On the recordJune 13, 2019
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. This en bloc amendment contains several measures that could have enjoyed broad support. Unfortunately, it also includes several amendments that some on our side are unable to accept. This includes an amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) relating to the Trump organization. We regard that amendment as a partisan stunt that would jeopardize the safety and security of State Department personnel and foreign dignitaries. The proposed funding prohibition would have serious consequences for the Department of State Diplomatic Security Service. The mission of Diplomatic Security is to protect the people, places, and vital information that allow the United States to be a leader in world events. That includes protecting the personal security of the Secretary of State when he is tasked by the President with attending summits at one of the properties listed in the amendment. The President, not the Secretary of State, selects travel locations. The Diplomatic Security is also charged with protecting foreign dignitaries and heads of State when they are in the U.S. on official business. They must do this no matter where they might stay. The restrictions in the amendment would make these officials, American and foreign, less safe. Another amendment, offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), would prohibit funding for a new Commission on Unalienable Rights.…





