Barbara Lee

Ms. LEE of California

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

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Once again, we are retreating from the world, and this amendment, again, makes that point. It would eliminate the United States' contribution to the Global Environment Facility. Now, the Global Environment Facility is a multilateral trust fund that provides grant-based funding to developing countries to address global environmental challenges. These are some of the most vulnerable countries in the world. The Global Environment Facility fund benefits the U.S. economy and the environment by addressing problems that affect our domestic health, safety, and prosperity, such as by protecting tropical forests, reducing transboundary pollutants, and combating illegal wildlife tracking, which I know is a concern of both sides of the aisle and Members on both sides of the aisle. Every one of our districts has been challenged by severe drought, rainfall, storms, and heat. We are continuing to spend more and more on humanitarian needs caused by these disasters, both domestically and abroad. We need to get ahead of these crises. Helping communities cope, especially those with the least means to do so, is both moral and smart. Why are we demonizing these programs and cutting ourselves off from these valuable tools? These are not problems anyone can solve alone. We must work with others, which makes cooperation and our multilateral tools, such as the Global Environment Facility, real. Cuts will disrupt and dismantle what we are trying to accomplish in this world, and that is to make sure that our children have a future on this planet. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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. Now, the United States Institute of Peace, that is p-e-a-c- e, or USIP, is one of the best tools the United States has to bring people together to prevent wars. Government officials, civil society practitioners, and defense experts creatively solve our world's problems and our world's thorniest issues. Congress created the United States Institute of Peace in 1984. Again, I will spell it, p-e-a-c-e. Some Members don't even like to use the term ``peace.'' We created it in 1984. It applies practical solutions directly in conflict zones and provides analysis, education, and resources to those working for peace, p-e-a-c-e. USIP has specialized teams of mediators, trainers, and others in some of the world's most dangerous places and works to equip communities with the skills necessary to prevent or resolve their own violent conflicts before they threaten the United States. It is in our own national security interest not to cut programs that cut the budget of the United States Institute of P-e-a-c-e. The USIP works on the ground with local partners on the root causes of conflict that all too frequently result in America's military gains or diplomatic development investments going to waste. In a world that grows more dangerous and complex every day with wars and rumors of wars, we need the services and the creative thinking of the United Institute of P-e-a-c-e. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I hope that you all will begin to use the word ``peace'' a little bit more because I think your children and grandchildren would be grateful. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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. Quite frankly, it is despicable to target dedicated public servants and threaten their livelihoods. Public servants doing their job and carrying out the policies of this administration or any administration that they serve should be commended, not demonized. Our government is dependent on being able to attract the best talent to bring their skills to public service, especially when, in most cases, they could earn much more in the private sector. Who is going to be willing to do that if their names can be dragged through the political mud? The subject of this amendment has been a public servant at USAGM for nearly 25 years speaking truth to Iranians and promoting the democratic values of American society. This is a personnel matter and should be dealt with as such. It is not for appropriations. If you have an issue with the policy, let's discuss that, not penalize public servants who are representing the administration that they serve and have dedicated their careers to the United States. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Let me just start by saying if we are really talking about misusing taxpayer money, remember that the Pentagon has flunked six audits. This amendment prohibits any funding from going to the U.S. Agency for Global Media, or USAGM. USAGM informs, engages, and connects people around the world, giving them an opportunity for independent media that may not be available in their own country. At a time when more democracies are declining and even sliding into autocracies than any other point in the last century, we cannot afford to cut USAGM programs. Funding for these programs targets programming in the languages of Iran, Russia, the PRC, and other authoritarian States to push back on false narratives about American policies that these adversaries are spreading and builds the capabilities that USAGM needs to deliver content to its global audience quickly and reliably. One of the organizations that USAGM oversees, Voices of America, has an audience of more than 358 million people around the world. Their trusted and objective news is translated into 48 languages in order to share American stories and perspectives that locals would not otherwise have access to. Another organization, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, provides uncensored news in countries where free press is threatened and disinformation is pervasive. These programs are key to outcompeting China and combating Russian disinformation. They are key to our success on the global stage. USAGM's open technology fund provides a range of tools to help audiences overcome internal restrictions, especially in countries like Iran where the internet can be a lifeline. Through its grantees and Federal agencies, USAGM is reaching more than 420 million people weekly, and the great majority of those audiences have reported that they find the information they receive to be trustworthy. USAGM deserves our continued support, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this shortsighted amendment. I reserve the balance of my time

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, 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. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. Climate change has resulted in lives upended in Texas, Florida, and Oklahoma, and has led to extreme heat across the entire Northeast just last week. The climate crisis poses threats to the stability of countries, heightens social and political tensions, and adversely affects food prices and availability. This is according to our own military. The need for foreign assistance will only increase if we do not address the significant driver of crises around the world. No country can solve the climate crisis alone. This requires a multilateral effort. Our climate envoy is lending his energy and talents and collaborating with other countries to address these concerns. His relationships with foreign leaders are a benefit to the United States and our efforts. I would think we would want to thank him for doing this. Again, we should be thanking people who are serving the American people, not demonizing them for it. Funding the Special Presidential Envoy and his office is a requirement if we are to protect national security, strengthen the economy, and leave behind a safer planet for our children and grandchildren. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, 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, which would prohibit any funding to the World Economic Forum, which we don't fund. The reality is that no funds from this bill go to the World Economic Forum. Therefore, this amendment would establish another prohibition for no reason. This is the appropriations process, a process that historically focused on making things happen rather than making prohibitions on things that are not being done, just in case you all didn't know. I will tell you that this is really quite amazing to me that we could prohibit funding for something we don't fund. Since this is my last appropriations process, I cannot be more disheartened with what is happening to the essential work of this committee when we start defunding what we don't fund. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, this is mind-boggling. I guess, once again, we are doing something that does not make any sense in this process. The other point I think I would like to make in closing is that, once again, this is something that will be supposedly defunded that we don't fund that has to do with the world. It has to do with retreating from the world in terms of just the agenda of the Republicans. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I hope that Members will look at how they are manipulating and misrepresenting this appropriations process because when we start defunding what we don't fund, that is very disingenuous and misleading to the public. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Let me say a couple of things about any new rule. Any new rule being proposed by a government agency is required to assess the potential costs and benefits of such a rule change and submit it to OMB. In some cases, it may make sense to pursue such a rule. In many cases, the benefits will outweigh the costs, and the rulemaking process is designed to make these decisions in a clear and transparent manner. A blanket prohibition, such as this amendment, just aims at tying an administration's hands while carrying out the laws that Congress enacted. For the State and Foreign Operations bill, the State Department has advised that they have only pursued one rule recently that would be considered significant. That was to increase the consular fee structure. The consular operation of the State Department is self- funding through fees, so it is important that those fees reflect the costs of passports, visas, and other consular documents. Congress delegates rulemaking authority to government agencies and has oversight over them. Congress also has the ability to disapprove of a rule through the Congressional Review Act. This amendment is overly broad and unnecessary. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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