Barbara Lee

Ms. LEE of California

Ms. LEE of California. 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.

Ms. LEE of California. 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.

Ms. LEE of California. 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.

Ms. LEE of California

Ms. LEE of California. 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

Ms. LEE of California

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

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

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

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

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

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 claim the time in opposition to this amendment.

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote, 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 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.

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

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

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

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

Ms. LEE of California. 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.

Ms. LEE of California. 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.

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. 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.

Ms. LEE of California. 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.

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