Donald S. Beyer, Jr. · TranslatePolitics.com

House of Representatives

Rebuilding Usaid

2026-09-02

“Donald Trump and Elon Musk cut foreign aid. I don't like that. They said it was to save money and put America first. I don't believe them. They caused more spending to settle lawsuits and pay employees to stay home. Our debt is very high now. I blame them for not caring about the debt. The aid cuts caused death and suffering. That is bad. I want to say how many children will die because of these cuts. I want to talk about diseases and suffering in other countries. That makes me sad. I want to say that less aid will cause more diseases to spread. I serve Virginia. I heard from many people who used to work in foreign aid. They don't like the cuts. I want to call foreign aid a national security strategy. I want to scare you about diseases coming here. I want to say foreign aid promotes growth and helps our counterterrorism. I want to rebuild our foreign aid. I want you to think I will prevent bad things in the future. I look forward to spending more of your money on foreign aid.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Sherman for speaking. Mr. Speaker, last year, President Trump teamed up with his trillionaire donor Elon Musk to dismantle USAID and pause or permanently cancel a large portion of our international assistance programs. This was done in the name of furthering Trump's America First policy, but it is mostly combating mostly fictional and exaggerated claims of waste. The authors of this policy claimed that their goal was to achieve deficit reduction, to further Trump's America First policy on largely imaginary claims of waste. Far from reducing waste, the headlong rush to shutter USAID has forced the government to set aside billions of dollars for lawsuits, pay former employees to stay at home, and settle outstanding agreements with contractors. Our national debt passed $40 trillion this week, the latest in a strong string of facts to show how little Trump and company actually care about fiscal responsibility. The decision and the chaotic and callous way it was implemented has led to needless death, suffering, and damage to our national security and international reputation. But the worst impacts have been the devastation this has inflicted on poor and sick people around the world. In defense of the aid cuts, Elon Musk claimed zero people in Africa died. Secretary Rubio likewise claimed no one has died, claiming that lifesaving aid programs would be maintained or replaced. These statements are lies, and they are insults to our intelligence. Available government data shows large reductions of spending from 2024 to 2025, such as a 48 percent cut to global health programs, 39 percent cut to the Food For Peace program, a 65 percent cut in development assistance, and a 21 percent cut to international disaster assistance. Several large-scale independent studies and reporting from numerous news outlets have shown the human toll on these reductions. I thank my colleagues who pointed out names and photographs. Let me give some examples. The Gates Foundation estimates that child deaths will rise for the first time in the 21st century in 2025, and projects that if the aid cuts continue at a similar scale, we should expect an additional 12 million child deaths by 2045--12 million kids. Harvard University's Atul Gawande, one of the leading public health experts in the world, published an analysis nearly a year ago finding that hundreds of thousands have already died as a result of the USAID cuts, less than 10 months after they were implemented. A study published by UCLA's Fielding School of Public Health projected that the elimination of foreign aid funding last year would lead to 14 million preventable deaths by the end of this decade, over a third of them children. In a more granular report, research from Oxfam has shown that cholera cases have risen by 62 percent in 2025 compared to the previous year, just as USAID clean water and sanitation programs were cut--one-to-one correspondence. These are numbers, but each statistic represents suffering and misery that our government chose to inflict on some of the most vulnerable people in the world. I love and greatly appreciate The New York Times' Nicholas Kristof. He has gone to Africa and written in heartbreaking detail about the individual human costs of aid cuts. He writes about deaths of children in the Democratic Republic of Congo and in Uganda dying due to the lack of ordinarily available food assistance, medicine, mosquito nets, and other U.S.-provided aid. I am a Representative that serves Northern Virginia, so I have heard from hundreds of former USAID employees and their private sector partners who worked on these cut programs. Besides the justifiable outrage felt by these men and women due to how they were treated by this administration, by Elon Musk, and his band of DOGE acolytes, what has really struck me is the grief that they feel being unable to continue to serve our country and help some of the world's most vulnerable people. They understand that U.S. international assistance is not charity. It is a critical component of our national security strategy, alongside diplomacy and defense. They reduced the risk of lethal diseases, like Ebola and the avian flu, from spreading to our shores. They promoted economic growth and democracy in developing nations, enhanced counterterrorism initiatives, and alleviated international crises and disasters. But it is up to us to build and improve what remains of our aid infrastructure. We can and we should work to reduce the risk of this happening again, and I look forward to rebuilding USAID in the years to come. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of our time, such as it is.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I don't have much to say. My friend talks a lot. I agree with him.”

“I want to complain about Trump. He wants to spend less taxpayer money on foreign aid. I don't like that. I want America to spend more money on foreign aid. Some other people agree with me.”

“I want everyone to have more time to add things to the Record.”

House of Representatives

Northeast Lobsterman Protection Act of 2026

2026-09-01

“I oppose this bill. It delays rules that protect whales. Whales are at risk. I want new rules now. The fishing industry needs to change. The current rules are enough time. Lobstermen have other problems. Tariffs and rising costs are bad for them. I don't like Trump's policies. They hurt the industry and environment. We need to help lobstermen and protect whales. I want a different plan.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. We must protect the North Atlantic right whale, which, as you heard, is already at risk of extinction. This bill threatens to put them right over the edge. With only 70 reproductively active females left, the North Atlantic right whale can't afford to wait another 7 years for protection. They realistically could be extinct right now. We can and must act now. Entanglement in fishing gear is a leading cause, maybe the leading cause, of North Atlantic right whale deaths. In 2023, a provision delayed critical protections intended to reduce these deadly entanglements. As a result, the earliest measures to protect these North American right whales could be implemented in 2029. That is 3 years from now. This bill would further delay the implementation until 2035. That is a 13-year waiver from the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act requirements. I am wondering why 6 years has not already been enough. Delaying these protections doesn't ultimately serve the fishing industry's best interests. It will only delay changes that the industry ultimately needs to make any way, leaving them less time to adapt. If they haven't done it in the last 6 years, why do we think they will do it in the next 13? Now is the time we should be working with them and in partnership with the industry to effectively support them. Mr. Speaker, I don't minimize that the lobster industry is facing uncertainty and economic hardship, but that is a roller coaster of tariff implementations and rollbacks, rising inflation increasing the cost of fuel and bait, and warming waters that reduce larval lobster survival and encourage survivors to migrate northwards to Canadian waters. Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues across the aisle truly care about protecting lobstermen and fishermen, they would join me in opposing Trump's tariffs, his antagonism of our Canadian neighbors, his war of choice in Iran, his degradation of our environment, and his denial of climate change. We could do better by our lobstermen by working with them to ensure they have the support they need without sacrificing an entire species. Mr. Speaker, I hope all my colleagues will join me in opposing this bill and instead work on a solution that would be a win-win for everybody.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

House of Representatives

Congressman Gerald E. Connolly Post Office Building

2026-07-13

“I want to name a post office after my friend. He did a lot for the Postal Service. He helped pass a big postal reform bill. He loved the Postal Service. He fought for it. He protected it from privatization. He was good to postal workers. He served in many roles. Gerry did a lot for his community. I will miss him.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Walkinshaw for the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 6332. As Mr. Walkinshaw has said, this legislation would name the post office at 10660 Page Avenue in Fairfax as the Gerald E. Connolly Post Office in honor of my dear friend and former colleague, the late Congressman Gerry Connolly. Mr. Speaker, I used to tease Gerry all the time about the 41-mile Gerry Connolly Cross County Trail in Fairfax County that was a hiking, biking, and bridle trail. It went the whole arc, from one side of Fairfax County to another, but it is difficult to imagine a more fitting tribute to Gerry's lifetime of public service than this post office because of what he has done. He wrote, sponsored, and passed the most important postal reform in this century, literally this millennium. He loved the Postal Service. He fought for it year after year. He served on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform for 15 years and, again, was an immensely important leader on that committee. He fiercely believed in the Federal Government's commitment to the American public for affordable and reliable mail delivery for every single household in our country, but he was also a steadfast champion for the unsung heroes, the postal workers, who made that possible. He led the defense against the DOGE attacks on the Postal Service and efforts by this administration to privatize the Postal Service. As Gerry Connolly often reminded us, public service is leaving communities better than we found them, and Northern Virginia is a better place for Gerry's time in public service. I first met Gerry and Smitty when they came in as a young married couple 42 years ago when we volunteered on the same Governor's campaign. Over the years, everything that could be done by any human being to make life better for the citizens of Northern Virginia, Gerry did--as a civic association leader, a supervisor, a chairman, a Congressman, the president of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, and, most of all, as the Democratic chair of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform--everything that he did. Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, I will miss him greatly. This is a due and appropriate honor.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗