Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2024

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chair, I can only say that the gentleman from Florida is mistaken.

His amendment assumes the Lebanese Armed Forces is in some sort of disarray. It is not. It is the most respected institution in Lebanon.

It assumes that it has not been a good steward of the moneys it has received. It has. As a matter of fact, multiple administrations have certified that not a single piece of capital equipment has ever been lost.

It assumes that somehow it is in the pocket of Hezbollah.

I was in Lebanon and Israel in 2006 as Israel tried to defeat Hezbollah and did not. Since that time, we have continued to bolster the Lebanese Armed Forces to fight ISIS and other forces and to maintain a situation in which American oversight is possible, both military and civilian, because of the Lebanese Armed Forces.

Lebanon is in an economic free fall, and as a result of its economic situation, there is direct aid, but that aid is not highly paid generals. As a matter of fact, if not for our aid, it would be likely that most members of the Lebanese Armed Forces would not report to their barracks. They would not have enough money for gasoline. This essential support was necessitated based on their economic downfall.

We who visited Lebanon, who have seen it, and worked with both our military and our State Department stand behind the necessity and the accuracy of this support aid, and we oppose the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, in short, this is overly broad. I repeat, this is overly broad. As an American of Arab ancestry and a Christian, it would, in fact, be devastating to the Chaldean community left in Iraq. It would be devastating to the support we have.

Mr. Chair, representing one of the largest Chaldean districts in the country, I meet every week with these Iraqi Christians who know that their families depend on our continued engagement.

Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chair, we are in a competition right now--it is undeniable--with a Chinese Communist Party-led country. We have been in that race for more than 40 years.

Decades ago, we made a decision that engagement would change the trajectory of China. It was a fair and reasonable attempt, but throughout those years, as China has gained power, they have only gained a ruthless disregard for the norms of our planet, including those that they bid into.

They claim to be a fair trader; they are not. They claimed that they would not steal technology; they did. As a matter of fact, they have ruthlessly become the largest spy organization, not just on our military and defense structures but, in fact, on our industries. It is legendary the level that they have one-sided done to.

For that reason it is time for us to shift.

Under the last administration, we began shifting. Under this administration we continue to recognize China as a threat. In those years since we opened up our relationship, we did a number of things as a planet, as a world, as countries.

Hong Kong and Macau were voluntarily given back, each based on a promise to their host nations that they would continue to operate in a way that was consistent with the democracies that had led them.

In both cases through a slow but steady change, that has been completely eroded.

An old communist statement that I think bears repeating, is that when we will be hung, when capitalism will be hung, they will be hung with a rope that we sold to the communist. It is time to stop selling rope to China.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chair, earlier I attempted to quote Vladimir Lenin: The capitalist will sell the rope with which we hang them. This is exactly what we have been doing.

There is another truism that came from Einstein: Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome.

If the administration wants to negotiate something new and bring it to us in a way in which we believe the outcome will be different, let them do it. We simply cannot continue doing the same thing for decades with currently tens of thousands of actual hits on our country by the Chinese Communist Party to steal our technology daily--something that our administrations have said.

It is no longer one of those instances in which they are stealing ancient technology or they are trying to catch up. When one of our Cabinet officers recently visited China, she arrived only to find them demonstrating 5G technology and 7 nanometer chip technology in order to show us that they had stolen the technology necessary to be cutting edge in the cellular world and in chip production.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chair, in closing, every day, this administration tells us the nature of the kind of technology theft that is going on.

The conclusion of this amendment is simply the result of the very statements made not by the previous administration but by the current administration, and this supports the recognition. It is time to make real change. This amendment does that.

Mr. Chair, I urge support of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source