“I want to stop sending U.S. tax dollars to Jordan. The government spends too much money, which makes everyday life more expensive for Americans. We now send Jordan $2.1 billion, and they are a monarchy that should not get our money.”

“Madam Chair, I offer this amendment sincerely for the American people because the price of housing, the price of fuel, the price of everything is going up because our government, frankly, is spending too much money. We are borrowing money. We are printing money, and why are we doing this? Are we doing this to support our own infrastructure or our own veterans? No. A lot of this money goes overseas, and one of the recipients is the country of Jordan. I think we should end foreign aid to Jordan. As our debt approaches $40 trillion, it is more and more urgent. I have noticed that the money that we sent to Jordan has tripled since 2008. It started out at about $600 million, and now it is $2.1 billion. This is too much. We shouldn’t be doing it. Jordan is a monarchy. They do not deserve the support of our democratic Republic of this country. I think we should end the support to their country from our taxpayers. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.”

“Vote against this amendment. Jordan helps fight terrorists, takes in refugees, and keeps Americans safe. We must give Jordan the resources it needs.”

“Madam Chair, it is a dangerous world, and the Middle East is a very dangerous neighborhood, but Jordan is one of our most important allies in the Middle East. It is a bulwark against extremism and terrorism. Jordan has been on the front line of the fight against ISIS. It is an essential partner in stopping Iran’s terrorist proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas. For decades, Jordan has generously hosted refugees from numerous conflicts across the Middle East, but this is the key point: The United States, the American people, are safer because of Jordan. For that reason, it is well worthwhile to make sure that Jordan has the resources it needs to keep contributing to our collective security. Madam Chair, I urge defeat of the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.”

“I want the House to pass my amendment to stop sending money to Jordan. The king of Jordan spends millions on luxury homes while his people live in poverty. We are in debt, and we should spend that money on our own veterans instead.”

“Madam Chair, this is a very simple amendment. I will just say it again. The monarchy of Jordan doesn’t deserve the taxpayers’ money from the United States. In 2021, King Abdullah II secretly purchased over $106 million in luxury properties in Malibu, London, and D.C. through 36 offshore shell companies while 16 percent of the Jordanian population lives in poverty. It has been said that foreign aid can be described as taking money from poor people in the United States and giving it to rich people in other countries, and that is what is happening in this instance. How much of this money is going to go toward more luxury properties for the King of Jordan? I would like to know that. There needs to be more transparency in this money and, frankly, it needs to end completely. We don’t have the money. We are in debt. It is contributing to the high cost of living here in the United States. We would be better off spending this money taking care of our own veterans. Madam Chair, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.”

“I want the House to vote against this amendment. This bill cuts spending, but it still supports our allies, like Jordan, who help keep America safe and fight terrorism. It does not help our enemies.”

“Madam Chair, to conclude, as I said just a few minutes ago, and I said it at the opening of the debate on this bill: If you are a friend or an ally of the United States, this bill supports you. If you are an adversary or you are cozying up to our adversaries, you are not going to like this bill. All of that we do, by the way, while significantly cutting spending. The reason we have alliances and partnerships has to be and is to support our own security. Our partnership with Jordan is indispensable in opposing terrorism in the Middle East. Supporting Jordan helps the national security interest of the United States, which is why I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.”

“I want to stop all money in this bill from going to the United Nations. We are deep in debt and should not send tax dollars to an organization that works against American interests and attacks Israel.”

“Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from Florida for his strong work on making reforms to this appropriations package. He did it in the previous Congress last year. He is doing it again this year. There have been a number of significant reforms that he deserves credit for, and I wanted that to be clear when I am offering amendments to change the text. I would note there are still things in the appropriations process that I am not fond of using taxpayer money for, and the United Nations is one of those things. The amendment that I am offering here would prohibit any funds in the bill from being made available to the United Nations at all. The bill continues to fund millions of dollars for the United Nations, despite longstanding concerns over anti-Israel bias, corruption, peacekeeper misconduct, institutional failure, and ways in which the United Nations operates on a regular basis in direct contradiction to the interests of the United States. That is undeniably true for observers of the United Nations, particularly over the last couple of decades and in recent years. When you are a nation that is $40 trillion in debt, when you are a nation that is trying to figure out how to fund the basics of government and find the dollars that we need to secure the Nation with a strong defense, to modernize our military, to ensure border security, all the things that we need to do while we are still racking up debt to the tune of--by the way, paying for interest on the debt to the tune of over a trillion dollars a year, spending more on interest than we are on our own national defense, it strikes me as an inappropriate use of taxpayer money to continue to send that money to an entity that has been working in such negative ways with respect to our interests as a nation. Again, I applaud the chairman for all of his great work on things like UNRWA, working in collaboration with me and others on trying to remove that funding--it was very important--the United Nations Human Rights Council abomination, the United Nations Population Fund, other things that I know that the gentleman has been working on. To be very clear, I am not trying to impugn the bill in any way from that perspective. I just wish to go further. I think it is important that we pull the funds from an entity operating against our interests. It has repeatedly failed to earn the confidence of the American people. It has stood up in solidarity with the worst and most evil countries in the world against our interests and dared to wag their finger at the United States, built on the back of our funding and generosity and, by the way, real estate, to give them a platform to target us and to target our interests, in addition to constantly and consistently going after our friends in Israel. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.”

“We should stop funding the United Nations. It works against American interests, sides with terrorists and human rights abusers, and has no accountability for its failures. The United States can do good work around the world on its own without it.”

“Madam Chair, I note that it is just not enough for us to say that they can do better. This is an organization that has too often allowed terrorist infiltration within its own entities and sided with terrorist organizations directly against us and our allies. I have seen repeated reports of misconduct involving United Nations peacekeeping operations and too little accountability for those failures. We act as if the United States is not capable of working on unilateral, bilateral, and other bases to be able to do all the great things we want to do around the world. My dad is a polio survivor. There are a lot of things that we can do to try to make sure we are eradicating these things around the world. We don’t necessarily need a bureaucratic organization that its entire organizational structure and bias is structured against us, despite the fact that we fund the overwhelming majority of its operations. The United Nations has been operating against our interests. We are asking American taxpayers to continue to take those dollars and give them to an entity that has, in its open statements to the world, been against our interests so many times, time and time again, including siding with some of the worst countries on the Human Rights Council and the biggest abusers of human rights. The United Nations is put and exalted as somehow being those that we should listen to rather than the United States. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.”

“I want the House to pass this amendment. It stops tax dollars from going to groups that work against American interests. Other countries fear the United States, not the United Nations.”

“Madam Chair, I urge adoption of the amendment to ensure taxpayer dollars are spent on advancing American interests, not funding institutions that too often work against them. We are wholly prepared as a nation to be able to address these issues and concerns. You say, what will happen? China, Russia, and the rest of the world fear the United States. They do not fear the United Nations. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.”

“I want the House to pass my amendment. It stops all U.S. aid to Nigeria until its government takes real steps to stop violence against Christians and religious minorities.”

“Madam Chair, I rise in strong support for my amendment to increase the withholding threshold for assistance to Nigeria from 50 percent to 100 percent, while keeping in place benchmarks that demand Nigeria take effective steps to address the violence and persecution that continue to devastate the country. Nigeria has faced a horrific wave of violence that its corrupt government has failed to address. For years, and especially in recent months, Christians and other religious minorities in Nigeria have been subjected to violence and terrorism at the hands of extremists who are operating with impunity. Christian women and girls continue to be abducted, assaulted, tortured, and killed. Their churches are burned, and entire communities are erased. If the aid conditions included in the bill are important enough to withhold half of all the funding to the Nigerian Government, then they are important enough to withhold all of the funding. The generosity of our taxpayers is a reflection of the American values we hold so firmly. Never should we allow their hard-earned tax dollars to be funneled to corrupt regimes that fail to uphold religious freedom, fail to adequately confront terrorism, and fail to protect the innocent from persecution. So why are we rewarding a government that fails to meet such a basic obligation? This amendment is simple. It does not remove the aid conditions in the bill but only strengthens such conditions. Most importantly, it upholds a principle that all recipients of American taxpayer assistance should follow: that they must prove that they are willing and able to respond to violence before receiving any funding. Simply put, meet the standard before receiving support. That is the accountability that the American taxpayer deserves. Foreign aid should never be a reward for failure, so as our national debt is fast approaching $40 trillion, why on Earth are we still allowing our ourselves to go further into debt by rewarding corrupt foreign governments that tolerate terrorism within their borders? When churches are burned, women and girls are abducted, and terrorists operate with near impunity, that is not merely an internal disturbance. It is a direct assault on the freedoms our Nation claims to defend, which our foreign assistance must reflect and uphold. This is not about punishing the Nigerian people. It is about demanding accountability for their government’s complacency and ensuring that our foreign aid is leveraged to defend, reflect, and uphold American values. Even the underlying bill recognizes the Nigerian Government’s failure to meet the standard, yet it still allows for half of the funding to be released anyway. My amendment withholds all funds until they meet basic standards. Accountability can never be divided, nor should we allow anyone to exploit the generosity of the American taxpayer. I urge my colleagues to uphold accountability in our foreign aid spending and to vote for my amendment. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.”

“I want to withhold all aid to Nigeria until its government meets our conditions. Nigeria fails to stop violence against innocent people and Christians. America is trillions of dollars in debt, and we should not borrow money to send to foreign governments that do not protect their people.”

“Madam Chair, this amendment does not end all assistance. It only strengthens the conditions and encourages the Nigerian Government to meet them. Why should we give 50 percent of the money when the Nigerian Government has not met the criteria established in the underlying bill? We are approaching $40 trillion in debt. Why are we sending funds to corrupt countries overseas that are unwilling to fully address violence and persecution? The generosity of the American taxpayer should reflect American values. We can’t be putting ourselves more into debt to countries that are unwilling to uphold our values. The U.S. should not borrow money to subsidize foreign governments that fail to protect innocent civilians. If the aid conditions included in the bill are important enough to withhold half of the funding to the Nigerian Government, then they are important enough to withhold all of the funding until the underlying conditions are met. The Nigerian Government continues to fail to address violence in their country. Why should they still be eligible for funding given their lackluster response to the violence? Christian women and girls continue to be abducted, assaulted, tortured, and killed. Their churches are burned, and entire communities are erased. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.”

“I do not want us to send money to Nigeria unless they meet our conditions. They need to stop violence and help victims before they get American tax dollars.”

“Madam Chair, the underlying bill contains several conditions for assistance to be made available to Nigeria, which includes taking effective steps to prevent and respond to violence and hold perpetrators accountable; prioritizing resources to support victims of such violence, including internally displaced persons; actively facilitating the safe return, resettlement, and reconstruction of communities impacted by the violence; and allocating sufficient resources to address the aforementioned conditions. This begs the question: If Nigeria isn’t meeting these conditions fully, why should they receive any funding? If they truly want the support of the American taxpayer, then they should be meeting these goals. Furthermore, while the underlying bill directs prioritization to address the atrocities occurring in Nigeria, they should be showing willingness to utilize the funding provided to address the violence before receiving funds. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.”

“I want the House to pass my amendment. Jewish people face unfair restrictions and harassment when they try to visit and pray at the Temple Mount, their holiest site. My amendment tells a government religious freedom group to push for equal access for everyone there.”

“Madam Chair, the Temple Mount, or Har HaBayit, as it is called, is the holiest site in the world to the Jewish people. During the periods of the First and Second Temples, Jews from across the land of Israel would travel to the Temple during the three annual pilgrimages. These pilgrims included figures like King Solomon, King Herod, and Jesus of Nazareth, our Lord and Savior. However, whereas Christians and Muslims enjoy broad access and religious prayer rights at their holiest sites, Jews are severely discriminated against upon the Temple Mount. Muslims can currently enter the Temple Mount at 11 different gates, but Jews can only enter from 1 gate. Muslims can visit the Temple Mount any day of the week, but Jews cannot ascend the Temple Mount on Friday or Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath. Muslims have broad access to the Temple Mount and can pray openly upon the Temple Mount. Jews are severely restricted in their visits and do not enjoy the freedom to worship or the ability to wear their tallit and tefillin upon the Temple Mount. And for the Jews that ascend in spite of all these restrictions, they still face harassment from Muslims upon the Temple Mount. In fact, Muslim leaders have actively desecrated the site, including the planting and cultivating of trees at the inner courts of the Temple, expressly prohibited by Jewish law. Muslim children play soccer, practice boxing, and have picnics upon the Temple Mount, desecrating its holiness, while Jews cannot even freely worship upon the Temple Mount. You don’t have to take my word for it, Madam Chair. There is photo and video evidence of all this freely available. Individuals like Dr. Melissa Jane Kronfeld have spent extensive time documenting all of this. I thank her for her efforts to draw attention to this critical issue. Further, when one of my staffers ascended the Temple Mount last year, he was harassed by Muslim onlookers, restricted from visiting most of the site, and was only allowed to be upon the Temple Mount for a very short duration of time. Madam Chair, it is unconscionable that Jews do not enjoy the same access rights to visit and pray at their holiest site that other religions do. This is a basic tenet and principle of religious freedom, and the U.S. must do more on this issue. That is why my amendment would emphasize the need for the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom to work to ensure religious freedom and equal access for all with respect to the Temple Mount. I urge all my colleagues to vote for this commonsense amendment and to support religious freedom for all and support the rights of the Jewish people to freely worship at their very holiest site, the Temple Mount. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.”

“I want you to vote for this amendment. Jewish people should be able to pray at their holiest site just like people of other religions can. It supports religious freedom, and it will not cause dangerous problems.”

“Madam Chair, I respect the opinion of my colleague across the aisle, but it was also said that moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem was going to be too inflammatory and too dangerous. Many Presidents said they would do it. President Donald Trump did it, and it hasn’t proven to be overly inflammatory. In fact, it proved to be the right place and the right thing to do. I think this is common sense. Why should Jewish people not be able to worship at their holiest site in equal measure that all other religions get to worship at their holiest sites? I think this is a commonsense amendment. I don’t think it would be inflammatory. I think it makes sense. It restores dignity, and it also restores fairness to the international religious freedom tenets that we all stand for, foundational type of religious freedoms that we actually revere in this country under our First Amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote for this commonsense amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.”

“I motion that we pause work on this bill for now.”

“Madam Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise. The motion was agreed to. Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Ms. Tenney) having assumed the chair, Ms. King-Hinds, Acting Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 8595) making appropriations for national security, Department of State, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2027, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Signal 9 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 →