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

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. 4665, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Chairwoman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, I am proud to speak on the fiscal year 2024 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs appropriations bill for floor consideration today.

Anybody who has read the bill knows that it is pretty straightforward. If you are a friend, an ally of the United States, this bill supports you, but if you are an adversary or you are cozying up to the adversaries of the United States, then, frankly, you are just not going to like this bill.

I am extremely proud of this legislation, which was carefully and thoughtfully developed over many, many months. In my judgment, it reflects the values and the interests of most Americans. We carefully reviewed all the organizations and programs that receive U.S. taxpayer dollars in this bill. And among the key factors--let me be very blunt-- it is whether investments advance our national security interests, whether they can show demonstrated results and our need to reduce the national debt and to reduce spending in a responsible way.

So the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs bill totals $51.5 billion. It cuts $8.2 billion; that is a 14 percent reduction, below the 2023 enacted level, and $17 billion or 25 percent below the President's request. In fact, it is $2.7 billion below the fiscal year 2019 enacted level, and it is even $288 million below the fiscal year 2015 enacted level.

So because of those cuts, of those responsible reductions, we are now able to prioritize funding for the national security threat posed by the Chinese Communist Party.

Look, it is time that the U.S., that we get serious about that maligned destabilizing negative actions of the Communist Chinese Party around the world. This measure, this bill does precisely that in an unprecedented manner.

Let me talk a little bit about that. The bill includes $4.4 billion, which is $1 billion above the President's budget request to fund programs to counter the threat of the Chinese Communist Party around the world.

For the first time, this bill includes half a billion, $500 million, in foreign military financing for Taiwan--first time ever. These funds, as everybody knows, are critical to support our friend and our democratic ally, which is on the front lines of China's bullying and China's constant threats. This bill provides unwavering support for our democratic ally, Israel, and other key partners around the world.

Another priority is to strengthen efforts to counter fentanyl production and trafficking. I don't have to tell you all that deadly opioids, particularly fentanyl, are affecting every area, every district, every neighborhood in our entire country. Madam Chair, three hundred Americans die every single day because of fentanyl poisoning. We must and we do use every tool to combat this horrific deadly epidemic.

Obviously, the migration crisis at the southern border is really just symptomatic of the administration's lack of a clear strategy toward the Western Hemisphere. That is as nice as I can say it.

Mr. Chairman, for too long countries cozying up to our adversaries have been rewarded, rewarded, and this bill puts a stop to that practice. This bill also recognizes the growing threat of authoritarian regimes even here in our own hemisphere and around the world. Therefore, it fully funds democracy assistant accounts in support of freedom and human rights where they are most threatened.

Now, before discussing funding for the United Nations, I just want to remind folks, Members, and also anybody who might be watching, who is running the show at the U.N. It would be hard to even make this stuff up, but, unfortunately, remarkably what I am about to tell you is true. So Russia was chair of the U.N. Security Council during the month of April. Yeah, you heard me right. Iran is currently an elected vice president of the U.N. General Assembly.

Communist China, whose genocide against Uyghurs and their bullying around the world is notorious, and Cuba, one of the world's oldest, most brutal dictatorships, both of those countries sit on the U.N. Human Rights council. Yeah, you heard me right. North Korea--well, I can't even begin to talk about the atrocities of that dictatorship--is a member of the World Health Organization, while Taiwan, a responsible democracy, has been blocked from membership of that institution by Communist China. You can't make this stuff up. Therefore, it should come as no surprise to anybody that no funds are included in this bill for the U.N. regular budget.

Now, my dear friends on the other side of the aisle argue that by cutting some of the funding to the U.N., the U.S. has given up its leadership. I could not disagree in stronger terms. You see, simply continuing to unconditionally channel funds to a deeply flawed organization, despite multiple failures and, frankly, appalling, even continuously antisemitic actions by that institution, that is actually abandoning our responsibility to the U.S. taxpayer, and it ensures that nothing changes in that institution that I just mentioned.

Actions need to have consequences, and the U.N. finally will feel the consequences of their irresponsible actions because of how we deal with them in this bill. This bill also prohibits funds for the Green Climate Fund and the Green Technology Fund. We also address a frivolous expansion of State Department bureaucracy. This bill eliminates funding for special envoys and special representatives that are not authorized or have not been confirmed by the Senate.

If they are that important, then for God's sake, have them authorized by Congress or at least confirmed by the Senate.

Finally, this bill includes all longstanding pro-life protections, which includes a prohibition on taxpayer funds from being used to pay for abortions abroad, and it builds on those requirements by applying the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance policy to all global health funding.

It is not surprising that after this bill was released, my colleagues on the other side immediately released a press release condemning it. Now, what might surprise you is what the minority party in their written press release actually chose to highlight that they are objecting to in this bill. Their press release criticized that this bill prohibits funding for the Wuhan Institute of Virology--Heck, yeah, we prohibit funding to that institution--or that we prohibit funding to the EcoHealth Alliance or gain-of-function research. And quoting from my colleagues on the Democratic side, their criticism of this bill, that we reduce funding for ``any lab controlled by China, Russia, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela.'' I am quoting from their press release.

Heck yeah, we are cutting funding for institutions from those countries. These countries are, in essence, on the official list of the United States foreign adversaries, and three, by the way, are on the State Sponsor of Terrorism list. Does any taxpayer think that taxpayer funds should be going to labs in those places? Really?

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle also expressed in writing concerns of what they call partisan riders that specifically highlighted the provisions on funds in this bill to the government of the PRC and the Chinese Communist Party; and, also, that we prevent lending from international financial institutions to the PRC. They put that in writing.

Well, one thing is true. They got that right. They caught me. We are eliminating funding to adversaries of the United States of America. I would argue it is about damn time we did that. I look forward to hearing my colleagues on the other side of the aisle explain why U.S. taxpayer money should be funding those programs, and, by the way, why writing a blank check to any organization is a demonstration of leadership. It is not.

Mr. Chairman, before I close, I thank the staff from the Appropriations Committee for their amazing work on this bill: Susan Adams, who is here with me; Craig Higgins; Jamie McCormick; Trey Hicks; Meg Gallagher; John Muscolini; Clelia Alvarado; and Joe Cutler; and equally from the minority side--and I always butcher her last name, and I apologize because I will probably do it again--Erin Kolodjeski, Laurie Mignon, and Lillian Wasvary.

I thank members of my personal staff from my office: Cesar Gonzalez, Gisselle Reynolds, and Autumn Morley.

I thank our Chairman for bringing this crucial legislation to the floor, which supports our allies and protects our national security in a smart, efficient, effective, and thoughtful way.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), a champion of human rights.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chair, I thank my good friend for yielding.

Mr. Chair, the State-Foreign Operations bill under consideration today continues and strengthens the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, PEPFAR, for another year, fiscal year 2024, ensuring that critically needed medicines, including antiretrovirals, or ARVs, and other lifesaving interventions are available to those who need them in Africa and elsewhere.

Mr. Chair, I especially thank Chairman Mario Diaz-Balart and the Committee on Appropriations for insisting that the noble purpose of PEPFAR is not compromised or undercut by integrating and merging other agendas, including and especially the promotion of abortion by massively funding pro-abortion foreign nongovernmental organizations and instructing them to repeal pro-life laws.

To that end, the new State Department bill reinstates the protecting life and global health assistance policy, also known as the Mexico City policy.

Sadly, upon assuming office, President Biden repealed Ronald Reagan's old Mexico City policy, which ensured that PEPFAR's over $6 billion a year in taxpayer grant money wasn't subsidizing foreign NGOs that perform or promote abortion. Biden's PEPFAR Core Program--and this needs to be underscored because some people say they are not doing it-- says they promote protecting sexual reproductive health and rights, including the ongoing rescission of the Mexico City policy.

The executive director of UNAIDS, a prime PEPFAR partner composed of WHO, UNFPA, and other U.N. agencies, welcomed Biden's repeal of the pro-life policy, saying that it showed his commitment to abortion rights.

Mr. Chair, a June 6th letter signed by 131 African lawmakers and religious leaders, including the speaker of the Parliament of Ghana, implored Congress not to--I say again, not to--exploit PEPFAR to promote abortion, stating: ``We want to express our concerns and suspicions that this funding is supporting . . . abortion,'' which ``violates our core beliefs concerning life, family, and religion.''

Most of the African countries are solidly pro-life, and they are under siege by the NGOs that we are supporting. The Mexico City policy helps to ensure that that doesn't happen.

They went on to say: ``We ask that PEPFAR remain true to its original mission and respect our norms, traditions, and values. We ask that those partner organizations with whom the U.S. Government partners to implement PEPFAR programs . . . are cognizant and respectful of our beliefs and not cross over into promoting divisive ideas and practices that are not consistent with those of Africa.''

Last year, showing no doubt of the pro-abortion goals of this administration, they announced a sweeping new radical policy known as Reimagining PEPFAR's Strategic Decision. They said that it integrates sexual reproductive health and rights. Of course, that means abortion with HIV/AIDS work.

Mr. Chair, in a recent op-ed, former Speaker Newt Gingrich wrote: ``It is incredibly disappointing, but not surprising, that the Biden administration has hijacked one of President George W. Bush's greatest accomplishments, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, to promote apportion on demand in the developing world.''

He continued: ``President Biden's insincere and demonstrably false claim that PEPFAR isn't pushing abortion on demand in Africa and elsewhere collapses under any serious scrutiny of its partners.''

They say they are not doing it. They are empowering the NGOs to do it. Just like in this Chamber, the House and Senate, and all over this country, we know it is the NGOs, Planned Parenthood and others, that tee up and promote very aggressively for abortion right up until the moment of birth.

Mr. Chair, I strongly supported PEPFAR when it was created in 2003, and I was the sponsor of the reauthorization of PEPFAR in 2018. Regrettably, it has been reimagined, hijacked by the Biden administration to empower pro-abortion international NGOs, deviating from its life-affirming work.

It is time we got back to the original noble idea, for which there is a strong bipartisan, bicameral consensus. That noble goal is to prevent this devastating disease, robustly treat and assist those who have been affected, and ultimately end HIV/AIDS around the world, not supporting abortion, the killing of unborn children by dismemberment, chemical poisoning.

Do you know what the abortion pill does? It starves the baby to death. That is its operation. They are trying to disseminate that all over Africa.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chair, I want to be very clear that I have heard now that somehow this bill damages the reputation of the United States. No.

Do you know what damaged the reputation of the United States, Mr. Chairman? That irresponsible withdrawal from Afghanistan that showed the entire world what bad leadership is all about.

This bill confronts our adversaries--$1 billion more to confront China than the President could do while we spend a lot less money. It stands by our friends. It confronts our adversaries.

The problem about credibility is not with this bill. It is with the President of the United States that, at best, is confused.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for the ranking member of this subcommittee because, I will tell you what, she is consistent, and we have developed a very good relationship.

You have heard it right now. Yes, this bill prohibits funding for the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the EcoHealth Alliance, gain-of-function research, and it also prohibits funding for any lab controlled by China, Russia, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela.

We have a difference of opinion.

I believe that taxpayer money going to labs controlled by these countries is just not something we should be doing. There is an absolute difference of opinion on that. If anybody believes that U.S. taxpayer money should be going for those things, then you are going to have a problem with that part of this bill.

If you, however, believe that U.S. taxpayer money should not go to fund those labs controlled by those countries, I would then ask you to support this bill.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I think we have discussed some of the issues in this bill. I think it is a very positive bill. It supports our allies, and it confronts our adversaries. It also controls wasteful spending. Wasteful spending is one of the reasons we have inflation at the highest level we have had in decades.

Mr. Chairman, since the ranking member has yielded back her time, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4665--Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2024.

While I am grateful the Rules Committee made my Jackson Lee Amendment 16 in order, I strongly oppose the underlying bill.

I will, however, briefly recap why my amendment is important for this particular measure should we be able to move forward with a feasible appropriations bill that can accommodate this amendment.

The Jackson Lee Amendment 16 increases funds by $1,000,000 and decreases funding by $1,000,000 for the Global Health Programs account to highlight and support the fight against the practice of Female Genital Mutilation.

I have been a dedicated champion against this practice for a long while, working closely with former Congressman Joe Crowley of New York to introduce legislation targeted at supporting the elimination of this ludicrous practice of mutilating young women.

Female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) comprises all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.

This practice is rooted in gender inequality and is often linked to other elements of gender-based violence and discrimination, such as child marriage and recognized internationally as a violation of the human rights of women and girls.

Unfortunately, this means an estimated 200 million girls and women alive today have been victims of FGM/C, with girls 14 and younger representing 44 million of those who have been cut.

For example, consider that around the world, at least five girls are mutilated/cut every hour and more than 3 million girls are estimated to be at risk of FGM/C, annually.

The impacts of FGM/C on the physical health of women and girls can include bleeding, infection, obstetric fistula, complications during childbirth and death.

Other significant barriers to combatting the practice of FGM/C include the high concentration in specific regions associated with several cultural traditions, that is not tied to any one religion.

According to UNICEF, FGM/C is reported to occur in all parts of the world, but is most prevalent in parts of Africa, the Middle East, and Asia.

Due to the commonality of this practice many migrants to the U.S. bring the practice of FGM/C with them, increasing the importance of combatting FGM/C abroad.

Jackson Lee Amendment 16 prioritizes funding for foreign assistance to combat Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C), an internationally recognized violation of the human rights of girls and women comes to an end.

Yet, as it pertains to the underlying appropriations bill, I stand with the Administration and my colleagues to express my opposition for the following noted reasons:

Treasury High-Leverage Programs. I strongly oppose section 7061(b) of the bill, which prohibits funding being made available to the Clean Technology Fund. The $425 million requested for this account would support a loan of $1.2 billion. It is disappointing that the bill does not support loan guarantees at the multilateral development banks, where $111 million in subsidy would leverage $3 billion in loan guarantees to finance energy security. The appropriations for this bill should include the requested authority to use existing resources for loans to the International Monetary Fund's Poverty Reduction and Growth Trust and Resilience and Sustainability Trust, which would leverage billions of dollars to accelerate progress in developing countries.

Global Health. I appreciate that the bill includes full funding for the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and urges the Congress to reauthorize PEPFAR for another five-year period to accelerate global progress toward reaching HIV epidemic control. However, it is deeply troubling that the bill significantly reduces funding available for global health security, which would leave the world more vulnerable to infectious disease threats and pandemics.

Reproductive Health Restrictions. It is also deeply concerning that the bill includes new restrictions on lifesaving global family planning and reproductive health (FP/RH) services and other global health assistance; these excessive conditions would undermine U.S. efforts to combat infectious diseases and to advance gender equality globally by restricting America's ability to support health programs. Section 7058(b) of the bill imposes a ceiling on FP/RH funding levels that is far below the longstanding enacted level, leaving even more women without access to these essential health services. Further, section 7057(a) of the bill prohibits funding for the United Nations Population Fund, which provides essential work to address preventable maternal deaths and the unmet need for family planning, prevent and respond to gender-based violence, and end harmful practices around the world, including in places where the United States does not have its own programming, as well as in many humanitarian crises. In addition, section 7057(b) of the bill would require application of a harmful policy that imposes excessive conditions that would undermine U.S. foreign and development assistance. Similar prior restrictions, which were ended by the President during his first days in office, affected local partners around the world receiving global health assistance, limiting the United States' ability to work with these partners and inhibiting their efforts to confront a range of health challenges.

Diplomatic and Development Workforce. It is deeply concerning that the bill would reduce funding for America's international affairs workforce and operations by nearly 20 percent, which would significantly curtail implementation of U.S. foreign policy, and would likely reduce U.S. presence overseas. This funding level, along with the large number of directives in the bill, would force the Department of State to make very difficult tradeoffs, and could result in hiring freezes, reductions in force, and contract suspensions.

United Nations (UN) and Other International Organizations. It is further deeply concerning that the bill does not include funding for the UN regular budget and many other international organizations. The bill includes more than $1 billion in draconian reductions that would undermine U.S. leadership, compromise America's ability to meet its treaty obligations, and limit U.S. capacity to address shared global challenges, while inviting America's adversaries to take America's place. The bill also provides no funding for the International Organizations and Programs account, which would eliminate critical resources to organizations such as the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the UN Children's Fund, which provide essential life- saving services to women and children around the world.

Humanitarian Assistance. I am also disappointed at the significant reduction, below the FY 2023 enacted levels, provided in the bill for life-saving humanitarian assistance during a time of record displacement and complex challenges worldwide. The bill also provides no new funding for the President's Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund, which is currently depleted and requires replenishment to enable the United States to respond to unexpected humanitarian crises.

Prohibitions. I also strongly oppose the inclusion of prohibitions throughout the bill, such as in sections 7064(e)(3), 7061(a), 7070, and 7059(f), that limit the Administration's flexibility in advancing key national security and foreign policy objectives. These include prohibitions related to funding for special envoys and similar positions, the Green Climate Fund, LGBTQI+ protections, and the Gender Equity and Equality Action Fund focused on advancing women's economic security, among others.

Afghan Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs). I am disappointed that the bill fails to provide the requested increase of 20,000 visas to the Afghan SIVs cap or to extend Afghan SIV program through 2029. This program demonstrates the steadfast commitment of the United States to Afghan allies who have supported the U.S. mission in Afghanistan for over two decades.

Rescissions. I am also deeply troubled that the bill rescinds over $1.5 billion across the Development Assistance, Economic Support Fund, and Peace Corps accounts. These rescissions would drastically reduce the U.S. Government's ability to support U.S. allies and partners to defend shared national security interests and to combat poverty, corruption, and food insecurity.

Clean Technology Rescission. I am also disappointed that the bill would rescind $11 billion in funding provided by the Inflation Reduction Act for the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund program at EPA. This rescission would eliminate funds designed to mobilize private capital into clean technology projects, especially in low-income and disadvantaged communities, that would expand economic opportunities in communities, reduce harmful pollution, and protect people's health while tackling the climate crisis.

Constitutional Concerns. Certain provisions of the draft bill raise constitutional concerns, including by interfering with the President's authority to determine the command of the Armed Forces, to recognize territorial sovereignty, and to conduct diplomacy.

We can do better. We are better than this. The American people deserve better.

I cannot support this bill as it stands, and I urge all my colleagues to vote against this cruel proposal.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 723, I offer amendments en bloc.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this bipartisan en bloc amendment, which represents amendments with support from both sides of the aisle.

The amendment includes 15 noncontroversial amendments that advance the priorities of both sides, including support for Taiwan and addressing the passport processing backlog, which is happening everywhere in the country.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, we spoke on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. MILLER of West Virginia. Mr. Chair, American frontier investors can be a powerful partner of the State Department and emissaries of American values in developing regions of the world. In these critical regions, they provide ideal alternative sources of capital over China or other authoritarian regimes. For our friends and allies with developing or unstable economies that China or other adversaries want to undermine, American investment is hard power, creating infrastructure, factories, boosting crop yields, industrial output, and jobs. In countries where America is locked in competition for influence, American investment in a gas plant, pipeline, or telecom network can sway the strategic calculation of the home government.

We rightly hold our investors to a high standard, through the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and other laws, but that higher standard makes it harder for them to compete against Chinese or Russian investors that are heavily and unfairly subsidized. In exchange, when they come under attack by corrupt home governments, we owe them the support of our diplomats and the full weight of the U.S. Federal Government.

Diplomatic support can persuade corrupt governments to change course and to play by the rules, but too often, the State Department takes a hands-off approach.

The hands-off approach can reach absurd heights. Even in cases where a kleptocratic government blatantly expropriated American investments, these investors took that government to arbitration and won, and then took that award to our United States Federal Courts to get recognition of the award under the Federal Arbitration Act, our State Department has refused to help Americans right the wrong and collect the award.

This has to stop. We are in competition with corrupt dictators all across the globe. American investors need to know that American diplomats have their back.

I ask for your support of the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully rise in opposition.

The gentleman from Arizona brings up, I think, really legitimate reasons for his concern about the out-of-control spending and, frankly, what this administration has done. However, because of that, the operating account of USAID in this bill has been significantly reduced below the FY 2019 enacted level.

As the gentleman is aware, we get to the point if we do further reductions, that this account, frankly, stops our ability to actually do some serious oversight.

While I agree with his concerns, I don't think this is the right way to do that. Further reductions to this account would mean less oversight, less efficiency, and, frankly, I think fewer positive outcomes.

By the way, in the manager's amendment, we reduce it even further. I totally understand and look forward to working with the gentleman about his concern. I think we are addressing it in this bill.

Again, it is one of those issues that I understand where he is going, but I think this is not the right way to do it, so I respectfully oppose the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this amendment.

Look, this is a horrifying practice of literally just mutilating women around the world. An estimated 200 million women and girls have undergone this form of female genital mutilation, including, by the way, ones who are 15 or younger.

Mr. Chair, I don't have to tell you about the extreme psychological and physical harm that this does to these young girls and women.

I thank my colleague, Representative Jackson Lee, for condemning this practice wherever--wherever--it is occurring. Anywhere in the world we should object to minors, young girls, young women, having genital mutilation performed for whatever reason.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to strongly support this amendment.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me indicate my appreciation to the chairman and to the ranking member for their support of this amendment.

I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment. Let's end FGMC against women and girls around the world forever.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chair, as the designee of the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger), I move to strike the last word.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chair, something that has to be recognized on this floor is that my colleague from Georgia who is presenting this amendment has been transparent, open, and clear from day one, and that is something that is not always seen in this body. I think we need to recognize that, and I think that is something that has to be respected regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with her. I think that is something that has to be recognized.

Now, I just want to take the opportunity to talk a little bit about the bill. I clearly recognize my colleague's frustration--and it is not only her--about the administration's lack of transparency, lack of articulation, lack of a strategy how the funds have been used, the communication from A to Z, I get that.

While there are no funds directed for Ukraine in this bill, there are a lot of directives in this bill for accountability for any assistance going to Ukraine.

Let me just take a moment to read the list of requirements that must be completed before one single penny would be used to go to Ukraine from this bill now or later or whenever:

A strategy within 90 days. We have not gotten that from the administration;

In-person monitoring of all programs;

Cost-matching requirements, making sure that other donors must do more, more than the United States before one penny can go out;

A certification that comprehensive oversight mechanisms are in place;

A notification to Congress so we can assess how those funds may be used;

An obligation report every 90 days accounting for all moneys provided;

An oversight report every 90 days detailing any allegations of waste, fraud, and corruption, and how those will be addressed;

Finally, and I think this is key, all reports must be clearly posted on the internet so that every American can see where their taxpayer dollars are going.

The reason that I am so optimistic and so gung ho about this bill is that we need to pass this bill in order to have these requirements in order to not have a blank check. I am looking at not only the short term but also the long term. We need to have accountability. We need conditions. We need oversight. We need to take away as much flexibility from the administration. That is precisely what we are attempting to do in this bill.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Florida for this amendment because he raises some very important issues regarding the Paris Agreement.

Even if it were true that global emissions would result in this global apocalypse in the distant future, the truth is that most developing countries are irrelevant in any climate model used to speculate about temperatures 100 years down the road.

These countries have emissions that are nearly undetectable when compared to the real culprits, which are China and other countries in Asia which, by the way, are exempt for the most part from this climate accord. So while our bill already prohibits funds for the Green Climate Fund, the Clean Technology Fund, and other vehicles that could be used to carry out this Paris Agreement, I agree with the gentleman that we should ensure that no parts of this wasteful spending, this virtue signaling, is allowed to continue.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I strongly support his amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

The motion was agreed to.

Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Alford) having assumed the chair, Mr. Luttrell, Acting Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4665) making appropriations for the Department of State, foreign operations, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2024, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source