Barbara Lee

Ms. LEE of California

Ms. LEE of California. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. LEE of California. 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.

Ms. LEE of California. 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.

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

Ms. LEE of California. 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.

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. LEE of California. 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.

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. LEE of California. 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.

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

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. LEE of California. 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.

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

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. LEE of California. 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.

Ms. LEE of California. 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.

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. LEE of California. 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.

Ms. LEE of California. 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.

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment No. 72 Offered by Mr. Waltz