Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to the bill. At the outset, though, I want to congratulate our subcommittee chair on shepherding her very first bill to the House floor. The bill before us…
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in opposition to the bill. At the outset, though, I want to congratulate our subcommittee chair on shepherding her very first bill to the House floor. The bill before us provides $62.2 billion for the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs. That is a 12 percent increase, Mr. Speaker, over the fiscal year 2021 enacted level.
The bill provides important funding for our national security, including $3.3 billion for Israel. The recent conflict between Israel and Hamas, and the looming shadow of Hezbollah and Iran, remind us all of the threats Israel faces to its security every day.
The fighting in Gaza stopped when it did, in part, due to the diplomatic efforts of Egypt. As Secretary of State Blinken told the committee, Egypt was vital to helping arrange the cease-fire and remains an essential partner for the United States in the region-- Egypt.
While the bill maintains funding for Egypt at the current level, I strongly disagree with the additional conditions that this bill places on Egypt.
The bill continues critical funding for Jordan, supports countries facing Russian aggression, and provides resources to meet our commitments in the Indo-Pacific, including $300 million for the Countering Chinese Influence Fund.
The bill provides funding for Colombia, our good ally and friend, at last year's level. This is a critical moment for that country, and we should be doing all we can to support them. However, I regret that new conditions that this bill places could undermine our counternarcotics efforts, which are critical in Colombia.
Our programs there are in our own self-interest, especially given the amount of cocaine that still floods American streets and causes so much destruction in our communities back home.
Another drug problem sowing chaos back home is the opioid epidemic. The bill includes new language that directs the State Department to expand their current efforts to tackle the opioid crisis and better address this terrible problem.
Mr. Speaker, I wish I could stop there and say this is a good bill. Unfortunately, the spending increases outside of these critical areas are just too great, and the policy riders are too extreme.
First and foremost are changes made to the longstanding measures that protect the sanctity of life. These are commonsense provisions that have enjoyed bipartisan support for decades. Of greatest concern is the removal of the most important condition in any State-Foreign Operations bill, that no funds can be used to pay for abortion. The removal of that language is unprecedented, but it doesn't stop there.
The bill also includes a permanent prohibition of the Mexico City policy, weakens the Kemp-Kasten restrictions on coercive abortion, and increases funding to the U.N., among many other controversial changes.
Another tough pill for the American taxpayer to swallow is the more than $3 billion included in this bill for environmental programs that bring a high potential for duplication, wasteful complexity, and substantial oversight challenges.
The bill also increases funding for the United Nations and other international organizations while ignoring the need for long-overdue and desperately needed reforms.
The absence of conditions on the World Health Organization is particularly concerning, given what we all know about their complicity in covering up the COVID-19 outbreak.
Despite some areas of agreement, the unrestrained spending and unprecedented partisan riders require that I oppose this legislation. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger), the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the Republican whip.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. Speaker, I urge a rejection of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I claim time in support of the amendments, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This amendments en bloc contains a number of good proposals by both sides of the aisle. I want to highlight just a few.
It includes language offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch) to increase funding for the Office of the Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs. This will help ensure that this office has resources we need to ensure that U.S. citizens unlawfully or wrongfully detained abroad receive priority attention from our government.
It also includes a provision supported by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany) that is in support of our close friend and partner Taiwan. At a time when the Chinese Communist Party has Taiwan in its crosshairs, we need to do all we can to support our democratic friends on that island. I, therefore, urge Members to support the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany).
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, I urge support of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of the amendments en bloc. Madam Speaker, the amendments en bloc before us includes seven amendments that would significantly improve the quality of this bill.
It includes an amendment that would prohibit funding to the U.N. Population Fund and strike funding for family planning and reproductive health. I am gravely concerned about the longstanding pro-life provisions that were stripped from the bill this fiscal year, all of them. Allowing the bill to proceed without protections for the unborn, like those in this amendment, is unprecedented and a direct hit to the sanctity of life around the world.
Also included in this en bloc is an amendment that would prohibit contributions to various climate organizations, such as the Green Climate Fund. The underlying bill provides over $3 billion for climate change programs, including nearly $2 billion for ill-advised contributions to international climate funds. At a time when American families continue to struggle to make ends meet and foreign aid is under great scrutiny, proposing such politically motivated misuses of taxpayer funding adds insult to injury.
The en bloc also includes an amendment that would prohibit funds for U.S. membership and/or contributions to the World Health Organization. The underlying bill, as currently written, includes no reforms of the WHO, even though they are complicit in covering up the COVID-19 pandemic. Without necessary safeguards in place to improve WHO transparency, American taxpayer funds should not be used for this organization.
Similarly, the amendments en bloc includes a proposal to reduce funding for the Contributions to International Organizations account. The base bill includes an increase for international organizations, but without conditions or requirements for reform, this is simply too much funding.
The amendments included in this amendment give the bill a far greater chance of being signed into law. It includes longstanding pro-life provisions that enjoy support from the majority of the American public and commonsense safeguards to ensure taxpayer dollars are used in the most efficient manner.
Madam Speaker, I urge support for the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Tony Gonzales).
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
Madam Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, this amendments en bloc contains several measures that could have enjoyed broad support. Unfortunately, it also includes several amendments that some on our side are unable to accept. One is by the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Omar), which would transfer funds from foreign military financing to the development assistance account.
At a time when the United States is facing serious national security challenges around the globe, including from China and Russia, we should be increasing U.S. security assistance rather than holding it flat or, worse yet, reducing it to increase an account that this bill already increases by 15 percent.
We simply face too many challenges to be cutting national security funding at this time.
Madam Speaker, finally, I also need to mention the self-executing manager's amendment offered by our distinguished subcommittee chair relating to the expansion of global currency reserves by the International Monetary Fund. This amendment would require the Secretary of the Treasury to support the issuance of an additional $2.1 trillion of special drawing rights, an IMF reserve asset, to all member countries of the fund. This is in addition to a whopping $650 billion that was already issued earlier this year.
This is a highly controversial proposal that appears to run counter to other administration policies, including claims of prioritizing efforts to counter the maligned influence of Russia and China.
This plan could result in many billions in additional reserves being sent to the world's most notorious dictatorships and state sponsors of terror, such as Iran, Venezuela, Russia, and China.
Not only does this unwise scheme go against the stated goals and objectives of the White House, but it also could hinder Treasury's efforts to penalize and pressure these malign state actors through extensive U.S. sanction regimes.
Why go to all the trouble of putting in place and enforcing these sanctions when this proposal for the IMF to issue trillions in additional liquidity could significantly undercut years of pressure carefully designed to advance our national interest?
Madam Speaker, for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendments en bloc, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart).
Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.