State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

Mister Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2471, a bill that will provide funding for the Federal Government through the end of this fiscal year.

While it has taken us far too long to get here, I am glad we were able to produce a bill that includes many funding priorities that I support.

Since last summer, I have made it clear that House Republicans wouldn't oppose appropriations bills unless they:

• Increase defense spending,
• Restrain non-defense spending,
• Include all long-standing policy provisions, and
• Do not include any poison pill riders.

After months of negotiations, we reached a deal that meets all four of these criteria.

The bill before us:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill to provide funding for the heroes in our National Guard and Capitol Police, as well as the brave people of Afghanistan who supported our troops overseas.

While I am disappointed that it has taken this long to reach an agreement, the bill before us today is a strong package that deserves our support.

This bill:

• Reimburses the National Guard, the Capitol Police, and their law enforcement partners for the cost they incurred for their heroic efforts on January 6th; and
• Addresses safety and security concerns by providing necessary improvements to the Capitol complex.

The bill also provides much-needed assistance to our partners who supported our military during the war in Afghanistan.

This is a good bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 4373, the fiscal year 2022 State and Foreign Operations appropriations bill.

This bill has many fatal flaws, in spite of Republican efforts to improve it. The concerns raised during markup were not addressed, and many of the amendments we offered at the Rules Committee have not been made in order on the floor today.

I'll begin with our list of major complaints.

To put it simply, the spending level is too high, and the policies are too controversial.

This bill alone includes a 12% increase over current levels, with $3 billion directed to climate change programs like the green climate fund.

For the sake of generations to come, we cannot afford to spend like this.

In addition to these unrealistic spending levels, the Majority has made policy decisions that will complicate any attempts to come to a bipartisan agreement.

Madam Chair, thank you for yielding.

The revised spending allocations presented today contain only technical corrections to the initial allocations, which were adopted on a party-line vote two weeks ago.

Because there are no substantive changes from the initial allocations, I must once again oppose them.

They do not change the topline spending levels for any of the subcommittee bills – even though Members on my side of the aisle have consistently asked for bipartisan cooperation on funding levels.

These spending levels continue to short-change our national defense, while providing huge increases to domestic programs. Non-defense spending would increase by nearly 17% overall, and some agencies would receive unprecedented 30-40% increases above fiscal year 2021.

Underfunding our national defense while giving such extreme increases to domestic programs is unacceptable to Members on my side of the aisle.