Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2024
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, when we fund specific programs, we should ask ourselves one question: What is the real return on investment?
In the case of the Peace Corps, we are spending a little over $410 million. Is the investment worth it, given the rising costs of food and gas? Is it appropriate for Congress to prioritize the Peace Corps over our veterans, prioritize the Peace Corps over securing our border?
Keep in mind, my proposed cut is a modest cut. How is the Peace Corps justifying its budget in light of financial hardships borne by millions of Americans today?
In separate testimonies before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Carol Spahn, the Peace Corps Director, pointed out the agency's work on the following: helping illegals at the southern border, promoting DEI amongst its volunteers, promoting COVID-19 vaccinations in low-income areas, and climate change adaptation, just to name a few.
In the latter case, the Peace Corps is working to promote climate- smart approaches in agriculture and to focus on gender equity issues. It is clear the Peace Corps has become more of an activist organization than an organization determined to help people.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, best investments? This is the best we can do? How about we invest in our veterans? How about we invest in our border? How about we take care of America? I want to help those around the world, but not at the expense of Americans.
It should be noted that the Peace Corps has a long and sordid history of covering up sexual abuse of its participants. Think about that. Are we going to aid and abet an agency, an organization, that has this sordid past while our veterans suffer, while our border is open, while we have migrants being abused on the border? I should think not.
This is a modest cut. It simply returns the funding back to pre-COVID levels, merely a $14 million cut. We can do this.
At a time when Americans are suffering, at a time when interest rates are high, gas has gone up, food is more expensive, surely we put hardworking Americans first.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, I would argue that the Gold Star families would like us to invest in our veterans. I would argue the veterans who are homeless would like for us to invest in our veterans.
When we look at the suicide rates among our servicemen and -women, we should be investing in our veterans. To say that putting our veterans first and using them as a pawn is offensive.
Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support this. I ask that we put our veterans and Americans first, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, if you want to come up with the right policy position on an issue related to foreign affairs, talk to Antony Blinken first, and then do the opposite.
We have all seen the Secretary's inability to be correct about any major foreign policy concern for the last 20 years, whether that be Iraq, Libya, Yemen, giving the Iranians $6 billion to deploy--as their president says, ``wherever they need it''--or in Afghanistan.
He is undoubtedly one of the most professionally ineffective and incompetent individuals to hold the title of Secretary of State. But if incompetence by itself were sufficient grounds to a Senate-confirmed Cabinet official, the President would have very few advisers left.
In the case of Secretary Blinken, it is about incompetence and perhaps outright corruption. For instance, Secretary Blinken received more than $5,000 in payment from the former Prime Minister of Pakistan, who notably praised the Taliban.
He received more than $5,000 for speaking at a bank opening in China.
He offered advisory services to a Japanese company who invested heavily in a CCP company that was blacklisted by Trump.
Let's take one more. Mr. Blinken's consulting firm, WestExec Advisors, it advertised its ability to help American colleges secure CCP donations without compromising their Pentagon research grants. Think about that. Usurping America's rules for engagement with the CCP.
That advertisement, by the way, was removed just 2 weeks prior to Joe Biden's acceptance of the Democratic Party's Presidential nomination.
We have since learned from the former acting CIA Director Mike Morrell that the infamous spies who lie letter--a letter that impacted our Presidential race--was led by no one other than Antony Blinken. The letter was signed by 51 intelligence experts, and was intended, according to Morrell, to give Joe Biden a way to refute the Hunter Biden laptop story ahead of a Presidential debate.
You would think this would be worthy of investigation, if not outright impeachment, but certainly defunding.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, serving the country or serving Hunter Biden?
Because we know through the work of Senators Johnson and Grassley, that Hunter Biden kept his Burisma colleagues apprised of meetings and emails he held with Mr. Blinken.
Mr. Blinken had previously said to Senate staffers that he wasn't aware of any communications with Hunter Biden, aside from one in-person meeting, which is a materially false statement and should subject him to criminal penalties under 18 U.S.C. 1001.
Of course, the U.S. Congress never holds anyone accountable for misleading Congress. Why tell the truth?
Mr. Chairman, Blinken has lied to Congress. He worked to prevent critical information, including the July 2021 dissent cable from being reviewed by this Chamber until confronted by the gentleman from Texas.
He clearly has a closer relationship with Hunter Biden than he led on, and, further, engaged in questionable activities prior to serving as Secretary of State, very little of which has been investigated or vetted.
These questions deserve to be asked.
Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of this amendment and defunding of Mr. Blinken.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, William Holman, with the Holman rule, did come up with a way to defund someone like the Secretary.
Back to the Secretary, there should be accountability for our botched Afghanistan withdrawal and for helping establish the Islamist theocracy that is in power there today. It is an insult to the memory of those who lost their lives at Abbey Gate. This man is responsible, and he is complicit.
Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of this amendment. He should be defunded. Quite frankly, I would say he should be impeached.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, I am a big proponent of Israel, our closest ally in that region. Yet, this administration has stopped at nothing to marginalize that relationship with the State of Israel.
When President Trump shuttered the U.S. consulate in Jerusalem, it was a shot heard around the world. President Trump's action clarified our diplomatic mission to Israel--the U.S. consulate was inappropriately treated as something close to a de facto embassy to a nonexistent Palestinian State.
By getting rid of the consulate, President Trump made it clear that our only diplomatic outreach to that area is and should be the State of Israel. In place of that consulate, the Trump administration established the PAU, and housed its operations within the U.S. Embassy. The PAU reported directly to the U.S. Ambassador to Israel and cannot act independently of that Ambassador.
These actions created transparency in our foreign policy where there was previously confusion. You would think that that would be appreciated by both sides here. Unfortunately, you would be wrong.
Since taking office, the Biden administration has worked to roll back progress initiated under President Trump by announcing the administration's intent to reopen the consulate general.
Joe Biden has since closed the PAU in favor of the so-called Office of Palestinian Affairs, an intended halfway step toward reestablishing their consulate.
If you need further proof of the administration's intent, take note that the Office of Palestinian Affairs, the OPA, doesn't report to our ambassador in Jerusalem, it receives its instruction from the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs at the Department of State here in Washington.
Our commitment should be to Israel and Israel alone, not to the PLO.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, to my colleague, I thank her for the idea of communication.
Mr. Chairman, we need communication with folks from around the world. But as far as diplomatic missions, Mr. Chairman, we should be focused on Israel.
The creation of the Office of Palestinian Affairs is an affront to both our most important ally in the world and to U.S. law, which clearly states that Jerusalem should be the undivided capital of Israel, the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995.
The OPA is, unfortunately, just the latest in a legacy of foreign policy driven by an animus toward the State of Israel. This should be a bipartisan bill. Israel is our greatest ally in that region, arguably, one of our greatest allies in the world, and to diminish that is really unjust.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, it is often the case in foreign relations that symbolism is policy. What the Office of Palestinian Affairs symbolizes is a destructive policy that will only serve to embolden the enemies of Washington and Jerusalem.
Our friends in Israel are under attack daily from bombs lofted in the air to attacks on the streets. To do anything but to have unwavering diplomatic support really jeopardizes lives. It threatens their sovereignty, and we must stand with our important ally, the State of Israel.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of this bill. I urge my colleagues for this to be unanimous, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, I would just make a point of personal privilege. My colleagues and I, across the aisle and here with me in the Chamber, thank our staff for being here during these long days and long nights. We thank them.
Mr. Chair, in August 2021, as America looked in horror at the beginning of what would soon become the greatest foreign policy disaster of the 21st century, then-Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan praised the takeover of Kabul, joyfully proclaiming that the Taliban had thrown off the shackles of slavery.
Some Americans may have been puzzled that Pakistan, designated major non-NATO ally of the United States, would have been so bold as to support America's enemies back in 2021.
However, a cursory look at Pakistan's history would clarify that this country, a country whose many Islamist groups support attacks against innocent civilians, has always supported terrorism and terrorist groups.
The Haqqani Network, a designated foreign terrorist organization whose members now play a role of kingmaker in Afghanistan, is a proxy of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, and has been for decades.
Along with many elements of the Taliban, the network was regularly given safe haven in Pakistan to operate and evade apprehension. The coordination between the Haqqani Network and Pakistan was so strong that in 2011, then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, described the network as a veritable arm of the Pakistani intelligence.
The Haqqani Network is guilty of horrific terrorist attacks against U.S. servicemembers. Perhaps not coincidentally, it was the Haqqani Network who was put in charge by the Taliban of security of Kabul 1 week before the tragedy at Abbey Gate that claimed the lives of 13 U.S. servicemembers and wounded many more.
Mr. Chair, I urge adoption, and
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, like my colleague, I too believe in great relationships and dialogues, but when you are in a relationship with a country that consistently undermines and attacks you, then maybe that is not a relationship that is worth being in. Because of billions upon billions of assistance to Pakistan, we learned a few things. First, insofar as Pakistan goes after terrorists, it does so selectively. It often targets those who are allied with our friends in India.
Second, despite the enormous financial leverage we have historically had with Islamabad, we cannot obtain several key concessions, including the release of Dr. Shakil Afridi, a man who assisted in the capture of Osama bin Laden.
Instead, Pakistan has conditioned the release of Afridi on us releasing a known terrorist. Little wonder that President Trump canceled $300 million in security aid to Pakistan back in 2018 due to its horrific record of going after militants in the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan.
They are an adversary in the region, and I am not talking about the people, but the government in control undermines the United States, our interests, and even our partner India.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time do I have remaining.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, all this amendment aims to do is continue mainstream U.S. policy in this Department of State and Foreign Operations bill.
The 2021 Country Report on Terrorism regarding Pakistan highlighted, once again, Pakistan's continued listing as a jurisdiction with strategic deficits in its AML/CFT system.
Pakistan does not sufficiently support anti-money laundering efforts and it does not support laying waste to terrorists in the border region. In a Gallup poll of Pakistanis it reflected that 72 percent of Pakistanis see us as an enemy. We spend billions and billions of dollars, they attack us, and they see us as an enemy.
There are many needs that this country has, that our veterans have, that our borders have, and it is money that could be spent better elsewhere.
There is no reason for us to continue to subsidize Pakistan or any function of its government until it changes its posture.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, who has the right to close?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time I have.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, bleeding hearts can argue all they want about wanting to support Pakistan despite their overwhelming support for terrorism within and outside its borders. I would say our money is better spent elsewhere.
For what it is worth, according to a classified Pakistani Government document publicly released last month, the Biden administration apparently encouraged the overthrow of the former Prime Minister of Pakistan because he didn't want that country to abandon its neutrality stance on Ukraine.
Ladies and gentlemen, it is important that we take a stand against terrorists and terrorist states. If they are going to be our ally, if they are going to receive hard-earned American dollars, then they should act like our ally. That is all I am requesting here.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source