“I oppose this amendment. It would block money for peace efforts, refugee help, and our embassies in the Middle East. It would also make it harder for the United States to fight terrorist groups backed by Iran.”

“Madam Chair, I rise in very strong opposition to this amendment. Maintaining stability in the Middle East has long been a vital United States strategic interest. What happens there affects our economy, national security, and the safety of our American servicemembers. As written, this amendment is overbroad in that it prohibits or could limit the use of funds for longstanding initiatives related to peace building, refugee settlement, and U.S. Embassy operations. This amendment would restrict our country’s ability to confront Iran’s proxies: Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terrorist organizations in the region who are sworn enemies of the United States, Israel, and our allies. Madam Chair, a 10-minute debate is not the way to change policy as we have a mission of peace in the region and prosperity, both for Israelis and Palestinians.”

“I want you to vote against this amendment. It hurts American security. It limits our ability to fight terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. It also makes it harder to work with Israel toward a two-state peace deal, and it helps people who want to destroy Israel and kill Jewish people.”

“Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, which would dangerously undermine American national security. As Leader Jeffries rightly pointed out, if adopted, it would limit our ability to confront terrorist organizations, like Hamas and Hezbollah, that expressly target American citizens and military personnel. It would make it harder for America to use our relationships with Israel and regional partners to promote a negotiated two-state solution, the only realistic path to deliver on the promise of peace, security, and self-determination for both Israel and Palestine. I understand the frustration that many Members feel with some of the policies and actions of the current Israeli Government, as well as their concerns about its commitment to the peace process and a two- state solution. However, this amendment would embolden the enemies of peace, those pursuing the complete elimination of Israel and those who seek the death of Jews. Madam Chair, it is a vote to weaken our ability to engage in the region and a vote against American security, interest, and safety. Vote ``no.’’”

“Vote no on this amendment. It breaks our agreement to give Israel defense funding. That money buys systems to shoot down missiles aimed at Israeli homes and civilians. Republicans are only pushing this amendment to divide Democrats and use it in political ads.”

“Madam Chair, President Obama signed a 10-year memorandum of understanding. We are now in the ninth year of that memorandum. Mr. Massie would have us repudiate that signature. That is as bad an idea as Donald Trump’s repudiation of the JCPOA, the deal with Iran that limited its nuclear program. We are told that this is about offensive weapons. This $3.3 billion provides the AMRAAM system that defends Israeli apartment buildings and houses from incoming missiles that have as one purpose: to kill as many Israeli civilians as possible. How are we going to influence the people of Israel and the government of Israel? They need our influence. They need to change their policies. How are we going to influence them? As the missiles are coming in for the sole purpose of killing as many civilians as possible, we say we will not help shoot them down. We will not fund the AMRAAM system that is provided for in a memorandum of understanding signed by President Obama. This amendment is a political stunt. Republican leadership has brought it to the floor--not for the purpose of having it become law, but for the purpose of driving a wedge through the middle of the Democratic Party, for the purpose of facilitating Republican advertisements that will put our party on the side of those who are screaming death to America and death to Israel, and to put our party on the side of those who say that Israel has no right to exist. If you care about not only our Middle East policy but you care about the Democratic Party’s position, with the American people, then you must vote ``no’’ on this amendment. Now that does not mean that there will not be future reductions in our aid to Israel. That does not mean that we will not try to change Israeli policy, but this amendment goes as far as it possibly can to put us on the side not of those who would shoot down the missiles that are aimed at civilian neighborhoods in Israel but on those who are cheering those missiles. Then we are told that the amount of money involved is the focus. It says $3.3 billion, but that is about an 80th of the aid that we have provided Ukraine and that we should have provided Ukraine. This is not an attempt to divert a large portion of our money from Israel. This is an attack on the Israeli people.”

“We need to talk carefully about how we spend foreign aid money, not rush it in a short debate. Innocent people in Gaza are suffering, and we must send help. But Israel has faced thousands of attacks from groups backed by Iran, including Hamas. We need to work together toward a solution where both Israelis and Palestinians can live peacefully in their own states.”

“Madam Chair, there is no question that going forward there needs to be a thoughtful conversation how we spend our foreign aid money. I know we are all committed to that. My heart breaks for the suffering of innocent people in Gaza. We must find a way to infuse humanitarian support, how to find a peaceful coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians, but let me tell you how we got here. Since 1979, Iran has repeatedly called for Israel’s elimination while arming terrorist proxies. In the past 3 years, those proxies have launched more than 30,000 rockets, missiles, drones, and mortars into Israel while Hamas hid in their billion dollars’ worth of building of tunnels, 450 miles of tunnels, beneath civilian areas to wage war, not peace. This is not a way to handle foreign policy. I join all rational people who say let’s have a deliberate conversation how to move forward, but not with a 10-minute debate on the floor of the House. Let’s have our efforts aimed together to a two-state solution where Palestinians and Israelis can live peacefully and prosperously together. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.”

“I oppose this amendment. Jordan is an important partner for American security and helps fight ISIS. They also take care of millions of refugees from Syria and Palestine. They need our support, so we should vote against this amendment.”

“Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Jordan has remained a steadfast ally of the United States, despite increased complexities in the world and in the region. Surrounded by Iraq, Syria, and Egypt, Jordan has been an oasis of stability in the region that has commanded U.S. foreign policy attention for decades. Jordan is a vital security partner, including regional leadership in the United States’ mission against ISIS. They have been generously welcoming neighbors, hosting over 600,000. I will repeat that again: 600,000 Syrian refugees and 2 million Palestinians. I know I have, and I am sure many of my colleagues have personally visited classrooms in Jordan where we have seen Syrian children educated instead of just being left on the streets. In recent years, encouraged by the United States, Jordan has taken dramatic steps to increase government efficiency, professionalize human resources, improve access to water, and digitize government services. A strong partnership with Jordan directly contributes to a stronger, safer, and more prosperous United States, but they can’t do it alone. They need our support, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.”

“I oppose this amendment. It cuts off all funding for the United Nations. The UN helps feed hungry people, protect refugees, vaccinate children, and stop wars. It is not perfect, but we need it to solve global problems.”

“Madam Chair, the United Nations was created after World War II with a simple mission: to help prevent another global war and promote peace among nations. Today, it brings together nearly every country in the world to resolve disputes through diplomacy instead of conflict. It coordinates humanitarian relief during wars and natural disasters. It feeds millions of hungry people. It helps vaccinate children, support refugees, and deploy peacekeepers to help protect civilians and maintain stability. The United Nations has made important contributions to the world. Its agencies have helped eradicate smallpox, expand childhood immunizations, delivered lifesaving food and humanitarian assistance to millions, supported peace agreements, protected refugees, promoted human rights, and helped countries work together to combat disease, terrorism, and other threats. We are at a time when instability and suffering are almost unimaginable. The United Nations is a primary partner in getting food into Sudan through the World Food Programme, delivering health to children in Haiti through UNICEF, or supporting and monitoring peace in places like South Sudan and the Central African Republic. This amendment will cut that off. It will cut it all off. The U.N. also establishes international rules that make global travel, trade, shipping, aviation, and communications safer and more reliable. Look, the United Nations is not perfect. It should always be held accountable and reform when necessary, but when the world faces challenges that no nation can solve themselves, the United Nations provides a place for countries to work together in pursuit of peace, security, and human dignity. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.”

“I oppose this amendment. We need the United Nations so countries can work together on global problems. If the United States leaves, countries like China, Russia, and Iran will take our place.”

“Madam Chair, I have heard folks cite what we call the good, the bad, and the ugly with the U.N. Let me just say again, at a time when conflict, hunger, disease, and displacement are affecting millions around the world, we need a place where all nations can get together. What would it mean if the United States walks away? If we walk away, who fills the void? Fill in the blank: China, Russia, maybe even Iran. As I have said before, penny-wise, pound-foolish. Madam Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it. I reserve the balance of my time.”

“I want the House to vote against this amendment. It would cut off our aid to Nigeria for health, development, and security. Cutting this help would hurt our fight against disease and terrorism. It would also let China and Russia gain influence there instead of us.”

“Madam Chair, this amendment would eliminate U.S. health development and security assistance to the central government of Nigeria. This would be a serious mistake. Nigeria is Africa’s most populous nation, one of the largest economies, and a critical partner in promoting stability across West Africa. Our health programs prevent deadly diseases from spreading across borders and strengthen the capacity to respond to future pandemics. Our development assistance helps reduce poverty, improve education, expand economic opportunity, and address the conditions that fuel instability, conflict, and migration. Our security and assistance helps Nigeria combat Boko Haram, ISIS, and other violent extremist groups that threaten both regional and global security. If the United States walks away, the challenges will not disappear. Our influence will. China and Russia will be more than happy to fill the vacuum, expanding their economic, political, and military influence at America’s expense. Engagement does not mean writing a blank check. It means using American leadership to promote accountability, to strengthen democratic institutions, to protect human rights, and to advance our national security interests. Walking away would make neither Nigeria nor the United States more secure. Ironically, this amendment would end the very programs that this provision is trying to support, so it really doesn’t make too much sense. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject it, and I reserve the balance of my time.”

“I want my colleagues to vote against this amendment. The Temple Mount is holy to both Jews and Muslims, and small changes there can cause violence. Adding this issue to a spending bill risks causing more conflict instead of solving problems through diplomacy.”

“Madam Chair, while this amendment may be well-intentioned, it risks inflaming tensions at one of the most sensitive religious sites in the world. The Temple Mount is sacred to both Jews and Muslims. It is at the center of competing historical, political, and religious claims. History has shown that even small changes to access or worship arrangements can spark violence far beyond Jerusalem. For decades, Israel, Jordan, and the international community have worked to preserve the longstanding status quo, not because it is perfect but because it helps prevent broader conflict while difficult issues remain unsolved. The appropriations bill is not the place to insert the United States into one of the world’s most delicate religious disputes. Religious freedom is a fundamental American value, but lasting progress at the Temple Mount will come through careful diplomacy and respectful, longstanding efforts that preserve peace and stability, not through an appropriation amendment with 10 minutes of debate. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.”