On the recordSeptember 28, 2023
Once again, let me repeat this. It is really despicable to target dedicated public servants and threaten their livelihoods. In this particular case, the amendment is targeted at someone on leave from the Department. None of us have the information to judge the situation. As the State Department has said, it is a personnel matter, and it needs to take its course. It is not a matter for Congress. Again, if my colleagues have an issue with the policy being pursued, then let's discuss that. We should not penalize public servants who are representing the administration that they serve and who have dedicated their careers to the United States. Let me just remind you that the Iran nuclear deal did stop the enrichment of uranium in Iran, and the world, quite frankly, is less safe because of the previous President who pulled the United States out of the JCPOA. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney). The amendment was agreed to. Amendment No. 69 Offered by Ms. Tenney The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 69 printed in part D of House Report 118-216.
