+ rights.

Today, the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines ``woke'' as ``aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues, especially issues of racial and social justice.''

Also, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary quotes me from a speech I gave several years ago: ``We have a moral obligation to `stay woke,' take a stand and be active; challenging injustices and racism in our communities. . . .''

Mr. Chairman, I thank our ranking member, Mr. Meeks, for his tremendous leadership on so many fronts especially as it relates to global peace and security. I thank him for yielding me time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1425. Now, we have all seen and felt how global health threats don't respect borders. Any serious global health response requires cooperation, not finger- pointing. This partisan bill doesn't provide any pathway to protecting Americans and the world from the next pandemic.

The good news is that we have an alternative, a positive example of how to build a global health partnership. I am talking about the effort to combat the HIV/AIDS pandemic.

Mr. Chair, 20 years ago, AIDS was a death sentence for millions. Entire countries and communities were literally facing oblivion.

I, along with the Congressional Black Caucus, worked with President George W. Bush and top Republicans like Senate Republican leader Bill Frist and House Foreign Affairs Chair Henry Hyde to create PEPFAR, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief.

I believe now probably only about 20 to 25 percent of Members who are presently serving were here when we passed this first major global health initiative.

Today, PEPFAR is the most successful assistance program in history. PEPFAR investments have helped save 25 million lives. That is what we did. Seven million orphans and vulnerable children have received support, and 5\1/2\ million babies have been born HIV-free.

This success has led Congress to extend PEPFAR three times. Last year, for the first time, Congress failed to do this despite bipartisan support. I have spoken at length with many Members on both sides of the aisle, and both sides of the aisle, the Members, continue supporting PEPFAR's work. However, Republican leadership seems to prefer divisive bills like H.R. 1425 instead of bipartisan bills like PEPFAR. They are choosing divisiveness over cooperation and results.

This is just a 5-year extension with no changes. That is all we are asking for.

Mr. Chair, PEPFAR also, you have to understand, is a key national security priority. The world is watching. We are trying to show people in other countries that the United States should be their preferred partner, of course, instead of China, for example.

What message does it send when we walk away from our commitments before the job is done?

Yes, we all are committed to an AIDS-free generation by 2030, and that is why a 5-year extension is extremely important.

For this reason, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to committee. If the House rules permitted, I would have offered the motion with an important amendment to this bill. My amendment would reauthorize PEPFAR for another 5 years, just as we have in the past three times, to ensure that the United States keeps its commitment to finally defeat HIV and AIDS for everyone everywhere.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record the text of the amendment.

Ms. Lee of California moves to recommit the bill, H.R.

1425, to the Committee on Foreign Affairs with instructions

to report the same back to the House forthwith with the

following amendment:

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the

following:

I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in voting for the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today along with my colleagues, Representatives Mark DeSaulnier and Eric Swalwell, to honor the retirement of a champion of women's issues, a leader in diversity, and an advocate for high quality and accessible education--Chancellor Carol Christ.

Chancellor Christ began her career in academia at Douglass College, where she studied English Literature and graduated with high honors. Recognizing the value of the liberal arts and sciences, Chancellor Christ earned a Ph.D. from Yale University before immediately joining the English Department at the distinguished University of California, Berkeley (UC Berkeley).

Chancellor Christ served as a professor at UC Berkeley for over three decades. Her titles included chair of the English Department, dean of Division of Humanities, and provost for the College of Letters and Science. Beyond helping form the minds of the future, Chancellor Christ was key in helping the University achieve its academic and strategic goals.

This made her an ideal choice when in 2017, Chancellor Christ began her term as the 11th chancellor of UC Berkeley. During her term she oversaw academia and education at the highest level. Through thoughtful debate and discussion, strategic financial decisions, the consideration of student and community voices on key issues, and encouragement of a positive environment for education; Chancellor Christ helped cement UC Berkeley as one of the premier learning institutes in the world.

We honor Chancellor Christ and congratulate her on a well-earned retirement. We thank her for her decades of service to educational justice and the careful facilitation of curious young minds and wish her well as she has more time to spend with her children and grandchildren as her legacy continues to grow and impact future generations of students and leaders.

Madam Speaker, let me first take a moment to thank Congresswoman Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick for her leadership and to thank the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus and the entire Congressional Black Caucus for leading this tribute tonight to our colleague, our sister, and our friend.

To Sheila's family, her community, her friends, my deepest condolences. You know how much we love Sheila, and we know how much they loved her and how much she is missed already. Now, let me say a couple of things.

First of all, I met Sheila before I met Sheila. This was when I was in the legislature. I went to the graduation where my niece was attending college, Prairie View College right out of Houston, Texas.

There was a great orator who spoke at that commencement. This was probably '95, '96. This orator spoke for probably about 2 to 3 hours in the hot sun. It was a great speech, and I will never forget that speech. It was over 2 hours, and everyone was listening intently in that hot sun.

Finally, when I actually met Sheila, coming to Congress, I felt that I knew her because this speech was so profound.

She was, first of all, an effective legislator. We know her well as being right down here on the floor.

I think she had an amendment for every single bill that came to the floor, and they passed. She worked with Republicans. She worked with all of us. She was at the Rules Committee until midnight. She had more energy, but she was brilliant with her energy, and she knew how to effectuate legislative change and get bills passed.

Of course, she led the effort for reparations, for the study and development of reparations. She picked that bill up, H.R. 40, from our beloved John Conyers. She led the effort to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. She was the lead author of Federal legislation for the Juneteenth National Independence Day. We cannot forget that. I have to remind people of that, in her absence this year. As we celebrate Juneteenth, we cannot forget the name Sheila Jackson Lee.

My grandfather and my great-grandmother were born in Galveston. I had never visited Galveston until Sheila invited me to Galveston to be with her the first year the legislation passed. What a reunion that was. To be with Sheila Jackson Lee in Galveston, Texas, was the highlight of that year for me.

She also was a constituent advocate. Let me tell you, right after Katrina, members of the Congressional Black Caucus were in New Orleans. Sheila went back to Houston because she received so many evacuees. She called me up and said: Barbara, I don't care wherever you are going, you better come here to Houston.

I said: Yes, ma'am.

I went to Houston, and I saw how Sheila Jackson Lee in many ways ministered to these evacuees. She had me out there, and I was honored to be out there with her feeding people, clothing people, finding shelter, on the phones being advocates. She truly loved people.

When people got stuck at the airport in Houston--once my sister did, as well as constituents--I would call Sheila. She would have me up all night long talking to people on the phone until the problem was resolved. She was dogged about constituent services. She loved people.

She was a caregiver also for her mother. Many don't remember this if you weren't here. Her mother lived in New York, and her mother was very ill. It was during the time that my mother was very ill. Sheila stayed on that phone talking to caregivers. I was on the phone talking to my mother's caregiver. We were comparing notes, comparing medicines. She would get on a plane and fly up there and come back here. She was a daughter who truly loved her mother and took care of her mother until the very end. I learned a lot from Sheila going through what I went through with my mother as she was making her transition.

Sheila was a global citizen. For those of you who traveled with her, you know she was a queen. Sheila went to school in Nigeria. I have been in refugee camps with Sheila. I have been on many codels with Sheila, some of which I led. Sheila would call me way past the deadline--you all know what I am talking about--24 hours before the codel departed: I am going.

I said: But Sheila, the deadline was 3 weeks ago.

She said: I am going.

I said: Yes, ma'am.

She went. She provided so much insight and input and brilliance on all of these codels. Members came back more informed and with more clarity about what the issues were we were dealing with.

The last codel that I led to Africa was, I believe, in 2022 when during that period the devastating flood in Pakistan occurred. Sheila was chair of the Congressional Pakistan Caucus. She had me on the phone, as an appropriator, from Ghana calling back here making sure that we were ready to respond to the devastation in Pakistan.

Sheila said: You have got to go with me to Pakistan.

I said: Sheila, we are in Africa, and we have got to get back to America first. I have got to clear my schedule.

She said: No, no, no. You have got to go with me to Pakistan.

I said: Sheila, I can't go, but I will do everything I can to help.

I could not go, but we landed here at Andrews. Sheila flew to Houston, and the next morning she left for Pakistan. She spent, I guess, 5 days there helping people through that dire, terrible flood that was taking place.

She would call me every other hour: Where are we? Did you call USAID?

I would say: Yes, ma'am.

That is how Sheila was. She was a person who was obsessed with taking care of people and changing the world and making life better for everyone.

Our personal friendship was deep and broad. She received the John Lewis award recently for the most number of 1 minutes. She called me that morning. She says: Barbara, I can't be there, but I want you to accept this award for me.

I said: Sheila, they are not going to let me accept an award for you.

She said: Just do like I would do and tell them you are going to accept it anyway.

That was Sheila. She would not take no for an answer.

Also, finally, I was her personal photographer. Many of you may have been also. Sheila wanted to make sure she was in every single picture. If a real photographer wasn't around, she would pull me. I was looking at my pictures. I have more pictures of Sheila than myself because she made sure she got those pictures taken. They weren't necessarily for her. They were for her constituents, for her family, for her grandchildren, for her husband. She wanted people to know and to be informed about her work as their public servant.

Sheila deserves to rest now. She was a force of nature. Her spirit will live forever. She was fearless. She was loving. She was powerful.

I am reminded of one Scripture in Second Timothy. This reminds me of

Sheila: For God did not give us the spirit of fear but of power and of love and of a sound mind.

May Sheila's soul rest in peace, may she rest in power, and may she rest. God bless her.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Section 706 of the 2003 Foreign Relations Authorization Act reminds the President to report to Congress on countries determined to be major drug-producing or transit countries.

The administration produces this report and, in 2023, included the People's Republic of China as a significant source of precursor chemicals used for illegal drugs in the United States.

There is a process in place. Prohibiting any future administration from making a decision as to whether the PRC should be on this list, as this amendment does, undermines the whole goal of this report. If Congress would rather come up with the list, they should do so. Until then, the law leaves the administration to determine who belongs on the list.

This administration has made disrupting the global flow of illicit synthetic drugs a priority and has maintained pressure on the PRC to that end.

This amendment is unnecessary, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I believe in the urgency of this crisis, but this is not the way to address it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Madam Chair, this amendment, which I am opposed to, seemingly seeks to punish Secretary Blinken likely due to differences of opinion with the amendment's sponsor. Now, the last time I looked, in a democracy, I thought differences are allowed without punitive measures. This is a slippery slope.

Given that the Secretary covers all worldwide issues, it is unbelievable that differing opinions would not arise.

We cannot decide to defund the salary of a Cabinet member simply because a Member of Congress does not agree with all the positions the administration takes on issues pertaining to foreign affairs.

Again, remember what the fundamentals of our democracy allow. This is, again, another move to shut it down.

Again, to my colleagues, if you want to debate the foreign policy of the Biden administration, let's do that, but Secretary Blinken is doing his job.

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

Madam Chair, elections matter. This is still a democracy.

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

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Madam Chair, this amendment, of course, I oppose.

NSM-20 ensures that any transfers of arms from the United States are done with partners in accordance with international law. What is the problem with that?

International law says that civilians have to be protected and not targeted, that humanitarian actors are given access to provide assistance to vulnerable populations, and that weapons are to be used with proper oversight. What is the problem with that?

I truly don't understand what the objection to this would be. This policy, which is representative of laws and policies already on the books, was implemented in February and began its review with countries currently engaged in conflict, such as Nigeria, Ukraine, Colombia, Iraq, and, yes, Israel.

No country that is in compliance with international law should be concerned with this review, but it gives the United States, our taxpayers, as the largest provider of weapons around the world, a check that they are not running afoul of international law either.

NSM-20 is about good government and oversight and should be supported and strengthened. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, in closing, I don't know why the gentleman is making this about Israel. NSM-20 implements a regular process for reviewing these requirements and reporting to Congress. Taxpayers deserve to be ensured that these processes are upheld for each and every country.

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

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. Once again, it is very disconcerting to think that Republicans want to actually offer an amendment that really is a lifeline for millions of people. It is the most basic expression of American commitment to the dignity of everyone.

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. Whether one has a religion or not, our values and people of faith would be shocked to know that the Republicans want to do this.

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

It is important to provide this humanitarian assistance because it is morally the right thing to do and because it reflects also on our global leadership. I hope there is still a sense of morality and a sense of values as you, the Republicans, look at how the impact of cutting many of these programs will impact human beings and their lives.

I would ask my colleagues what they would do if they could not protect their children from preventable disease, not be able to afford food or clean water that does not make them sick? You would do almost anything to prevent that from happening.

It is really unthinkable that the United States would stop providing this support to those who have lost everything through a natural disaster or conflict. The consequences of this amendment are almost too terrible to contemplate.

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

Madam Chair, of course, I fully disagree with the gentleman.

This is about questioning our moral objectives. Using millions of people's lives as a negotiating tactic is truly questionable and despicable.

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

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

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

There is no mistaking that the error that the United States made in going to war with Iraq in 2003 was a mistake. It was a decision which I fought against and proudly opposed.

While two decades have passed since then, there is little doubt about the trauma experienced by the country that is still felt to this day. Iraqis fell prey to conflict and instability, experienced a tragic number of deaths and displacements, and saw an erosion of their basic services, including health and education.

An entire generation of children grew up in a chaos-filled environment with

war and the subsequent emergence of terrorist groups and militias.

We cannot walk away from our responsibility to help Iraq, now a key partner in the Middle East. As Secretary Blinken has said, America's greatest strategic asset lies within the alliances and partnerships that we have with other nations. In partnership with Iraq, we have worked to ensure a largely stable, prosperous, and democratic government.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me just say we bombed the heck out of Iraq. We, unfortunately, were responsible for refugees and for the deaths of Iraqis. We at least should help the Iraqi people rebuild and move forward.

Our assistance to Iraq mitigates extremism through programming that promotes mutual respect, tolerance, and understanding; provides support for the recovery of religious and ethnic minorities liberated from ISIS, including Christians and Yazidis; supports private-sector development; and increases work opportunities, especially for women and youth.

Additionally, USG-supported stabilization programs have enabled the return of nearly 5 million internally displaced persons. They can return to their communities of origin, but nearly 1.2 million people remain displaced.

USAID assistance is critical in restoring essential services and increasing stability among these vulnerable populations. Furthermore, our continued assistance in Iraq is vital to support the reintegration of Iraqis repatriated from northeast Syria, which meets the national security priority of the United States Government's action plan.

It is in the security interests of the United States to continue supporting Iraq, as well as really our moral responsibility not to abandon our partnership and to help repair some of the damage of the past.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

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

Voting is central to our democracy. This is not a partisan issue. The United States has a shameful voting participation rate. In a Presidential year, it is about 66 percent. In a non-Presidential election year, less than half of Americans vote. Compare this to 90 percent in Australia, 76 percent in Germany, or over 90 percent in Uruguay.

As Members of Congress, we are active participants in an elected democracy. I don't know what my colleagues are afraid of. Shouldn't we be doing everything possible to ensure that all citizens can participate in our elections, regardless of party affiliation?

Like it or not, there are obstacles to getting to the polls to vote, and we should be encouraging all parts of the public and private sector to be creative in its solutions if we really want this democracy to work for everyone.

A democracy is at its best when everyone is able to participate and exercise their right to vote. Our Federal agencies have a huge role to play here, which this executive order recognizes. Once again, we are trying to roll back our democratic rights and freedoms.

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

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

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

I repeat again: It really is despicable to target dedicated public servants and threaten their livelihoods.

In this specific case, the amendment is targeted at someone on leave from the Department. None of us have the information to judge this situation. As the State Department has said, this is a personnel matter and that it needs to take its course. It is not a matter for Congress.

Again, if my colleagues have an issue with the policy being pursued, let's discuss that. We should not penalize public servants who are representing the administration they serve and have dedicated their entire careers to the United States.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask for a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

The executive branch has the ability to determine how the United States engages and manages our relationship with Taiwan.

This is because Congress has 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 mark up a separate bill in the Foreign Affairs Committee that deals with just that. In the absence of that, the executive branch needs to determine how to handle diplomatic engagements abroad. It is their job to weigh multiple equities, and balance delicate factors that are simply not considered by this amendment today.

The amendment sponsor knows that Taiwan is a sensitive, geopolitical subject with respect to our relations with the PRC. That is why we have a select committee in the House on it, and I think this is something that they could examine, that would be much more appropriate.

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. Chair, once again, let me just reiterate that this is an authorization issue. It is not an issue for the Appropriations Committee.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. As one who knows the U.N. pretty well, I am shocked that, once again, Republicans are trying to defund it. The world is a better place because of the United Nations.

As I have said, the bill as it stands already cuts 83 percent of the contributions to international organization accounts compared to fiscal year 2024 and excludes funding for the majority of the United Nations organizations that we traditionally fund, even those that we have treaty obligations to.

We have watched as the PRC challenges the United States at the United Nations and other multilateral institutions, working to insert their values, their perspective, their policies of authoritarianism and disrespect for human rights. By cutting all funding to the United Nations and its agencies, this bill leaves a void for our adversaries to fill.

The PRC is already the second largest financial contributor to the United Nations' regular budget and U.N.

peacekeeping and is happy to point out that the United States is an unreliable partner. Our ambassador to the United Nations has called this China's favorite talking point.

Humanitarian response in Sudan, exposure of Russia's human rights violations in Ukraine, and international norms on everything from how we receive mail internationally to how planes fly across international borders is touched on by the United Nations system.

This amendment makes America less safe, less prosperous, and more isolated. Once again, we are attempting to just withdraw from the world and become a more isolationist country.

Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, first of all, to stand against the PRC or any adversary, we must be in the room. Doubling down at the United Nations is not going to make the United States excel in our global leadership as we should continue to do as it relates to peace and security.

Withdrawing, standing by the sidelines, doing nothing gives our adversaries the opening that they are just waiting for, and this amendment would accomplish that.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).

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

Amendment No. 72 Offered by Mr. Waltz

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. No funds in the State and Foreign Operations bill go toward the humanitarian pier built by the United States Department of Defense off the coast of Gaza, just an FYI.

This is not political talk. If you know what is taking place in Gaza, people are desperate. The distribution of aid from the pier is at least partially managed by USAID, period, including support for the World Food Program.

I am also frustrated that we have to resort to these extraordinary measures to get aid into Gaza. In an area that is nearing collapse and where one million people are facing catastrophic hunger, we need to utilize every channel that is available, if you care about human life.

This month, Israel facilitated 204 humanitarian missions into Gaza. It also denied or impeded another 76, and another 38 were canceled due to insecurity or logistical reasons. There simply is not enough aid getting in.

The current humanitarian pier is only supposed to be in place for a few more weeks before the weather makes it untenable. There are no current plans to use the pier into fiscal year 2025, which is the focus of this amendment.

I pray that we will not be in this situation next year, but I refuse to take any tools that will help innocent civilians off the table.

The suffering of the civilian population of Gaza will not make Israel safer. It is contributing to its insecurity and is counterproductive, and so it is important that those who value human life not support this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, just to clarify, I didn't say that USAID had a heavy hand. What I said was that the distribution of aid from this pier is at least partially managed by USAID. That is what I said. It would be, I think, wise to not mislead the public, and this is how disinformation and misinformation and lies get spread.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendment and the nebulous use of ``indirect'' endangers the even limited support that we provide in Syria.

For our own national security, we must continue our work countering terrorism in Syria. The Islamic State emerged from the conflict in Syria. The Syrian Democratic Forces continue to hold about 10,000 Islamic State fighters in detention facilities in Syria that are seen as key to its resurgence. We must continue to counter this serious terrorist threat and protect Americans by continuing our support in Syria.

We also must continue to support the people of Syria who have been battered by war, displacement, and natural disasters. By helping to ensure that the Syrian people have emergency shelter, food assistance, and access to healthcare, education, water, sanitation, and other support, we prevent them from turning to the very extremist groups that are promising that security.

Conflict zones are not clear-cut, and the government of Bashar al- Assad is still the governing authority there.

While we take every precaution to ensure that no assistance benefits this brutal regime, lines are continually shifting, and we need to make allowances for activities that could touch on government-controlled areas.

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

Mr. Chair, today I was unavoidably detained and unable to cast my vote on Roll Call No. 320. Had I been present, I would have voted NO.

Amendment No. 72 Offered by Mr. Waltz

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the House Republican draft of the FY25 State, Foreign Operations, and Related Agencies appropriations bill.

This woefully underfunded bill will weaken America, and, yes, it will leave us vulnerable to our adversaries.

The measures Republicans are bringing to the House floor this week would slash our diplomatic and development programs by a shocking 12 percent, while at the same time seeking to increase military spending by $8.5 billion.

These cuts would leave America vastly weakened. This continues a dangerous trend that puts the Pentagon on steroids while leaving diplomacy and development on life support.

Our national security is built on three pillars: defense, diplomacy, and development. We need all three to be strong to execute a foreign policy that advances both our interests and our values. We already spend 50 percent less in real terms on diplomacy and development than we did 40 years ago. If only defense is adequately funded, it means that we will too often rely only on military force, which should be a last resort, not our first. In the famous words of General Mattis: If you don't fund the State Department, you need to buy me more ammunition.

My Republican colleagues like to talk a good game about confronting China. In truth, this bill is really a gift to Beijing's diplomatic efforts. Even before the billion-dollar cut to our embassies and Foreign Service officers, the People's Republic of China now has more foreign missions and more diplomats than we do.

In addition, the bill's prohibitions on participation in global venues like the United Nations or the World Health Organization will simply mean that China's self-interest will go unchecked by the United States. You can't have it both ways.

I just returned from a bipartisan delegation to Africa where my colleagues and I, both Democrats and Republicans, met with reformers in key African democracies. These leaders told us that they preferred to partner with the United States over China. However, too often, American presence and investment was missing in action.

They told us over and over and over again: Where are you? You are not here.

Countering the PRC's influence means, quite frankly, America needs to show up. Republicans, again, as I said, can't have it both ways. China, Russia, and all of our adversaries will rush to fill the void left by this bill.

This bill also takes a really dishonest approach to the existential threat posed by climate change. People around the world are confronting the impacts of human-caused climate change right now: life-threatening temperatures, crop failures, floods and severe weather. Many of us are experiencing this in our own districts and hometowns.

Now, we can't change the temperature. Climate change is here. The past 12 months have been the hottest ever measured, but we can help people and communities around the world to cope with the most life- threatening impacts.

However, this bill ignores reality. It includes no funding for clean energy; no funding to help communities adapt to drought, rising coastlines, or extreme heat; no funding to stop deforestation or recurring coastal flooding; and the bill cuts off, mind you, cooperation with other countries.

Once again, Mr. Chair, think of the PRC and what this bill says to them.

The bill also wages war on women's reproductive freedom. Mr. Chair, 218 million women still cannot access the tools to decide when and how to have a baby. As a result, hundreds of thousands die in childbirth. That is a fact. The Republican bill makes it harder for women to access care. It also cuts off funding for the United Nations Family Planning Association, the one partner that helps mothers and babies in the hardest places to reach. Mothers and babies will die because of this.

Nonetheless, the most damaging aspect of this bill is the massive abdication and retreat of United States leadership around the world. The bill treats issues and countries as black and white, good and evil; it is our way or the highway. This is fundamentally undemocratic for a country that stands for democracy.

A key example is how this bill doubles down and triples down on the failed, yes, failed Cuban embargo. There is no track record of success nurturing democracy and human rights by punishing regular people.

Instead of listening to partners and addressing concerns together, this bill forces the United States to go it alone and reject any country with a different perspective. Perhaps most telling, the largest increase in this bill is foreign military financing in the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. It zeroes out the United Nations and outright prohibits half a dozen U.N. bodies. The message of this bill, once again, is more weapons and less cooperation.

This is not how the world works. This approach is isolating America. Yes, human rights violators and countries that do not share democratic values also participate in these organizations, but that is why we must stay engaged. If we cede the ground to countries with little regard for human rights, then we are enabling more injustice.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and get to work on a truly bipartisan approach that will protect and advance America's security interests and, of course, make sure that we are a country which leads in forming alliances and cooperates for the sake of the survivors of our planet.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), who is the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks), the distinguished ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lois Frankel), a member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Ramirez).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Meng), a member of the Appropriations Committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me close by saying a couple of things about this bill once more.

First of all, it is a deeply political, extremist bill that seeks to satisfy the radical fringe at the expense of our national security, global human rights, and the well-being of our allies.

Let me say again what I said yesterday in the Rules Committee. We spend less than 0.5 percent of our GNP on overseas assistance, mind you. This bill cuts that less than 0.5 percent by 12 percent and 6 percent in last fiscal year.

The world is full of threats that don't respect borders, from climate change to pandemics to assertive dictators. We can't stick our heads in the sand and hope that it will all go away.

Investments in development, diplomacy, economic assistance, poverty alleviation, healthcare, education, and job creation don't just protect American lives and American interests. They also protect taxpayers' wallets and promote peace and security for not only the United States but throughout the planet.

Experts have found that for every $1 we spent on conflict prevention, it saves us $16 down the road. Mr. Chair, I urge my Republican colleagues to consider this when they claim this bill is fiscally responsible.

It has been a tremendous honor, let me say, to serve as both chair and ranking member of the Subcommittee of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs, but I leave this role deeply concerned that our politics are leading us in the wrong direction and leaving the United States alone on the global stage.

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

I take some solace in knowing that this partisan Republican draft bill is dead on arrival in the Senate. When my Republican colleagues are ready to come to the table and discuss what America's diplomats and development professionals need to do their jobs, I will be ready to talk.

Our diplomats, our support staff, our Peace Corps volunteers, our Foreign Servicemembers, and all those who represent the United States are impacted by this bill. We owe them a definite deep sense of commitment and gratitude for their service and for their work. Let's do that by not gutting the bill that they rely on to do their jobs.

Until we are able to talk, I urge all Members to reject this dangerous, very weak, and inadequate bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, and I thank Chairman Diaz-Balart for working with me to include these bipartisan priorities in this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

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

The Department of State Educational and Cultural Exchanges account funds people-to-people engagement, which supports our country's foreign policy objectives. These programs foster mutual understanding between the people of the United States and of other countries and promote peace and understanding. Lord knows we need this.

They allow us to promote our values of democracy, freedom of the press, and civic participation, as well as promote dialogue, collaboration, and the sharing of diverse perspectives, especially for the cultivation of the next generation of global leaders. These programs also help us understand those who may or may not share our values, but we at least have an opportunity to engage.

One of our best-known programs is the Fulbright Program. Each year, over 13,000 United States students and scholars submit an application for the Fulbright Program. This program also leverages over $100 million from partner governments, who see a value in supporting their students coming to the United States.

These students will be future presidents, generals, scientists, and writers of partner nations in the future. In fact, leaders in more than 120 countries around the world in both government and business were exposed to American culture and values through State-sponsored exchanges.

This amendment threatens the Fulbright Program, as well as hundreds of other professional and academic exchanges that expose U.S. citizens to the rest of the world and the rest of the world to the United States and to our ideals. What is wrong with that? I think the world needs this at this point.

It doesn't make any sense to cut these programs. These programs are some of the best diplomatic investments that we make.

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

Mr. Chairman, once again, I am urging opposition to this amendment because it is just an example of what I said earlier in terms of withdrawing from the rest of the world. Our young people, people who want to engage with the world to make this world a better place, deserve to be able to do that.

This cut takes us back to, I think, the levels at 2019. That is unacceptable.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

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

Once again, we are retreating from the world, and this amendment, again, makes that point. It would eliminate the United States' contribution to the Global Environment Facility.

Now, the Global Environment Facility is a multilateral trust fund that provides grant-based funding to developing countries to address global environmental challenges. These are some of the most vulnerable countries in the world.

The Global Environment Facility fund benefits the U.S. economy and the environment by addressing problems that affect our domestic health, safety, and prosperity, such as by protecting tropical forests, reducing transboundary pollutants, and combating illegal wildlife tracking, which I know is a concern of both sides of the aisle and Members on both sides of the aisle.

Every one of our districts has been challenged by severe drought, rainfall, storms, and heat. We are continuing to spend more and more on humanitarian needs caused by these disasters, both domestically and abroad. We need to get ahead of these crises. Helping communities cope, especially those with the least means to do so, is both moral and smart.

Why are we demonizing these programs and cutting ourselves off from these valuable tools? These are not problems anyone can solve alone. We must work with others, which makes cooperation and our multilateral tools, such as the Global Environment Facility, real. Cuts will disrupt and dismantle what we are trying to accomplish in this world, and that is to make sure that our children have a future on this planet.

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

Mr. Chair, I must say that if Republicans really want to get our fiscal house in order, then they would be the first to repeal these terrible Trump tax cuts that have created an even bigger hole in our fiscal house.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. Now, the United States Institute of Peace, that is p-e-a-c- e, or USIP, 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 creatively solve our world's problems and our world's thorniest issues.

Congress created the United States Institute of Peace in 1984. Again, I will spell it, p-e-a-c-e. Some Members don't even like to use the term ``peace.'' We created it in 1984. It applies practical solutions directly in conflict zones and provides analysis, education, and resources to those working for peace, p-e-a-c-e.

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.

It is in our own national security interest not to cut programs that cut the budget of the United States Institute of P-e-a-c-e.

The 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 development investments going to waste.

In a world that grows more dangerous and complex every day with wars and rumors of wars, we need the services and the creative thinking of the United Institute of P-e-a-c-e.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I hope that you all will begin to use the word ``peace'' a little bit more because I think your children and grandchildren would be grateful.

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

Mr. Chair, it doesn't make any sense to support this amendment, cutting resources for the United Institute of Peace, p-e-a-c-e, while we increase funding for the Department of Defense where we know there is over $200 billion in waste, fraud, and abuse.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

Quite frankly, it is despicable to target dedicated public servants and threaten their livelihoods.

Public servants doing their job and carrying out the policies of this administration or any administration that they serve should be commended, 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?

The subject of this amendment has been a public servant at USAGM for nearly 25 years speaking truth to Iranians and promoting the democratic values of American society.

This is a personnel matter and should be dealt with as such. It is not for appropriations. If you have an issue with the policy, let's discuss that, not penalize public servants who are representing the administration that they serve and have dedicated their careers to the United States.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Let me just start by saying if we are really talking about misusing taxpayer money, remember that the Pentagon has flunked six audits.

This amendment prohibits any funding from going to the U.S. Agency for Global Media, or USAGM. USAGM informs, engages, and connects people around the world, giving them an opportunity for independent media that may not be available in their own country.

At a time when more democracies are declining and even sliding into autocracies than any other point in the last century, we cannot afford to cut USAGM programs.

Funding for these programs targets programming in the languages of Iran, Russia, the PRC, and other authoritarian States to push back on false narratives about American policies that these adversaries are spreading and builds the capabilities that USAGM needs to deliver content to its global audience quickly and reliably.

One of the organizations that USAGM oversees, Voices of America, has an audience of more than 358 million people around the world.

Their trusted and objective news is translated into 48 languages in order to share American stories and perspectives that locals would not otherwise have access to.

Another organization, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, provides uncensored news in countries where free press is threatened and disinformation is pervasive.

These programs are key to outcompeting China and combating Russian disinformation. They are key to our success on the global stage.

USAGM's open technology fund provides a range of tools to help audiences overcome internal restrictions, especially in countries like Iran where the internet can be a lifeline.

Through its grantees and Federal agencies, USAGM is reaching more than 420 million people weekly, and the great majority of those audiences have reported that they find the information they receive to be trustworthy.

USAGM deserves our continued support, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this shortsighted amendment. I reserve the balance of my time

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. Climate change has resulted in lives upended in Texas, Florida, and Oklahoma, and has led to extreme heat across the entire Northeast just last week.

The climate crisis poses threats to the stability of countries, heightens social and political tensions, and adversely affects food prices and availability. This is according to our own military.

The need for foreign assistance will only increase if we do not address the significant driver of crises around the world.

No country can solve the climate crisis alone. This requires a multilateral effort. Our climate envoy is lending his energy and talents and collaborating with other countries to address these concerns. His relationships with foreign leaders are a benefit to the United States and our efforts.

I would think we would want to thank him for doing this. Again, we should be thanking people who are serving the American people, not demonizing them for it.

Funding the Special Presidential Envoy and his office is a requirement if we are to protect national security, strengthen the economy, and leave behind a safer planet for our children and grandchildren.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, which would prohibit any funding to the World Economic Forum, which we don't fund.

The reality is that no funds from this bill go to the World Economic Forum. Therefore, this amendment would establish another prohibition for no reason.

This is the appropriations process, a process that historically focused on making things happen rather than making prohibitions on things that are not being done, just in case you all didn't know.

I will tell you that this is really quite amazing to me that we could prohibit funding for something we don't fund.

Since this is my last appropriations process, I cannot be more disheartened with what is happening to the essential work of this committee when we start defunding what we don't fund.

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

Mr. Chairman, this is mind-boggling. I guess, once again, we are doing something that does not make any sense in this process.

The other point I think I would like to make in closing is that, once again, this is something that will be supposedly defunded that we don't fund that has to do with the world. It has to do with retreating from the world in terms of just the agenda of the Republicans.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I hope that Members will look at how they are manipulating and misrepresenting this appropriations process because when we start defunding what we don't fund, that is very disingenuous and misleading to the public.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

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

Let me say a couple of things about any new rule. Any new rule being proposed by a government agency is required to assess the potential costs and benefits of such a rule change and submit it to OMB.

In some cases, it may make sense to pursue such a rule. In many cases, the benefits will outweigh the costs, and the rulemaking process is designed to make these decisions in a clear and transparent manner.

A blanket prohibition, such as this amendment, just aims at tying an administration's hands while carrying out the laws that Congress enacted.

For the State and Foreign Operations bill, the State Department has advised that they have only pursued one rule recently that would be considered significant. That was to increase the consular fee structure. The consular operation of the State Department is self- funding through fees, so it is important that those fees reflect the costs of passports, visas, and other consular documents.

Congress delegates rulemaking authority to government agencies and has oversight over them. Congress also has the ability to disapprove of a rule through the Congressional Review Act. This amendment is overly broad and unnecessary.

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

Mr. Chair, I ask for a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment, which seeks to cut all funding for the TechCamp public diplomacy program.

TechCamp is designed to support good governance and mitigate violent extremism. Through TechCamp workshops, the State Department connects private-sector technology experts with key populations--journalists, nongovernmental organizations, and civil society advocates--to explore and apply innovative tech solutions to global issues. TechCamp also boosts U.S. economic engagement around the globe by highlighting the United States' technical and private-sector innovation.

I understand that attention to this program has increased after a former participant was involved in activity that some Members take exception to. There are thousands of participants from more than 110 countries making an impact through this program. An effective foreign policy tool should not be disposed of because of the actions of one participant a decade after they left the program.

This past year, one TechCamp in Nepal funded a digital outreach campaign for the management of antimicrobial resistance. Another in Kazakhstan educates people in Central Asian countries on how to protect themselves from Russian propaganda and fact-check information as well as develop cybersecurity skills in women in the region through online webinars. These are not programs we should be cutting.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Russia's brutal and unprovoked attack in Ukraine is not just a threat to Ukraine and its neighbors but to the world, including our own country.

If Russia succeeds in its aggression, other unprovoked attacks are inevitable. Ukraine's democracy is being undermined every single day. Entire cities have been demolished, women and girls are being sexually abused by Russian soldiers, and children are being kidnapped.

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.

I have visited Ukraine, and I immediately recognized the love of the Ukrainian people for their country and their democracy. Since the war broke out, I have been to Poland, and I met with Ukrainians to hear firsthand about the dire situations they face amidst Russian aggression. I have talked to civil society organizations funded by the United States who, facing danger and violence, are supporting refugees, vulnerable people, women and children. I was deeply moved by their stories and their commitment.

Mr. Chair, we must be able 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.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment, which is an attack on our commitment to strengthen our security and economic cooperation with Ukraine, as well as to pursue accountability for Russia's actions there, by prohibiting funds for implementing the Bilateral Security Agreement recently signed between the United States and Ukraine.

No specific funds are committed through the security agreement, but the signal this amendment sends to our Ukrainian partners is damaging.

Mr. Chair, I ask for a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment prevents the United States Special Representative for Ukraine's Economic Recovery from helping forge Ukraine's future as a prosperous, secure, European democracy and accelerate Ukraine's economic transformation. This position is key to ensuring that Ukraine not only survives but thrives, standing on its own.

The Ukrainian people are defending their country from the front line to the assembly line. Their ability to emerge from this conflict depends on their economic resilience.

A Coca-Cola bottling plant outside of Kyiv, the largest in Europe, was shelled, and many of the plant's 1,600 workers fought not only to liberate it but to get it back up and running. Eighty-four percent of American companies in Ukraine are back up and running.

Ukraine's economic recovery is not just key to the stability of Europe but also dinner tables around the world. In January of 2024, the Black Sea corridor brought more than 8.7 million tons of Ukrainian grain to global markets feeding much of the world.

Ukraine and its people have not given up on their aspirations. The Special Representative for Ukraine's Economic Recovery is doing critical work to ensure Ukraine can see economic success and not be dependent on donor assistance. This should be supported, not demagogued.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. This amendment seeks to punish Administrator Power, likely due to differences of opinion with the amendment's sponsor.

Given the administrator covers all worldwide issues, it is natural that differing opinions would arise. However, we cannot decide to defund the salary of the leadership of a United States Government agency simply because a Member of Congress does not agree with all the positions the administration takes on issues pertaining to foreign affairs.

Administrator Power is a patriot. She cares about inclusion. She wants diversity, equity, and inclusion reflected as a policy in the State Department so that the State Department and countries reflect the diversity not only of our own country but throughout the world. It means people like myself would be part of this program. Her career has been very distinguished, serving as our ambassador to the United Nations. She is a Pulitzer Prize-winning author. I think we should thank Samantha Power for trying to make sure that our USAID is inclusive and that it reflects our democracy.

If my colleagues want to debate the merits of our foreign policy, then let's do it. However, it is beneath this body to really take on a public servant for just doing their job.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

Ukraine's democracy is being undermined every single day. Entire cities

have been demolished, women and girls are being sexually abused by Russian soldiers, and children are being kidnapped. 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.

As I have said earlier, I have visited Ukraine, and I immediately recognized the love of the Ukrainian people for their country and their democracy.

Since the war broke out, I have met with Ukrainians in Poland to hear firsthand the dire situation that they face amidst Russian aggression. I have talked to civil society organizations funded by the United States who are facing danger and violence. They are supporting refugees, vulnerable people, and women and children. I was deeply moved by their stories and their commitment.

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

Mr. Chair, support for Ukraine is in the interests of the United States.

Also, we have to deplore women being raped and children being kidnapped anywhere in the world, including in Ukraine.

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

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

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

The United States Agency for International Development is essential to global stability, asserting United States leadership and foreign policy influence, and advancing security and prosperity worldwide.

USAID is the leader of the United States' global humanitarian and development work, ensuring strong stewardship and accountability of U.S. tax dollars and making tangible improvements in the lives of millions of people all around the world.

This amendment would force USAID to close all of its missions and terminate its programs overseas. It is highly ironic that the Department of Defense, which this Congress cannot seem to give enough money to, would be the first people to decry the loss of these programs in building security and stability around the world.

Without USAID, millions of children with malaria would go untreated, and hundreds of thousands of people would die of tuberculosis. Without USAID, millions of the most vulnerable people in the world would be hungrier as well as lose access to quality education and clean water.

USAID teams are working day and night to address catastrophic humanitarian crises in Gaza, Ukraine, Sudan, and beyond. Continued battering from a growing number of natural disasters during this particularly strong El Nino has led to a number of people requiring humanitarian assistance, increasing by nearly a third from $274 million in 2022 to $363 million at the end of 2023.

With regard to PEPFAR, yes, I was the author of PEPFAR and worked with Republicans, primarily President Bush, to make sure that the United States was on the right side of history by just basically saving lives. We have saved over 25 million lives thanks to PEPFAR.

I think that is a real testament to how it was in the past in this House of Representatives, where Democrats and Republicans worked together to save lives. I am very proud of that effort, and I know that this amendment would harm that effort to achieve an AIDS-free generation by 2030. It is harmful.

We must not reduce our development and humanitarian efforts. We wouldn't be able to counter the PRC's or Russia's influence. What we are doing is opening the door for their expanded global influence, if that is all my colleagues care about.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me just say that I realize the United States is not a charity, but I believe there are many in this country who believe we are our brothers' keepers, our sisters' keepers, and we have a duty to those less fortunate.

In fact, USAID is providing remarkable humanitarian assistance to those who need the United States' generosity and support.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, which would prohibit funding to the Food and Agriculture Organization because the agency head is a citizen of the People's Republic of China.

The FAO deputy director general is a U.S. citizen, and there are numerous Americans in high-level positions across FAO, all elevating the United States' priorities and interests. Americans have always held one of these three deputy director general positions.

There are 735 million people who face hunger worldwide. The United States' support to the FAO in 2022 provided assistance to 30 million people in places like Ukraine, Yemen, South Sudan, Somalia, and Afghanistan to address food insecurity, famine, and drought.

FAO is also aggressively pursuing partnerships with American private- sector companies, working with Google on monitoring natural resources, Mars, Inc. on antimicrobial resistance mitigation, and others on agribusiness.

FAO collaborates with the United States land grant universities on agricultural technology programs, such as with Penn State on their desert locust early-warning system and Mississippi State University on a reference center for antimicrobial resistance and aquaculture biosecurity.

This amendment is another example of approaching the world as black and white. The FAO director general was reelected last summer unopposed by the FAO membership.

The United States pulling out from an organization that we have an interest in is only detrimental to us. Our ability to improve the operations of multilateral institutions and make sure their stances reflect our values hinges on the United States being an active, participating member of the organization.

While I agree that reform should be considered regarding appointments at the U.N., this is not the way to go about such a change. This amendment would reduce U.S. engagement in a United Nations agency based on where a leader is from.

We need to pay our dues, contribute to U.N. agencies, and be an active participant. You don't have a say in what happens at the table if you are not at the table.

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

Mr. Chairman, how can we counter CCP influence if we pull out of these organizations? We also agree that the United States should be more serious about leadership, but we have to be there to do it.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

Both the Department of State and USAID rely on IOM's expertise as an implementing partner to support the United States' foreign policy priorities worldwide, including strengthening border security, countering trafficking

in persons, combating the smuggling of migrants, providing humanitarian and emergency relief, and assisting involuntary repatriation.

State's Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration has funded the IOM to support migrants who have experienced violence, exploitation, and/or abuse, and includes victims of trafficking and unaccompanied and separated children. IOM does not facilitate, assist, or encourage illegal or mass migration in any way, period.

By supporting the humanitarian needs of migrants, such as basic sanitation, healthcare, and food, it makes migrants less likely to resort to harmful coping strategies, such as child labor, family separation, or forced marriage.

This amendment would prevent support for IOM programming in Haiti, where it is the only agency providing emergency relief to returned Haitian migrants.

More people are on the move globally, 117 million, than at any point in human history, and most of those displaced are taking refuge in neighboring low-income countries.

IOM supports the stability of our neighbors and partners that are struggling to host a larger number of refugees. The infrastructure-- shelter, water, sanitation, health, and education--of these states is overwhelmed. This aid relieves the strain and advances our national security interests. Left unaddressed, the strain will feed instability and trigger more violence in these regions.

It is in the United States' interests that these vulnerable people are cared for and hosting countries are willing to continue to receive them.

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

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment, which prohibits funding for materials that refer to the General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party by the title ``President.''

The United States House of Representatives does not get to pick what other countries call their head of state. This is not a serious policy.

In the United States of America, we should not resort to pettiness, and we should treat others with respect, even when we have vehement disagreements. This is how you solve problems.

I must reflect on the fact that this is the appropriations process, a process that is derived by the United States Constitution. It is a privilege to serve in this House and on the Appropriations Committee.

This amendment does not meet the stature of this process.

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

Mr. Chair, first of all, let me just say, we should allow the State Department to manage protocol. We don't need a funding prohibition.

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

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

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

This Science and Technology Agreement, or STA, with the PRC was extended for 6 months in March and it does not commit us to a permanent agreement. The extension will allow the administration time to amend and strengthen the terms of the STA. Without the STA, the United States would lose valuable insight into China's technical advances.

Additionally, many scientific STA outcomes have been deeply beneficial to the United States and the rest of the world. This includes determining the importance of folic acid supplementation in preventing birth defects and decreasing China's air pollution, which blows across the Pacific contributing to our West Coast's air pollution.

Opponents of this agreement cite concerns that the PRC would exploit civilian research partnerships for military purposes. However, all legitimate concerns about information sharing can be addressed through modifications to the STA rather than eliminating it entirely.

This is being actively negotiated now, and we need to give negotiators a chance to come to a stronger agreement.

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

Mr. Chair, I ask for a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, this is the only amendment that I will reluctantly oppose. This amendment seeks to increase funding to the Peace Corps to the fiscal year 2024 level.

I do agree with the premise that the Peace Corps should receive additional funding in this bill. The reality is that there is not enough funding for the offset where the gentleman is identifying this money, and that is the State Department diplomatic programs. It is already $1 billion below the fiscal year 2024 level.

This amendment highlights that the allocation for this bill is just simply too low. We cannot expect to address the variety of global challenges to foster peace and support our diplomatic efforts with the 12 percent decrease in the top line of this bill.

I support the mission of the Peace Corps fully. They are our best diplomats. I commend all of the volunteers who serve our country.

I was recently in Africa on a bipartisan delegation, and we met with many Peace Corps members. They are serving this country, and they are helping in so many ways in the most vulnerable places on the planet. I thank them for that.

This amendment, though, is just robbing Peter to pay Paul. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, again, reluctantly.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me just say once again that taking $1 billion from our State Department diplomatic programs is wrong. That is why I oppose this amendment.

I think we need to increase funding for the Peace Corps, but, also, we need the State Department diplomatic programs to support the infrastructure and to support our diplomats.

Why in the world would we take $1 billion from our diplomats? I, again, believe that we should increase funding for both. Here we are faced with a 12 percent cut, so no way.

Again, I reluctantly oppose this. If we could find a new offset that is not going to take money away from our diplomatic programs, a billion dollars, then we could talk.

At this point, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time and ask for a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would zero out funding for the United Nations' Office of High Commissioner for Refugees, which is a global organization established after World War II to help people who lost their homes.

They work in 136 countries to provide lifesaving assistance, including shelter, food, water, and medical care for people forced to flee conflict and persecution, many of whom have nobody left to turn to.

Just last week, the United States recognized World Refugee Day, reaffirming our tradition as a beacon of hope for refugees and persecuted people around the globe.

In the United States, refugees contributed almost $124 billion to the growth of the United States' economy from 2005 to 2019.

According to UNHCR, the overall forced displacement rose to 120 million in May 2024 and reflects the 12th year of a consecutive increase.

At this level, the global displaced population is the equivalent of the 12th largest country in the world, which is about the size of Japan.

Responsibility sharing is essential to meet humanitarian needs so that all people can live with hope and dignity.

No single country can respond alone, and no country is untouched by the impacts of forced displacement. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, UNHCR advocates for the rights of refugees. They do not advocate on any country's immigration policies.

UNHCR also does not support economic migrants, only those that have applied for asylum.

Mr. Chairman, as I close, I must say some of these amendments tonight are just downright mean-spirited. I ask for a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I ask for a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The Migration and Refugee Assistance account supports protection and assistance to ease the suffering of those that had to leave everything behind to become a refugee. Again, it is hard to describe the meanness in these amendments. The funding also contributes to broader USG and international efforts to resolve conflicts that cause displacement and provide solutions for people and families that cannot return home.

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.

One in every 69 people, or 1.5 percent of the entire world's population, is now forcibly displaced. This is nearly double the 1 in 125 people who were displaced a decade ago. What does it mean for the United States to turn its back on these people?

Almost 11 million Sudanese remain uprooted. I visited Sudan this spring, and these people have been uprooted by violence over and over and over and over. Almost 14 million people have fled a brutal regime in Syria and exist only tenuously in neighboring countries like Lebanon, Turkiye, Jordan, and Egypt.

By cutting this assistance, nations hosting these refugees will not accept growing refugee populations in their countries, potentially destabilizing regions and threatening global stability and security.

Should we be spending more in other areas of this bill? Absolutely, which is why the 12 percent proposed cut is irresponsible and does not come anywhere near meeting the needs of the United States. The Migration and Refugee account is already facing a $725 million cut.

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

Mr. Chair, I ask for a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

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

This amendment prohibits the State Department from using the statistics obtained from the Gaza Health Ministry, which is often the only information available about what is happening on the ground in Gaza. As much as we wish there were other sources, this ministry is the only official source for Gaza casualties and is the de facto authority there.

Israel has sealed Gaza's borders, barring foreign journalists and others who could offer this reporting. The journalists and medical professionals who are there are unable to account for all of the bodies trapped under rubble and discovered in mass graves.

The United Nations and other international institutions and experts as well as the Palestinian authorities in the West Bank say this ministry has made a good faith effort to account for the dead under the most difficult conditions. Their figures have been found to be credible in the past, holding up to United Nations scrutiny, independent investigations, and even Israel's tallies.

When new information comes to light, as with the Office of Coordination of Humanitarian Assistance a few weeks ago, they are made. In order for the State Department to do its job effectively, it needs to work with real-time information. This amendment would severely inhibit the United States Government's ability to assess the situation.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).

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

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Oregon for his gracious comments and for his friendship, his support, and his tremendous leadership. I look forward to working with the gentleman also in the next chapter of our lives to make sure that all of our efforts around cannabis are passed and signed into law.

I thank Mr. Mast, Mr. Joyce, and all who have allowed us to work, again, in a bipartisan way to make it easier for veterans to access medical cannabis in States where it is legal.

Mr. Chair, this amendment would authorize VA physicians to provide recommendations and opinions regarding the use of medical cannabis to veterans who live in States with existing medical programs.

Millions of American veterans suffer from, for example, mental health conditions stemming from their service. Moreover, of the nearly 1 million veterans who receive opioids to treat painful conditions, more than one-half continue to consume beyond 90 days, contributing massively to the disproportionate overdose and suicide rates impacting veterans.

As we continue experiencing the throes of the opioid crisis ravaging communities across the country, from urban centers to rural areas, the hands of VA physicians should not be tied when it comes to advising around medical treatments that are scientifically proven to be less harmful and less addictive, like State-legal medical marijuana.

I am the daughter of a veteran of two wars. He would have been helped tremendously with many of his health issues had he been able to explore medical cannabis options with his VA physicians. I saw him go through wanting to explore all of these options, but he could not.

In his memory, Garvin A. Tutt, who was part of the 92nd Battalion in Italy supporting the Normandy invasion, I am proud to co-lead this amendment.

I thank all the co-chairs of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus. I thank Ranking Member Debbie Wasserman Schultz and, of course, Mr. Joyce for their leadership and partnership on this.

Mr. Chair, I urge our colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment that would benefit our armed services members.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Reverend Dr. Cecil Murray, who passed away at the age of 94 on April 5, 2024.

Reverend Murray was born on September 26, 1929, in Lakeland, Florida. He graduated from Florida A&M University and served in the U.S. Air Force for ten years after graduating before moving to Los Angeles to earn a Ph.D. in religion from Claremont College's School of Religion.

He then became a pastor at the First African Methodist Episcopal Church, where he served for 27 years. He built the church up from a small congregation of 250 members to over 18,000 members by the time he retired. He used his time at the church to inspire and give back to his community. During his tenure at the church, he established a non-profit investment arm that brought $400 million in investments to Los Angeles's minority and low-income neighborhoods.

Reverend Murray was also known for being an influential voice of reason during the 1992 Rodney King riots in Los Angeles, when he called for calm during a time of chaos and helped to rebuild the city following the riots.

Upon Reverend Murray's retirement from the church at age 75, he joined the University of Southern California's faculty, and started the Passing the Mantle Program, which later became known as the Cecil Murray Center at USC's Center for Religion and Civic Culture. He became a beloved and respected mentor at the university for future pastors who wanted to create projects to serve their communities.

Murray was preceded in death by his wife Bernadine, and is survived by his son Drew, niece Tammie, nephews Anthony and Kevin, grandniece April, and grandnephews Isaiah and Corey.

Pastor Murray touched many lives throughout his time as a pastor and university mentor, including my family's. He was my mother's pastor and was always very supportive of my family and me. He was a giant, but he was also a kind and gentle man who demonstrated what a purposeful life meant by living his faith each and every day. His compassionate mentorship and guidance helped make this a better world. He will be deeply missed. May he Rest in Peace and Power.