“I oppose this bill. It cuts too much money from diplomacy, foreign aid, and global health programs. We need these programs to stop wars, fight disease, and keep America safe.”

“Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, let me just start by expressing my extreme respect for my chairman, Mr. Diaz-Balart, our subcommittee, and the staff. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to the Republican fiscal year 2027 National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs appropriations, and I do so with regret. This bill should be our moment to strengthen America and show the world that American leadership is more than bombs, bullying, and illegal tariffs. Done right, this bill could make our Nation more secure at home and abroad. Sadly, it falls painfully short. Rather than make smart investments in the tools that prevent conflict and build peace and prosperity, the Trump administration has chosen to put us in a war that is costing our country billions of dollars and countless lives with no end in sight. Real security requires more. It requires diplomacy, development, and humanitarian leadership. Real security means showing up before a crisis becomes a catastrophe, before instability becomes extremism, and before conflict becomes war. This is how we build alliances, and this is how we create trading partners. This is how we stop diseases before they reach our shores. This is how we keep our American sons and daughters from having to fight another war. Yet, this bill hollows out the very tools that have kept Americans safe for generations. Let’s be honest about what has happened. USAID has been dismantled, programs have been terminated, and decades of experience have been cast aside. Clinics are closing, vaccines are going undelivered, and contraceptives are sitting in warehouses. Children are losing their chance to go to school, families are going hungry, communities are losing access to clean water, and people are losing their lives. If these cuts continue, researchers warn that by 2030 more than 14 million additional people could die, including 4.5 million children under the age of 5. Think about that, Mr. Chairman, 4.5 million children whose lives could have been saved. Remember, Mr. Chair, we are all in this world together. When hunger grows, when disease spreads, when poverty deepens, and when hope disappears, instability follows. Extremism finds fertile ground, and America becomes less secure, not more secure. Yet, at this moment, the world needs more American leadership. This bill tells us to retreat. It proposes $14 billion less in international affairs than just 4 years ago, a cut of more than 23 percent. These cuts weaken our diplomats, dismantle our development programs, and slash humanitarian assistance. They undermine global health efforts that stop threats before they reach our shores. Meanwhile, another appropriations bill moves us toward more than $1 trillion in defense spending, the most ever in the history of our country, and our President wants another half a billion dollars more. Let me be clear, Mr. Chairman. I believe in a strong military. I am the mother of a marine who served in two wars, and I know that we owe every serviceman and -woman more than just our gratitude. The choice should not be between military strength and diplomacy. American security depends on both. We owe those brave servicemen and - women a foreign policy that does everything possible to prevent the next war before asking them to fight in one. That is because diplomacy prevents conflict; development reduces the desperation that fuels violence; and humanitarian assistance builds stability. Strong alliances ensure that America never stands alone. These are not acts of charity. These are investments in American national security. Instead of strengthening our security, this bill walks away from it. It rescinds $1 billion in humanitarian assistance. It turns our back on the women around the world, the foundation of families and communities, by slashing family planning programs and eliminating support for UNFPA. It expands the global gag rule, imposing ideological restrictions that silence healthcare providers, denying women critical medical information, and conditioning U.S. assistance on compliance with anti- DEI and anti-LGBTQ+ policies. It even refuses to meet our commitments to the United Nations by not paying our dues. It eliminates funding for the U.S. Institute of Peace, the Inter-American Foundation, and the U.S. African Development Foundation, institutions that prevent conflict, strengthen democracy, expand economic opportunity, and advance America’s interests. It turns its back on building relationships with the growing nations of Africa, the continent with the world’s fastest-growing population, rapidly expanding economies, and many of tomorrow’s most important partners. That is not strength. That is surrendering leadership. When America walks away, who walks in? China walks in, Russia steps in, and extremists fill the vacuum. This debate is not choosing between hard power and soft power. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill because America’s greatest strength has not only been our military power. It is the power of ideals, the power of diplomacy, the power of compassion, the power of partnership, and the power of American leadership. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.”

“I oppose this bill. It cuts funding for global health, women's health care, and foreign aid, which makes us less safe and hurts our influence in the world. It also includes an unrelated measure that makes it harder for Americans to vote.”

“Mr. Chairman, I thank Ranking Member Frankel for her leadership and work on this bill. I also extend my appreciation to Chairman Diaz-Balart and Chairman Cole for their partnership. I also thank the subcommittee staff: Erin Kolodjeski, Ed Etzkorn, and Laurie Mignone on the minority side, and their counterparts on the majority: Susan Adams, Craig Higgins, Jamie McCormick, Trey Hicks, John Muscolini, Gabriella Zach, Erin McMenamin, and Clelia Alvarado. I thank them all for their work. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. It undercuts humanitarian assistance, undermines global health programs, threatens women’s health, and breaks promises to our partners and our allies, while surrendering influence to our adversaries. After failing to bring this bill to the floor for several weeks, Republican leadership has decided to attach an entirely unrelated measure that would restrict voting access for American citizens. President Trump has insisted on this measure, despite opposition from members of his own party. He is afraid the American people will voice their vehement disapproval of Republican-led government and the failed policies of this administration at the ballot box in November. The President’s war with Iran has been a catastrophic failure. It has cost Americans more than $130 billion in higher prices so far. President Trump began this war with no plan, no strategy, no objective, no goal, and no understanding of the consequences. Nearly 6 months into the war, and the Iranian regime is still in place. The Iranian people are not free. Their ballistic missile program is intact. Their nuclear ambitions are unchanged. Their proxies are emboldened, and gas prices are rising. Their leverage is greater than it has been before, and President Trump has not articulated any course of action to bring this conflict to a close that is even remotely intelligible. The Trump Doctrine is failure followed by failure, chaos abroad, and high costs at home. The bill that we are considering today will only set us up for more failures in the future. This bill cuts funding for global health programs, particularly in the areas of reproductive health and global health security, making us more vulnerable to infectious disease outbreaks that originate abroad. We are seeing the consequences of this administration’s decisions to dismantle the USAID, withdraw from the World Health Organization, and decimate our global health systems in real time, as the current Ebola outbreak in Africa threatens to become the deadliest in history. Because it took so long to detect and due to the challenging conditions, we will likely be working to contain this outbreak for more than a year. Aid workers are working in active combat zones, putting their own lives at risk from both infection and violence to stop this disease from reaching our shores. Here we are debating a bill that would further choke off resources they desperately need to keep all of us safe. Let us not forget the Trump administration’s choice to dismantle USAID is a moral tragedy. More than 500,000 children have died as a result of these cuts. It is unconscionable. This bill does not provide any funding for the U.N. regular budget, abandoning one of the longest standing institutions devoted to global peace. Undermining the U.N. only erodes our influence. It also shortchanges American businesses who receive upwards of $2 billion in U.N. contracts both here in the United States and overseas, which is more than our dues. The bill threatens women’s health around the globe, blocking any funds from going to the U.N. Population Fund, which is dedicated to reducing maternal mortality and violence against women and extending family planning to women and girls everywhere. This includes work to eliminate obstetric fistula, a traumatic childbirth injury that leads to incontinence, infections, kidney disease, and infertility. By failing to provide any funding for UNFPA, the conditions under which millions of women around the world live will only become worse. Approximately 260,000 women around the world died during or shortly following pregnancy in 2023. That is 700 maternal deaths every day, one maternal death every 2 minutes. Eliminating this funding is a moral failure. This bill also eliminates funding for the U.S. Institute of Peace, the Inter-American Foundation, and the U.S. African Development Foundation. Each of these programs strengthen our influence abroad, helping to cultivate relationships with the next generation of global leaders, and prevents crises before they arise. This bill surrenders American influence to our adversaries. For every step backward we take, they take a step forward. Continually defunding the institutions that support America’s international presence will have serious, lasting consequences. In less than 2 years, the Trump administration has squandered decades of American influence, undermining our ability to persuade other countries to support our values and interests without resorting to the use of force. This bill reduces our ability to reclaim any of that influence for years to come. Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to oppose this bill.”

“I am voting against this bill. It cuts foreign aid and hurts our global health work. Helping other countries fight diseases keeps Americans safe, and cutting this small amount of money will not fix the national debt.”

“Mr. Chairman, America’s strength in the world has never been that we are perfect. It is that, unlike our adversaries, we have consistently aspired to lead by example and with our values. Building the capacity of a local community abroad to combat deadly diseases like malaria, Ebola, tuberculosis, and HIV is not just the right and just thing to do. It serves American interests. Disease outbreaks do not respect borders, and investments in global health protect Americans at home. That is why the dismantling of USAID is so dangerous. USAID isn’t a charity. It was boots on the ground, a force multiplier for the CDC and our broader national security efforts. Let’s be honest. Slashing foreign aid will not balance the Federal budget. Anyone with a calculator knows you are not going to address the skyrocketing deficit by cutting programs that amount to a rounding error in Federal spending. This is about American values and American security. Mr. Chairman, that is why I cannot support this bill. It ignores the reality of what has already been lost.”

“I oppose this bill because it gives no money to Ukraine. Ukraine is our ally fighting against Russia, and we must give them the resources they need to win.”

“Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Chair, sadly, I cannot agree with Chairman Cole. This bill does not send a strong message to our friends, nor does it send an unmistakable message to our adversaries. Sadly, this bill has zero for Ukraine, our ally fighting the Russian invader. That is a grave mistake and absolutely the wrong approach. It is a dangerous signal at a time when we ought to show unwavering support for Ukraine’s defense of its homeland. Yesterday marked 40 days since the House passed the Ukraine Support Act. That bipartisan legislation would provide Ukraine with an additional $8 billion in loans for military procurement as well as $1.3 billion in direct security assistance. It also would impose new sanctions that will further erode Vladimir Putin’s ability to continue this illegal, immoral, and unjust war. Now, it is the Senate’s turn to act. Over the weekend, America lost a champion in the effort to stand with Ukraine. Senator Graham understood that America’s responsibility was to ensure that Ukraine has every resource it needs, but none in this bill. Not just to survive but to win. Senator Graham died just hours after returning from Ukraine and securing bipartisan agreement on a new punishing sanction bill. I hope that all of us in the House and Senate will honor his memory by continuing to vigorously support Ukraine. Its drone strategy is creating space on the battlefield for real movement. Something is in the air, and it is the feeling that victory is not only achievable but increasingly within reach. This bill does not send a strong message of that objective. Not the end of the beginning, but finally, hopefully, perhaps the beginning of the end. The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Weber of Texas). The time of the gentleman has expired.”

“We should not abandon our allies. This bill needs to stand up for democracy and fight against dictators.”

“Let us be clear: America does not abandon our allies. America does not shrink from the fight. Democracy will not yield 1 inch to tyranny. We should be saying that in this bill. I do not yield my opposition to tyranny.”

“I oppose this bill. It cuts funding for foreign aid and diplomacy by 12 billion dollars. These cuts will hurt our national security by weakening programs that stop gang violence, prevent wars, support the United Nations, and provide food and medicine.”

“Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman and ranking member of our committee for their work, but unfortunately, I rise today to speak about hard facts, not political talking points. This bill cuts our security and diplomatic resources by $12 billion compared to last year. This is a 20 percent gutting of our global tools in just 2 years. When we look at where these cuts actually hit, they defy any commonsense strategy for our national security. First, this bill completely defunds the Inter-American Foundation. This agency funds local community-led programs in Latin America that keep young people out of drug cartels and gangs. One of these very programs cut youth criminal activity by 90 percent. We cannot claim that we want to see a secure border and stop drug trafficking while simultaneously defunding the most cost-effective, proven programs that stop cartel recruitment at the source. Second, it completely defunds the U.S. Institute of Peace. We are being asked for billions for the Iran war, but they want to close down the tools we have to stop conflicts before we are forced to send our young men and women in uniform into harm’s way. Third, it cuts over $1 billion from the United Nations. When we walk away from the table, we don’t leave a vacuum. We just invite China and Russia to step in, take our place, and write the global rules. Finally, this bill slashes $1.5 billion from emergency humanitarian aid. Cutting off food, clean water, and medicine during historic global instability is a guarantee for more regional chaos and health emergencies that eventually end up at our borders. These are just a few of the cuts in the bill that compromise our national security and strengthen our adversaries.”

“I give my time to Representative Wasserman Schultz to speak.”

“Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), the distinguished ranking member of the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.”

“I oppose this funding bill. It cuts money for global health and aid to give President Trump a $1.5 billion fund with no rules. It also blocks money for groups that provide reproductive healthcare to women in other countries.”

“Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Chair, the State Department funding bill that we are considering here fails to meet this critical, historic moment. Our Nation is at a dangerous crossroads. We are at war, a war that Congress never voted to authorize, a war so recklessly managed that our allies increasingly see us as a threat rather than a reliable partner. Yet, amid this global chaos, Republicans have abandoned investments to make the world a safer, healthier place. Their callous neglect has caused hundreds of thousands of needless deaths along the way. President Trump has given up our seat at the table. He has put down the torch of liberty and democracy, all so he can glad-hand dictators and stuff his family’s pockets. All the while, working Americans get poorer as the direct result of Trump’s chaotic decisions on tariffs, immigration, and military action. Instead of addressing real threats to our security, our interests, and our values abroad, this bill doubles down on petty, partisan culture war riders. This Republican bill includes a provision to suppress reproductive freedom abroad by boycotting humanitarian groups that provide lifesaving care to women and girls. Is anyone surprised the same party that rips away Americans’ reproductive rights and guts our healthcare is running the same anti- choice playbook worldwide? Experts predict tens of thousands more unsafe abortions and maternal deaths. No part of this is pro-life. When I filed an amendment to strike this expanded global gag rule, Republicans refused to even allow a vote. This bill does nothing to reverse Trump’s America-last self-sabotage, his disdain for our neighbors in Haiti and Venezuela, or his racist refugee exclusion policy. Instead of holding him accountable for his corruption, it offers Trump a $1.5 billion slush fund. That is $1.5 billion siphoned from law enforcement, peacekeeping, global health, and, yes, directly from starving children. With the deficit exploding, prices out of control, and Americans crying out for relief, I can’t imagine a worse prescription than a blank check for a President out of control. When this bill came out of our committee, I thought it couldn’t get any worse.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Signal 44 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“I am voting against this bill. Republicans added a racist bill to it that stops people from voting, and it will not help regular families.”

“When this bill came out of our committee, I thought it couldn’t get any worse. Yet, stunningly, Republican leadership attached President Trump’s racist voter suppression bill to it, caving to far-right extremists who held the House floor hostage. I am voting ``no’’ because this Republican bill won’t make your family stronger, safer, or more prosperous, unless your last name is Trump.”

“I oppose this bill. It cuts money for foreign aid and diplomacy to pay for military spending and tax cuts for the rich. Cutting this aid hurts women, cuts off our support for the UN, and gives more power to Russia and China.”

“Mr. Chair, my constituents in Queens are facing an affordability crisis, and this bill will only make it worse by endorsing a failed America-alone policy that diminishes our presence on the world stage, abandons women and girls, and guts our soft power. This bill cuts our national security budget by another 6 percent to fund more tax cuts for billionaires and a proposed military budget now exceeding $1.5 trillion. That is a ``trillion’’ with a capital T. It comes after this administration destroyed USAID, clawed back hundreds of millions in humanitarian aid already approved by Congress, and canceled over 80 percent of our foreign aid programs. Existing cuts have already led to an estimated 760,000 preventable deaths and are projected to cause up to 23 million by 2030. Instead of gutting diplomacy and development to pay for a record Pentagon budget, we should be growing our diplomatic presence and investing in programs that tackle conflict and instability at the roots. By eliminating funding for the U.N., this bill would cede ground to our adversaries, letting Russia and China reshape the U.N. without meaningful U.S. influence. It also doubles down on attacks on women and girls, gutting international family planning and banning funding to the U.N. Population Fund. Instead of abandoning the world’s women and girls, we should be investing in them. It also locks in the administration’s expanded global gag rule, exporting a radical rightwing agenda, politicizing aid, and targeting women, minorities, and LGBTQ+ people--people who look to America as a beacon of freedom, not repression. Our national security budget is not waste. It is not a playground for radical social ideologies or attacks on the world’s most vulnerable populations. It is a strategic investment in America’s security, global stability, and the power of democracy.”

“I oppose this bill and want to send it back to committee. It cuts public health funding and bans the United States from working with global health groups to stop disease outbreaks before they reach us.”

“Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 8595. This disastrous bill doesn’t just turn America’s back on the world. It makes Americans less safe and more vulnerable to disease. An Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda has taken more than 700 lives and infected more than 1,900 people. American citizens have already been infected, and the outbreak will spread if we fail to contain it. Republicans’ solution? Ban the United States from supporting the World Health Organization, the group coordinating the response to the Ebola outbreak. The story of outbreaks fueled by Republican shortsighted cuts does not end there. Here at home, we are responding to a growing cyclospora outbreak that has sickened more than 1,600 people across more than 30 States, with thousands more cases under investigation. Public health officials are still working to identify the source of the outbreak. They are facing an uphill battle thanks to Trump and Republicans’ deep cuts to the CDC’s public health workforce and the program that monitors foodborne illness. The cause and effect is clear. When Republicans slash public health funding and stop monitoring the spread of disease, Americans get sick. For this reason, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to committee. If the House rules permitted, I would have offered the motion with an important amendment to this bill. My amendment would strike provisions that prohibit U.S. participation in international public health efforts through the World Health Organization and the pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response accord. Disease prevention and surveillance at home and abroad protect American families. Infectious diseases do not stop at borders. We are safest when we work with partners around the world to detect outbreaks early, share information, and respond before disease reaches our borders. Mr. Chair, I include in the Record the text of my amendment.”

“I oppose this bill and urge a no vote. It cuts foreign aid and diplomacy funding by 20 percent. These cuts hurt our national security, weaken American leadership against China and Russia, and leave us unprepared for global disease outbreaks.”

“Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to the fiscal year 2027 appropriations bill for the State Department and foreign operations. Last year, the Trump administration illegally dismantled USAID and fired over 1,300 State Department employees. It rescinded $13 billion for critical humanitarian and development programs, and now House Republicans want to approve legislation that amounts to a 20 percent cut from 2025 enacted levels, locking in those dangerous Trump cuts. It isn’t penny-wise, and it certainly is pound-foolish. Case in point: When the administration cut funding for global health, it ended key disease outbreak surveillance and prevention programs. Now we have the second largest Ebola outbreak on record and are scrambling to protect U.S. livestock from the New World screwworm. Our Republican colleagues have also made in order many amendments that would further damage our national security interests. Prohibiting funding for the United Nations means abdicating U.S. leadership to competitors like China and Russia. Prohibiting funding for an ally like Jordan makes zero sense amidst the fallout of President Trump’s war of choice with Iran and the devastating humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Cutting off funding for the National Endowment for Democracy, The Asia Foundation, East-West Center, Peace Corps, Millennium Challenge Corporation, Asian Development Fund, and African Development Bank Group further undercuts American leadership and democracy around the world. Sustained investment in our diplomatic and development institutions is essential if you want to prevent wars instead of paying for them. Mr. Chairman, this bill does not deliver, and I urge a ``no’’ vote.”

“I want people to vote against this bill. It does not give enough support to diplomacy, foreign aid, and global leadership. Relying only on military force makes our country less safe.”

“Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Sadly, this bill arrives at a time when the Trump administration has chosen to put us into a war that is costing our country billions of dollars and countless lives, with no end in sight. I hope I am wrong, but that is what it looks like. This bill should be a moment to strengthen America and show the world that American leadership is more than bombs, bullying, and illegal tariffs. Done right, it could make our Nation more secure, at home and abroad. Instead, it is falling painfully short. A strong America requires both hard power and soft power, because military strength alone cannot prevent every conflict, stop every pandemic, build every alliance, or open every new market for American workers. When America leads with diplomacy, development, and humanitarian leadership, we make our Nation stronger and safer. When America retreats, our adversaries advance. This bill retreats from American leadership, and it makes America less secure. Mr. Chairman, I hope and I expect that we can still improve this legislation as it moves through the legislative process. Until then, I urge a ``no’’ vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.”

“I do not want money for Israel's military included in this bill. Congress should vote on money for Israel in a separate bill.”

“Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to including funding for Israel’s military in the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Program Appropriations Act. I respectfully request that funding for Israel’s military be considered through a standalone bill, allowing Members to vote separately on question. I first made this request in December 2025, when I opposed legislation linking funding for our military with funding for Israel’s military. My position has not changed. Today, I again respectfully request that funding for the Department of State and related programs not be linked to funding for Israel’s military. Accordingly, I include in the Record the text of my December 10, 2025, letter to Speaker Mike Johnson. I now believe there should be a standalone vote on all funding to Israel: The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Goldman of Texas). All time for general debate has expired. Pursuant the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 5-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read. international boundary and water commission, united states and mexico Congressional-Executive Commission on the People’s Republic of China united states foundation for natural security and counterterrorism nonproliferation, anti-terrorism, demining and related programs contribution to the european bank for reconstruction and development contribution to the international fund for agricultural development prohibition on funding for abortions and involuntary sterilization prohibition on assistance to governments supporting international prohibition on assistance to the palestinian broadcasting corporation torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment parking fines and real property taxes owed by foreign governments limitation on the use of funds made available for certain online”

• Little substance
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Signal 40 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“I want the House to pass this group of amendments, including mine. My amendment supports human rights talks with Vietnam. The Vietnamese government arrests journalists, activists, and citizens for speaking out. As we build closer ties with Vietnam, we must continue to push for basic freedoms and the release of political prisoners.”

“Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this en bloc package of bipartisan amendments that includes my amendment, Tran No. 65, which supports the annual U.S.-Vietnam Human Rights Dialogue and reaffirms Congress’ commitment to advancing fundamental freedoms and human rights in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. As the United States continues to deepen its engagement with Vietnam, human rights must remain central to the bilateral relationship. The Vietnamese Government continues to restrict freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and peaceful political expression. Independent journalists like Le Huu Minh Tuan, human rights activists, religious leaders, and ordinary citizens face harassment, arbitrary detention, and imprisonment simply for exercising their basic rights. A stronger economic and security partnership between our two nations cannot come at the expense of the democratic values and universal freedoms that the United States has long championed. My amendment supports a critical diplomatic tool to press the Vietnamese Government on these concerns, including the immediate release of prisoners of conscience. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support these amendments en bloc.”

“I want to vote against this amendment. The Fulbright Program is a smart investment. It brings top students from around the world here and sends American students abroad. It creates world leaders who support American values, and other countries help pay for it.”

“Mr. Chair, the Fulbright Program is one of the most well-established and prestigious exchange programs in the world. Each year, the best and the brightest globally compete for spots to study in the United States or have American students experience and do research overseas. The proof is in the results. Fulbright alumni include--listen to this--44 heads of state, 63 Nobel Prize winners, 94 Pulitzer Prize winners, 83 MacArthur Fellows, and numerous national leaders. Each of these individuals and 450,000 more have had a life-changing experience being exposed to United States culture and values, affecting their impressions of our country for the rest of their lives. This is a smart investment. May I say, as my mother once said, this is penny-wise and pound-foolish. This is not just our investment. Mr. Chair, 89 foreign governments also contribute to sending their students to the United States with more than $90 million annually. Mr. Chair, this amendment is shortsighted, with all due respect. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.”

“I want the House to vote against this amendment. It cuts money for training foreign militaries. This training helps our allies work with our troops, builds strong relationships with foreign leaders, and protects American service members.”

“Mr. Chair, our International Military Education and Training programs provide significant national security benefits at a very low cost. They strengthen the ability of nations to partner with our Armed Forces in joint and coordinated operations. They help senior and rising military leaders from countries around the world build ties with the United States. They build the professionalism of foreign militaries, increasing respect for human rights, the rule of law, and democratic civilian control of military. Yet, many of our partners most in need of U.S. military training do not have the resources to pay for it themselves. Mr. Chair, I saw my son, a United States marine, go to two wars, and I know many of his fellow, I will call them colleagues, brave patriots, they didn’t come home to their families, and I just want to say for those families, why would we want to undermine one of the most cost-effective tools we have for building our collective security? Why would we want to do anything that would keep our men and women going to war? General Donovan, commander of the United States Southern Command, said just this year: The return on investment in the International Military Education Training program is clear, with multiple program graduates going on to serve as ministers of defense and chiefs of defense. The trust and relationships built through these programs extend far beyond the engagements themselves and pay lasting dividends for our shared security and will save the lives of our brave men and women who serve our country. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.”

“I oppose this amendment. Trying to save money here will hurt our safety, our economy, and our troops.”

“Mr. Chair, I just want to say, when it comes to our security, our prosperity, the lives of our patriots who put on our uniform, it is, as my mom would say, penny-wise and pound- foolish to pass this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.”

“I oppose this amendment. It cuts U.S. funding for a global program that helps poorer countries protect the environment. Environmental problems cross borders and hurt our own health, safety, and economy. We cannot solve issues like pollution, severe weather, and illegal wildlife trade alone.”

“Mr. Chair, I am opposing this amendment that strikes the Global Environment Facility fund. This amendment would eliminate the United States’ contribution to the Global Environment Facility, a multilateral trust fund that provides grant-based funding to developing countries to address global environmental challenges. It has long had bipartisan support for very good reason. It benefits the U.S. economy and the environment by addressing problems that cross borders and affect our domestic health, safety, and prosperity. It helps protect tropical forests. It reduces transboundary pollutants like microplastics. It prevents unsustainable fishing and invasive species. It combats illegal wildlife tracking, which transnational criminal organizations use to finance their very dangerous activities. Even in our own country, we are challenged. Just look around, Mr. Chair. Put on the news. We are challenged by severe drought, rainfall, storms, and heat. It is pretty hot out there. Land degradation and the loss of soil and water health are threatening livelihoods all over the world. We are continuing to see ever-greater humanitarian needs caused by these disasters both domestically and abroad. We need to get ahead of these crises. Helping communities cope, especially those with the least means to do so, is not only moral. It is smart. These are problems that cannot be solved alone. Funding for the Global Environment Facility allows us to work together, leverage contributions of other countries, and provide U.S. leadership to tackle these challenges. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.”

“I support this amendment to stop sending American weapons to Israel. Israel is bombing civilians and taking over more land. We must cut off weapons if we want Israel's government to change its actions.”

“Madam Chair, Israel does not need and, quite honestly, does not deserve more American money for weapons. Prime Minister Netanyahu has taken Israel down an ugly path. The tragedy of October 7 has become a justification for the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. Self-defense does not include indiscriminately bombing homes, hospitals, churches, schools, or refugee camps. There were even credible reports of children intentionally shot in the head and chest. For decades, our Nation gave Israel billions to facilitate peace and a two-state solution. Instead, Israel has chosen more war and more occupation. Today, it occupies not only Gaza and the West Bank but parts of Syria and Lebanon. If there are no consequences, why in the world would Benjamin Netanyahu change what he is doing? Words are not enough. Condemnations are not enough. If we hope to change Israel’s behavior, we must use our leverage. The American people have seen this tragedy with their own eyes. They have made their judgment. They do not support giving Israel more weapons. Do not reward a wrongdoer. Now it is up to us in this Chamber to take action. Madam Chair, I support this amendment.”