I claim time in opposition. The Acting CHAIR: The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, I rise to oppose H.R. 4665. This bill would impose…
I claim time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR: The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I rise to oppose H.R. 4665.
This bill would impose devastating cuts on programs meant to keep both America and the world safe. With all due respect to my friend and colleague and the chair of this committee, I am not an adversary of the United States. Democrats are patriotic, and we want our country to lead in global security and peace. This bill does just the opposite.
This Republican bill would slash the allocation for international programs by nearly one-third, a level not seen since 2009. Do my Republican colleagues really think that our international challenges have shrunk? I don't know what world they are living in. The bill undermines the fight against climate change, and it would destroy our influence at the United Nations during a time when China and Russia are working to expand their voice and their role.
Most outrageously, the bill would gut programs intended to help the most vulnerable people in the world, undermining American global leadership and making a mockery of our human values and leaving a huge void for adversaries to fill.
I have spent much of my time in Congress talking about the three d's of our
national security: diplomacy, development, and defense. Each of these has a role to play in keeping our country safe and secure, and creating a world where kids and our grandkids can prosper.
The SFOPS bill is supposed to fund two of those d's, diplomacy and development. Instead, this Republican bill throws the three d's completely out of whack.
If House Republicans get their way, the Pentagon would receive 20 times more--let me repeat that, 20 times more--what this bill invests in diplomacy and development combined. Even our military leaders have spoken out against cuts to diplomacy and development because they know gutting these programs makes their jobs harder. Former Defense Secretary Mattis has famously said: If you don't fully fund the State Department, then I have to buy more ammunition.
Mr. Chair, the PRC now has more embassies and diplomats around the world than any other nation, including more than the United States, but Republicans would cut funding for our embassies and diplomats by $1.2 billion.
We have watched as the PRC challenges us at the United Nations and other multilateral institutions, working to insert their values of authoritarianism and disrespect for human rights, but Republicans are proposing to cut funding to the United Nations, leaving our adversaries waiting to fill the void that we leave behind.
The Republican bill asks our diplomats and development professionals to do more monitoring, reporting, and oversight, but then it shortchanges them on the funding that they need for operations and staffing. This is quite sinister.
The bill invites the culture wars into foreign policy by making diversity, drag queens, and critical race theory bogeymen and bogeywomen, distracting us from the real life-or-death challenges facing our world. It doesn't make any sense.
The bill also takes a really dishonest approach to the threat posed by climate change. Right now, people all around the world are confronting the impacts of human-caused climate change, life- threatening temperatures, crop failures, floods, and severe weather. They need help confronting the problem we largely created. Yet, the majority pretends that our climate finance investments are about controlling the planet's temperature, like some sort of global thermostat. That is not how it works. We have countries that might literally not exist in a generation because of the changes that are already happening.
We are spending billions each and every year, both here at home and overseas, dealing with humanitarian emergencies and responding to ever- stronger storms, raging fires, and devastating droughts. Failing to invest and adapt to the new reality means continued and escalating conflict and crisis, which puts Americans and people everywhere at risk.
Around the world, 218 million women still do not have access to the tools needed to decide when and how to have a baby. While hundreds of thousands of them die in childbirth, we are going to make it harder for women to access care through both policies and reduced funding in this bill.
I am very upset about how this bill attacks efforts to strengthen diversity in our foreign policy workforce. The rich diversity of the United States is one of our greatest strengths. People around the world--religious and ethnic minorities, people with disabilities, LGBTQ+ people--look first to the United States for support and inspiration as they seek to claim their human rights. It is unimaginable to me that my Republican colleagues--well, no, it is not really, given what is taking place in our own country. Once again, you all see a threat in our efforts to make sure that our diplomats and development experts reflect and respect that same diversity.
The world is watching us. The world is full of threats that don't respect borders, from climate change to pandemics to assertive dictators. Most countries would prefer to partner with the United States to confront these challenges. By bringing this bill to the floor with these cuts, to the House floor, mind you, the Republican majority broadcasts a clear message to the world to take a hike. Trust me, the PRC is ready to take advantage of our absence, and I think everyone has seen this around the world.
Mr. Chair, it is September 28. The government may shut down, unfortunately, even though we are fighting as Democrats to prevent this from happening, but today, we are considering a bill that has no chance of becoming law. We should be working today to make sure that we keep our government open.
House Democrats will not support a bill if it means turning our backs on the world's most vulnerable women or the looming threat of climate change.
In the end, final appropriations bills will need bicameral and bipartisan support, and today, we will likely get further away from that goal, not closer. This really is wasting everyone's time.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this destructive bill. We are not adversaries. We are patriotic, and we want our country to succeed in its mission and its role as a global leader leading peace and security efforts throughout the planet.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Meng), a member of the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Subcommittee.
Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lois Frankel), a member of the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Subcommittee.
Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), the ranking member of the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.
Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First, let me take a minute on the many partisan riders included in the bill being considered today and raise a couple of points.
The number of prohibitions seems to be really enormous. They have proliferated, often with little concern for what the actual ramifications might be.
It appears to be the approach of: If an organization has ever done something that you have not liked or a wild theory has circulated about it, we will just prohibit it. We will pick up our ball and take it home.
This is not just ineffective; it is really immature.
The bill prohibits funds for the Chinese Communist Party. This sounds tough. I was the previous chairwoman of the subcommittee, and this bill has not provided funding to the Chinese Communist Party. It is a red herring.
It prohibits scientific cooperation with countries we do not like, not stopping to consider that while there may or may not be active collaboration currently, there may come a time when it is in the United States' best interest to partner, not with the government, but with the people, with scientists, to pursue common goals.
Indeed, we carried on scientific cooperation with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, not because we agree with their government, but it was in our own interest.
The bill prohibits gain-of-function research. That sounds good but consider that this same prohibited research is producing new therapies for cancer and cystic fibrosis. This research also helps us produce insulin for people with diabetes.
Has the majority considered what the cost will be of cutting this off?
The bill prohibits funding for the World Health Organization because they won't admit Taiwan. It is the member countries of the WHO that are making this decision, not the organization. With this bill, the PRC will continue to work against Taiwan's inclusion, but the United States won't be there to help.
We are told that this bill is strong against our adversaries. I would argue just the opposite. This bill takes the easy route and leaves the field open for those who would challenge us. It makes dialogue and engagement harder and leaves our potential partners and allies who are deciding who they can turn to for help high and dry and, of course, that won't be the United States.
A couple points on the United Nations. The U.N. is the forum for every country in the world. The United States, to my knowledge, does not get to pick who gets to be a sovereign country. Leadership of the United Nations committees, the general assembly, they all rotate among members, which the chairman knows. This makes it even more important that the United States fully participates. This bill endangers that.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, the chairman and I respect each other. We have different points of view, and I consider us friends also.
I know, and I think the chairman knows, that many of our Republican colleagues do support robust investments in the SFOPS bill because I have seen the thousands of requests that Members have submitted this year and in prior years.
There is a long legacy of enlightened Republican support for foreign assistance. Congressional Republicans worked with Harry Truman to create the Marshall Plan which rebuilt Europe after a devastating war.
I worked with President Bush to create PEPFAR, which has saved 25 million lives from HIV and AIDS.
Yet, the majority has chosen to force this bill to the floor because they cynically believe that their Members will be happy to sacrifice the world's poorest people to make a political point.
To my Republican colleagues--I see you here on the floor today, and I am asking you to stand up and, yes, oppose this terrible bill. Please vote ``no,'' and let's get back together and write a bill that helps build the better and safer world that we want for our children and our grandchildren.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this en bloc. There is a list of bipartisan amendments in this to address various Members' priorities. I appreciate the collaborative way in which we have agreed on this package.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
Mr. Chair, it is really hard to believe that you all want to eliminate funding for the Institute of Peace, P-E-A-C- E. The Institute of Peace is one of the best tools the United States has to bring people together to prevent wars--government officials, civil society practitioners, and defense experts--to really to creatively solve our world's thorniest issues.
Congress created the United States Institute of Peace for this purpose in 1984. USIP applies practical solutions in conflict zones, and provides analysis, education, and resources to those working for peace. Peace is patriotic, my Republican friends.
USIP has specialized teams of mediators, trainers, and others in some of the world's most dangerous places and works to equip communities with the skills necessary to prevent or resolve their own violent conflicts before they threaten the United States.
Mr. Chair, I hope they understand that peace is the only option that we have to war. USIP works on the ground with local partners on the root causes of conflict that all too frequently result in America's military gains or diplomatic and development investments going to waste.
In a world that becomes more dangerous and complex every day, we need the services and the creative thinking of the United States Institute of Peace.
It is hard to believe the Republicans oppose peace. I guess that says that war is the option for settling conflicts, and I think the American people are war weary and support our efforts for peace. It is really a shame and a disgrace that you are uncovering this issue in terms of your opposition to peace.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
Mr. Chair, the OSCE is the world's largest regional security organization and has been critical in addressing the violent aggression of Russia.
The OSCE is actively engaged in conflict prevention, conventional arms control, peacekeeping, promoting good governance and human rights, rule-of-law programming, also border security measures, counternarcotics work, efforts to combat organized crime, anticorruption and anti-money laundering activities, and election support.
The OSCE is currently leading a Special Monitoring Mission in Ukraine. This mission is an unarmed civilian mission tasked to observe and to report on the situation resulting from ongoing Russian aggression to facilitate dialogue among all parties to restore peace, p-e-a-c-e, and to monitor and support the implementation of the cease- fire and other tenets of the Minsk peace agreements.
It is the only nonpartisan international body that maintains a continuous presence at the line of contact between the Ukrainian Armed Forces and Russian-led forces in eastern Ukraine. Peace in Ukraine, that is p-e-a-c-e, will be through organizations like the OSCE.
I am completely perplexed by my colleagues and can't figure out why they would not find this a good investment
of taxpayer dollars. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).
Mr. Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the United States Agency for International Development's global operations are essential to defending United States national security, asserting United States leadership and foreign policy influence, and advancing stability, security, and prosperity worldwide.
This account supports a direct-hire workforce focused on advancing the most critical and effective foreign assistance programs and ensuring strong relationships and stewardship and accountability of U.S. taxpayer dollars. A 50 percent reduction to the operating expenses account would devastate USAID operations, including its workforce, and its ability to implement critical foreign assistance and humanitarian assistance programs.
At this level, the Agency would be forced to reduce permanent U.S. direct-hire levels by about 1,845 positions. USAID would cut approximately 965 Foreign Service and 880 civil service positions. This 50 percent workforce reduction would require a reduction in force since eliminating the backfilling of positions lost through attrition would achieve only about an 8 percent cut.
USAID would significantly reduce its presence overseas, including closing some missions, once again leaving this void for our adversaries. This would leave these missions without American personnel to deliver aid from the American people and ensure our national security through development and humanitarian assistance.
This drastic staff cut would leave programs extremely vulnerable to waste, fraud, and abuse, and impair the Agency's ability to respond to ongoing and future natural and human crises, pandemics, and development challenges. It also will result in the termination of programs overseas, once again creating a void for our adversaries to fill.
This amendment is really counterproductive. We can't short fund staff charged with managing our foreign assistance programs and expect them to be effective. If we reduce our development efforts, we are not countering Russia and the PRC's influence. We are, instead, opening the door for their expanded global influence. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart).
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the United States Agency for International Development's capital investment fund supports facility construction, information technology, and real property maintenance.
These include efforts to accelerate the construction of new, secure, safe, and functional office facilities for USAID personnel overseas. Without this funding, these diplomats would be vulnerable and at greater risk for harm on less secured compounds.
This fund also supports information technology security, including efforts critical to cybersecurity and real property maintenance and repairs.
I don't hear the gentleman talking about the fact that the policy of countering Chinese influence costs a little bit of money, also. I think this provides us a bigger bang for our buck.
Without this funding, the Agency would be unable to upgrade and secure the IT environment against external and internal threats that could damage our national security and expose personally identifiable information of not only Americans but the participants we assist in times of crisis.
Mr. Chair, this amendment is shortsighted, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.
Mr. Chair, while this amendment does not have a budgetary effect, I thank my colleague for raising such an important issue for millions of women around the world.
For more than 200 women, female genital mutilation can mean health problems that haunt them for the rest of their lives.
The quest for gender equality will not be complete until women are no longer subjected to these practices, and I thank my colleague for raising this important issue.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart).
Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Salinas).
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
Mr. Chair, once again, I have no idea what my colleagues are trying to achieve.
All this amendment would do is double down on the harm Russia's aggression has already wreaked on the poorest countries of the world through higher food, fertilizer, and fuel costs.
This amendment would cut $750 million each from global health programs and the International Disaster Assistance accounts. These cuts would impose tremendous harm and suffering to the most vulnerable, including:
4 million children with malaria will go untreated;
350,000 deaths attributable to tuberculosis;
13 million fewer children vaccinated resulting in a possible 115,000 additional deaths; and
A reduction by over 45 percent of humanitarian assistance to Sudan compared to FY 2023 levels.
This doesn't sound much like pro-life to me, Mr. Chairman.
It would also eliminate the entire Official Development Assistance accounts, affecting agriculture and food security programs, education, and clean water for millions of the most vulnerable people in the world.
Development assistance is also used for Countering PRC Influence programs, which represents one of our most effective tools to counter and compete with the PRC globally.
It is really ridiculous, it is cruel, and it is not pro-life. These are not funds that would be targeted to Ukraine in any significant way. It has no impact on the Ukraine debate and would inflict harm on millions of people.
Mr. Chair, I would be happy to discuss with my colleagues about how we support Ukraine's pursuit of freedom, but this amendment would only alienate the rest of the world and forsake many of our allies' reliant on assistance from the United States.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, let me just suggest this: It really is an unrealistic position for the United States to allow 4 million children with malaria to go untreated, to allow 350,000 deaths attributable to tuberculosis, to allow 13 million fewer children vaccinated, resulting in a possible 115,000 additional deaths, and a reduction of over 45 percent of humanitarian assistance to Sudan compared to 2023 levels.
Very unrealistic, cruel, and unusual.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
USAID's International Disaster Assistance Account, or IDA, is a critical tool which supports our country's foreign policy objectives and serves as a lifeline for millions of people.
The IDA account provides lifesaving support including food, water, shelter, emergency healthcare, sanitation and hygiene, and critical nutrition services to the world's most vulnerable and hardest to reach people.
This assistance is needed now more than ever. After 20 years of decline, there are more people facing hunger now than in 2019, almost 30 percent of the global population.
Regardless of whether you have faith or not, I think that our values compel us to really address those in most need, not only in our own country, but, yes, throughout the world.
It is important to provide this humanitarian assistance because it is morally the right thing to do. Once again, those who are people of faith, or not, do this because it really does solidify our commitment to humankind, and, also, yes, our leadership and influence throughout the world.
It is unthinkable that the United States would stop providing this support to those who have lost everything through a natural disaster or conflict.
I am really ashamed that the Republicans want to do this. It is really a disgrace.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is shortsighted. It would potentially cut programs to strengthen democracy and human rights, protect religious freedom, and support economic reforms, among others.
Many of these programs counter malign influences and provide an alternative to the PRC's influence, financing, and activities.
These programs also offer and demonstrate another narrative from the authoritarianism promoted by the government of the PRC. The Economic Support Fund also advances critical security programs, such as countering terrorist radicalization and recruitment and improving governance and accountability. These are bigger challenges than they were just 5 years ago.
The fiscal year level that is sought by this amendment is totally unrealistic to accomplish our goals.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, this budget, first of all, is less than one half of 1 percent of the United States' GDP.
I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Kim).
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
Mr. Chair, the migration and refugee assistance account supports protection and assistance to ease the suffering of those who had to leave everything behind and become refugees. The funding also contributes to broader USG and international efforts to resolve conflicts that cause displacement.
This humanitarian aid saves lives and upholds the dignity of tens of millions of forcibly displaced and crisis-affected people, including refugees, victims of conflict, stateless persons, and vulnerable migrants.
There were more than 108 million forcibly displaced people globally at the end of 2022. This is the largest ever annual increase and represents the largest number of forcibly displaced in history.
Without assistance, nations will not accept the growing refugee populations in their countries, potentially destabilizing regions and threatening global peace, security, and stability. We should be doing more, not less, to support these individuals.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
Mr. Chair, the Peace Corps is one of the best investments in public diplomacy that we make. There is no way that Democrats have prioritized Peace Corps over veterans. We support our veterans. We support the Peace Corps.
What better ambassadors do we have than young American people willing to spend 2 years overseas and build goodwill with people around the world?
I know many of us have met these young people when traveling overseas or have discussed with our own constituents after they have participated in this life-changing experience.
The Peace Corps account in this bill is already $20 million below its current level, endangering the return of volunteers in the field after COVID and the reopening of new sites, particularly in the Pacific Islands, where strong American diplomacy is sorely needed.
Cuts are already threatening the ability to support the 5,000 volunteers across 51 countries that the Peace Corps has responsibility for.
Once again, Democrats support the Peace Corps. Democrats support and thank our veterans for their service.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I am not so sure that our veterans would appreciate being used as a pawn in this game to try to defund and cut funding for young people. I have talked to many veterans who appreciate the Peace Corps and appreciate the work that they are doing to help ensure that Americans have the best ambassadors in the world. Our veterans would not want to hear of this pawn game being played in opposition to the Peace Corps.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
Mr. Chair, this amendment would reduce the contribution of the United States to the Global Environmental Facility by $10 million. The Global Environmental Facility is a multilateral trust fund that provides grant-based funding to developing countries to address the real global environmental challenges.
Last month was the hottest August, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's 174-year record. In that one month, Hawaii had a devastating wildfire, the Southeast suffered from Category 3 Hurricane Idalia, and southern California had its first-ever tropical storm watch, with many areas receiving more rain in 48 hours than they typically get all year. These disasters come with huge costs in the communities they directly affect and impact our entire planet.
The Global Environmental Facility fund benefits the United States economy and environment by addressing problems that affect our domestic health, safety, and prosperity, such as by protecting tropical forests, reducing global levels of transboundary pollutants, and combating illegal wildlife
trafficking, which I know is of concern to many on both sides of the aisle.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
Mr. Chair, first, the executive branch has the ability to determine how the United States engages and manages our relationship with Taiwan. It had that ability during the last administration. That is because Congress left it to the executive branch to conduct diplomacy and the recognition or nonrecognition of foreign states and governments in this case.
If you wish to legislate how the executive branch should engage with Taiwan, then markup a separate bill in the Foreign Affairs Committee that just deals with that. In the absence of that, the executive branch needs to determine how to handle diplomatic engagements abroad. Again, the last administration did just that.
It is their job to weigh multiple equities and balance delicate factors that are simply not considered by this amendment today.
The gentleman knows that Taiwan is a sensitive geopolitical subject with respect to our relations with the People's Republic of China. That is why we have a Select Committee in the House on it. I think this is something that they could examine, but there is too much at stake to have this amendment decide what the guidelines for engagement will be.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this is really despicable to target dedicated public servants and threaten their livelihoods--public servants doing their jobs and carrying out the policy of the administration--regardless of which administration it is--they serve. They should be commended and not demonized.
Our government is dependent on being able to attract the best talent to bring their skills to public service, especially when in most cases they could earn much more in the private sector.
Who is going to be willing to do that if their names can be dragged through the political mud?
Secretary Blinken is a dedicated public servant who has proudly represented the United States while serving in multiple high-level positions.
This is not how we solve policy differences. We should not make it personal and about people doing their jobs.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, this, quite frankly, is unconstitutional, first of all. It doesn't make any sense, second. It really sends the worst signal in the world for those young people who want to go into public service serving our country. I am really shocked.
Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
Mr. Chair, this amendment is a clear attempt to return to the punitive and shortsighted policies of the previous administration with regard to the Palestinians.
Let's get one thing straight. American diplomacy and engagement are not rewards to our friends and things to hold over the heads of those we are trying to pressure to bring about change. Diplomacy and engagement serve our own interests.
United States policy is to support a two-state solution in the Middle East--that is the United States policy, and the only path to peace--and to avoid any steps by any party that makes that goal harder to reach.
By keeping a channel of communications open, the Palestinian Affairs Unit is an important part of that strategy.
I have and will continue to urge the Biden administration to reset U.S. relations with the Palestinian people, and to resume the United States' role as a credible and constructive leader in the region.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, just to clarify and to tell the truth. This is a unit; it is not a mission. It is a unit, mind you, within the embassy.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, Russia's brutal and unprovoked attack on Ukraine is not just a threat to Ukraine and its neighbors but to the world. If Russia succeeds in its aggression, other unprovoked attacks are inevitable.
As my colleague, Representative Hoyer, said last week on the House floor: ``We are locked in a struggle between freedom and fascism, democracy and despotism, might and right. The war in Ukraine is that struggle manifest.''
Ukraine's democracy is being undermined every single day. Entire cities have been demolished. Women and girls are being sexually abused by Russian soldiers. Hospitals and schools, which should be safe havens, are being intentionally attacked. Thousands of innocent children and their families have been brutally murdered. Millions of Ukrainians have been forced to flee their country.
Colleagues, we must continue to ensure that Ukraine has the funding and support it needs to defend itself and that vulnerable people continue to receive lifesaving assistance.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, Russia's brutal and unprovoked attack on Ukraine is not just a threat to Ukraine, as I said earlier, and its neighbors but also to the world.
If Russia succeeds in its aggression, other provoked attacks are inevitable.
Drawdown of existing equipment has proven to be the fastest and most efficient way to get defensive weapons--mind you, defensive weapons--to Ukraine.
We must continue to ensure Ukraine has the military equipment and materiel it needs to defend itself. This materiel is determined by the Department of Defense not to be needed domestically, and supplying it to Ukraine will not endanger U.S. readiness.
The stakes could not be higher. Russia will not stop with Ukraine if the resolve of the world is not clear.
Remember, this is the most efficient way to get defensive weapons to Ukraine.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
Mr. Chair, there is no doubt that Lebanon is in full-blown crisis. It has lacked an elected leader for almost a year. Its economy is crippled and the presence of Hezbollah, as both an armed actor and a political party, remains a challenge to national unity. At the same time, it hosts 1.5 million refugees from Syria.
However, the Lebanese Armed Forces are considered by many to be the only functioning institution in Lebanon, transcending sectarian divides. This is largely thanks to the successful United States program to train and equip it.
The Lebanese Armed Forces are broadly respected and traditionally played an important role in promoting national unity with neutrality and moderation. They have also been instrumental in maintaining domestic security and in counterterrorism by tackling threats posed by groups like ISIS or al-Qaida.
The United States needs to pursue a democratic, pluralistic, and sovereign Lebanon and the Armed Forces are a key part of that.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, there is no mistake with regard to the error the United States made in going to war with Iraq in 2003, a decision which I proudly opposed. It was based on lies that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and we knew there were none.
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 an uncountable 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.
That is as a result of the United States' invasion of Iraq, which I believe, as I remember it, very few, if any, Republicans, opposed. There were about 133 Democrats opposing this.
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 we have with other nations. In partnership with Iraq, we have worked to ensure a stable, prosperous, and democratic country, which, quite frankly, we in many ways destroyed.
Our assistance to Iraq mitigates extremism through programming that promotes mutual respect, tolerance, and understanding, provides support to the recovery of religious and ethnic minorities liberated from ISIS, including Christians and the Yezidis, and supports private-sector development and increased work opportunities, especially for women and youth.
Additionally, USG-supported stabilization programs have enabled the return of nearly 5 million internally displaced persons to return to their communities of origin. But nearly 1.2 million people remain displaced, including 200,000 Yezidis who survived genocide at the hands of ISIS. USAID assistance is critical to restoring essential services and increasing stability among these vulnerable populations.
Furthermore, our continued assistance in Iraq is vital to ensure the defeat of ISIS by supporting the reintegration of Iraqis repatriated from northeast Syria which meets the national security priority of the U.S. Government's Al-Hol Action Plan.
It is in the security interests of the United States to continue supporting Iraq, as well as our moral responsibility not to abandon our partnership, especially with the unnecessary invasion and war in Iraq, which many of us opposed.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).
Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
Mr. Chair, it is very clear from the science that the most existential crisis this the world faces is from the growing climate crisis. Without intervention, our warming planet will have irreversible negative impacts on the United States and throughout the world.
Climate change has resulted in lives upended in Texas and Florida and has led to extreme flooding in California and Vermont and throughout the country.
Climate is not an issue that can be addressed by countries on their own. Air, water, pollution--they do not respect boundaries or sovereignty. The Paris Agreement in recognition of this brought all countries together around joint goals achieved by individual country plans.
As proposed, this amendment would significantly damage the efforts of the United States to support developing countries as they pursue efforts to implement their commitments under the Paris Agreement.
In addition, a wide range of U.S. climate and development programs would be impacted by this amendment, and it would seriously impede our ability to implement our obligations under the Paris Agreement. It would also prohibit the Department of State from participating in critical international climate negotiations.
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 crisis around the world.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, many of our developing country allies have made it very clear that strengthening their ability to address climate change and the threat that it poses is an overriding national priority, and they are looking to the United States for support. I was in COP27 in Egypt a couple of years ago, and this is exactly the message that was sent.
The FY24 House State and Foreign Ops bill willfully ignores the changing climate and its implications for so many other global challenges this bill is intended to address, including promoting food and water security, global health, the protection of tropical forests and other vital natural resources, and social and political stability in strategically important regions.
According to the World Bank, climate change could put 132 million people into extreme poverty by 2030 and could drive the internal migration of an additional 216 million people by 2050.
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 valuable tools?
These are not problems anyone can solve alone. We must work with others which make cooperation and our multilateral tools work. That is what we need, such as the Clean Technology Fund, the Green Climate Fund, the Global Environmental Facility--all of these and more are so important.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, just one point I would like to mention with regard to the climate emergency, which it is.
Our young people deserve a future. They deserve a planet that is here for them, and I think we need to understand that the work we do in this House--or that we are not doing--really affects their future and their lives and their livelihoods.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chair, as I said earlier, it is quite despicable to target dedicated public servants and threaten their livelihoods--public servants doing their jobs and carrying out the policies of this administration or any administration. They deserve to 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?
Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield retired as one of our most distinguished foreign service officers after 35 years of service to this country.
She returned from retirement in order to take on her current role as United Nations Ambassador, and she represents the United States admirably each and every single day.
This is how we solve our policy differences? We should not make it personal and about people doing their jobs.
I have worked with and have known Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield. All the unbelievable bashing of who she is, her credentials, and what she has provided for this country is unacceptable and disgusting.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I hope that the gentlewoman and others really understand that public service is public service. This is not a private corporation. This is our Federal Government. This is who we are as a country, bringing forth our efforts to achieve global peace and security in the world. To continue to try to demonize our public servants is something that hopefully our young people are totally ignoring because we want them to come on board as Foreign Service ambassadors on behalf of this country.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
Mr. Chair, let me just say, these amendments really are disgusting. They are a mockery of our serious foreign policy debates. They are harassing in many ways our public servants, and they become about vengeance.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, these are not rogue bureaucrats. These are public servants who are implementing the foreign policies of the United States of America.
If, in fact, one does not agree with our foreign policies, then it is up to Members of Congress to change those foreign policies, not denigrate and demean our public servants.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
Mr. Chair, this amendment would reduce the salary of a career public servant to $1. Why? Because this individual is the acting chief of the Office of Diversity and Inclusion.
The mission of the office is to build and support a workforce at the State Department that reflects the people of our Nation. The State Department is an essential component of our national security.
The gentlewoman said that no clear set of problems exist. Do you know what? The clear set of problems is systemic racism, discrimination, the lack of equal opportunity within our Foreign Service. That is all.
Conducting diplomacy that serves the interests and honors the values of the American people requires a Department of State that reflects the rich diversity of our Nation. Otherwise, if it doesn't, then that is a very unfortunate and backward perspective, given the fact that discrimination is still alive in America. It is alive and well.
Our diversity, once again, is our national strength. It is a comparative advantage that we have for our engagement and leadership in a diverse world.
This individual has over 30 years of State Department experience. She should not be personally demonized and targeted for her work on behalf of our Nation. What she is doing is trying to ensure that we honor our pledge to live up to liberty and justice for all. It is going to take some intentional work of the State Department to correct hundreds of years of racism.
Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to the time remaining.
Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
Once again, the target of this amendment has been a career member of the Foreign Service for 26 years and served all around the world.
Now, the majority already passed an amendment to defund the Palestinian Affairs Unit at the United States Embassy. It is very clear to me that what the majority is attempting to do is to decimate our Foreign Service and its public servants, and I hope the country understands what this means in terms of the lack of a presence throughout the world in our efforts to achieve global peace and security.
Once again, it is a shame and disgrace, but the pattern is here. We understand the motives, and the motives are to decimate the State Department.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
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, just let me make a couple of points.
First of all, 2023 marked the 76th anniversary of our partnership with Pakistan, the fifth largest country in the world by population.
Strengthening Pakistan's economy, education system, delivering humanitarian assistance, such as the support we provided for the devastating floods that they faced in 2023--I remember the gentlewoman from Texas, we were in Africa, and she left Africa and went over to Pakistan to help with the response to the devastating humanitarian tragedy that occurred in Pakistan. I wasn't able to go with her. I thank her for her leadership in representing the United States.
We must maintain the stability of the country and the region and help prevent the spread of extremism that we see surfacing.
It is up to us to provide U.S. aid and assistance to Pakistan for programs that promote peace and security. This is important, just based on our humanitarian concern for people who have been impacted and have to live through such devastation.
Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly, and Regular Migration supports humane migration around the world. It is the first intergovernmental agreement to cover all dimensions of international migration at a time when we are facing a migration crisis, as my colleagues like to remind us.
The Global Compact's guiding principles and objectives encompass a range of humanitarian, development, and other migration management activities, most of which the United States Government supported long before the Global Compact on Migration existed.
These activities include the provision of lifesaving humanitarian assistance, countering trafficking in persons, border management, access to consular services, and also dignified return and reintegration.
In 2022, we saw a 21 percent increase in displaced people around the world. The largest ever single-year increase, and the largest number of people forcibly displaced in written history. It is only common sense to work with others on this challenge.
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.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the Department of State through the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration funds the transportation of refugees admitted into the United States Refugee Admissions Program for resettlement to the United States through IOM.
Refugees admitted into the program and ready for travel to the United States receive interest-free loans from IOM to pay for their transportation from their overseas location to their domestic resettlement site.
Upon accepting the travel loan, refugees sign a promissory note to repay the loan over time.
The transportation is provided in the form of a loan, not a grant because the core belief of the program is that refugees' financial participation in making repayments against their debt will strengthen their determination to make a success of their migration.
In a melting pot like the United States, which some have probably forgotten, I shouldn't have to remind anyone of the valuable contributions of refugees to our Nation. Maybe I do need to remind the other side of this.
Refugees from Afghanistan, Burma, or Yemen are seeking a new, more stable home, and they deserve our support.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, once again, I guess I need to either clarify or tell the truth about the loan repayment percentage. My colleague indicated that less than 1 percent of these loans are paid back, but I have to tell you, approximately 81 percent of all IOM travel loan amounts are repaid within 10 years. As of the end of fiscal year 2022, 84 percent of IOM travel amounts were repaid within 15 years. That is the truth.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, 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.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me just state a fact. President Biden and Vice President Harris saved many, many, many lives.
Secondly, this amendment would prohibit the use of funds to enforce or implement a COVID-19 vaccine mandate for individuals traveling outside of the United States. Guess what? Let me just point out that there is not and has not been a COVID vaccine requirement for travelers outside of the United States. I don't know why we would mandate people leaving the United States be vaccinated. The gentlewoman knows that. Those are requirements usually, and most of the time for countries that have those requirements, they are set by those countries for people entering their borders.
Once again, this is disingenuous, and I am determined to tell the truth about what the majority is trying to do and what message they are trying to send.
Setting health requirements for travelers coming into the United States may be an important health response, but that would not be a decision by the State Department. I am not sure what this amendment really is trying to achieve.
As the COVID pandemic continues to remind us--and, yes, COVID is still alive and well--infectious diseases do not abide by national boundaries. While some would like to act like COVID is over, it is not. In the United States, more than 500 people die from COVID each week. That is a fact. That is a fact. It is clear to those families that COVID is not over.
New variants are an expected part of the evolution of viruses and can be more aggressive, transmittable, or cause more severe disease than the original strain. That is a fact. Our Nation's public health officials need to have options available to them to protect our communities as we continue to live with COVID, as well as other infectious diseases. That is a fact.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment has nothing to do with securing our southern border or fentanyl or anything else. What this amendment actually does is misrepresent the actual reality of our policy. There is not and has not been a COVID vaccine requirement for travelers outside of the United States. This amendment would prohibit the use of funds to enforce or implement a COVID vaccine mandate for individuals traveling outside of the United States, which does not exist. This amendment has nothing to do with the southern border or fentanyl.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, U.S. relations with Mexico are strong and vital. Our two countries share a 2,000-mile border with 55 active ports of entry, and our bilateral relations with Mexico have a direct impact on the lives and livelihoods of millions of Americans.
I was born and raised in the border town of El Paso, Texas, and I know the importance of the exchanges and support between Mexico and the United States. Our significant cooperation on issues, including trade and economic reform, entrepreneurship and innovation, and energy, are as critical today as they have ever been.
Cutting ESF assistance to Mexico would have severe detrimental impacts, crippling the work we do to reduce violence, build a better business environment, and address the root causes of migration.
Without our continued support, our assistance to keep youth released from prison from recommitting criminal offenses and being recruited by cartels and other organizations would not be able to continue.
The work we do to level the playing field for investors, which includes bringing greater transparency to corrupt business practices and promoting growth in key sectors central to the United States' businesses, such as semiconductors, for example, would be negatively impacted.
Cutting ESF would undermine our work to create economic opportunities in high out-migration areas in Mexico's least developed areas and states.
A prosperous and safe Mexico should not only and will not only benefit the Mexican people but us, as well.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I recently returned from representing the United States at the United Nations General Assembly, and I would be happy to talk to any of my colleagues about the value of our partnership with the United Nations system.
It is not perfect--no large bureaucracy is--but our ability to improve its operations, make sure its stances reflect our values, and have the United Nations serve its mission for peace hinges on the United States being an active, participating member of the organization.
Organizations like UNICEF deliver last-mile education and health services in over 120 countries. If you have ever seen kids in South Sudan--and I have many times--walking with their blue UNICEF backpacks to school or visited with 1 of the 365 million kids under the age of 5 who received malnutrition services last year, you would know that their presence is real and felt by millions of kids and their families around the world.
This amendment would cut off contributions to UNICEF. What will these young people think about the United States, quite frankly, when they grow up?
I don't think they would be very happy to know that we actually cut off humanitarian assistance, especially what UNICEF delivers on behalf of the United States.
The United Nations Development Program worked with 26 countries in 2021 to implement national action plans to tackle radicalization and registered 38 million new voters. Eighty percent of these 38 million were women. They helped 82 countries adopt digital platforms for commerce and governance, cutting down on corruption. This amendment would cut off contributions to UNDP and many others.
I fully support the authorization of these entities, but we all know that will not happen overnight. While we work toward that goal, we can't cut off participation and support.
Once again, we are retreating from our responsibilities as a global leader throughout the world.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I guess I am totally confused, then, because I don't know why we would want to cut off the funds for children through UNICEF, UNDP, and other agencies when, in fact, the gentlewoman should take this to the Foreign Affairs Committee. That is where her initiative belongs.
In terms of the authorizing process, that belongs in the Foreign Affairs Committee. It doesn't belong here on an appropriations bill to defund programs that are providing badly needed malnutrition services for children.
We can't just cut this off. These are appropriated funds the authorizing committee authorizes, and that is where this belongs.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, it is clear from the science that the most existential crisis the world faces is from the growing climate crisis. It is an emergency.
Without intervention, our warming planet will have negative impacts on the United States and throughout the world.
This bill already ignores the changing climate and its implications for so many other global challenges, including promoting food and water security, global health, the protection of tropical forests and other vital natural resources, and social and political stability in strategically important regions.
According to the World Bank, changes in the environment could put 132 million people back into extreme poverty by 2030, only a few more years. It also could drive the internal migration of an additional 216 million people by 2050.
The State Department through the office that this amendment is defunding must be able to work with other countries and use every tool available to us to prevent the worst of increasingly ferocious natural disasters, failing crops, loss of biodiversity, and the rise of new diseases.
The climate crisis poses threats to the stability of countries, heightens social and political tensions, and adversely affects food prices and availability. This again, as I said earlier, is according to our own military.
The need for foreign assistance will only increase if we do not address this significant driver of crises around the world. At COP27, this is what we heard over and over and over again, so it is critical that we continue to fund the work of this office.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, the gentlewoman says that this office is going to destroy the prosperity of America, but I would suggest that this amendment will continue to destroy our planet. Our young people deserve better.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I understand the underlying wish for all of us to get back to the way things were prior to the onset of the COVID pandemic. However, a total ban seems a bit excessive.
The government as a whole is in competition with the private sector for workers. The priority of where they live has changed for some workers, and without being offered this flexibility, the State Department may find it more difficult to recruit or retrain exceptional employees, which seems to be the goal of some on the other side.
Technology now exists that was never contemplated only a few years ago and opens new possibilities for how to be effective, productive participants in any office, whether physically present or not.
We need to ensure that our national security and effective diplomacy is conducted by the most capable employees. Options should be available to the Department.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, boy, is this the level we have gotten to, to tell the State Department what meetings they cannot attend?
Will we start saying what meetings they have to attend?
The Clinton Global Initiative is a platform for government philanthropy, business, media, and academia to discuss identified problems and brainstorm solutions. We should be encouraging such collaboration.
The problems facing the world are daunting, and solutions will not come from one place. Let's take good ideas from wherever we can and not micromanage who goes to what meetings.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I understand what this amendment does, and I don't accept the fact that it is a corrupt organization. I do know the importance of these meetings and conferences in terms of us coming together for solutions to lead us to global peace and security.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, finally, I will just say what this does: It is another attempt to chip away at our diplomacy.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
The Acing CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Chair, this science and technology agreement, or STA, with the PRC was extended for 6 months this past August and does not commit us to a longer-term extension. 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 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 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.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, this amendment would not allow only renegotiation. That is why I oppose it.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
Mr. Chair, once again, the subject of this amendment has been a public servant.
This public servant has worked at USAGM for nearly 25 years speaking truth to Iranians and promoting democratic values of American society.
Once again, if we have policy issues, let's discuss it, but, please, we have to stop demeaning our public servants.
Mr. Chair, 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.
The subject of this amendment, again, has served in the government for 15 years, including time in two inspectors general offices.
Once again, the other side continues to try to really destroy our dedicated public servants. I don't quite understand it.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, bad behavior is not being rewarded. Public servants are doing their jobs, and they are carrying out the policies of the United States of America.
This is a personnel decision. All of these would be personnel decisions. Unfortunately, they are being politicized, and it is really a shame and disgrace that our public servants, who represent us so well, are the subject of these despicable attacks.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.