Lois Frankel · TranslatePolitics.com

House of Representatives

Rebuilding Usaid

2026-09-02

“My son was in the military. Then he worked for USAID. He said USAID helps people in other countries. I want to spend more money on USAID. USAID gave water to a woman in Nigeria. USAID gave education to a girl in Nepal. I want USAID to have more money. I think USAID helps America too. USAID stopped some programs. I don't like that. I want USAID to have more money again.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Beyer for yielding and for bringing us together on this very urgent and important issue. This is very personal to me because after college, my son, Ben, was commissioned as an officer in the United States Marine Corps. He served overseas in two war zones, first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq. Like so many military parents, I lived with the fear of getting that knock on the door. My family was blessed. Ben came home safely, and later he returned overseas, this time working for USAID, America's civilian development and humanitarian agency. Ben taught me something I have never forgotten. That is because he said when he came home: Mom, the way to peace is not just through bombs and bullets. It is through soft power, such as helping people, building relationships, creating opportunity, and preventing conflict before it starts. That lesson changed the way I looked at America's role in the world. When I came to Congress, one of my missions was to help keep our sons and daughters out of harm's way by strengthening American soft power. Never has this mission been more urgent. For 6 months, we have been in a costly war with Iran with no clear end in sight. It is a stark reminder that real security requires not only military strength but diplomacy, development, and humanitarian leadership. I diverge because when Mr. Trump was elected, then came DOGE, and then USAID was eliminated. Programs were canceled, and thousands of experienced professionals were shown the door. Decades of experience and relationships were torn apart. The Trump administration dismantled one of America's most important national security tools. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, what USAID looked like to Fatima, a mother in northeastern Nigeria. For most of her life, Fatima walked long distances to collect water from a stream shared with cattle, or she bought water from vendors when her family could afford it. She worried whether the water was safe for her children. Then a USAID-funded project drilled a borehole and brought clean water directly to a tap at her home. There was clean water for her children. There were no more long walks just to meet one of life's most basic needs. That is soft power. Then there is Apsana, a 16-year-old girl in Nepal who had never attended a formal school. Her brothers went to school while she stayed home. Then a USAID-funded program brought teachers directly to girls like Apsana. For the first time, she was getting an education and a chance at a future beyond early marriage. Then the U.S. funding stopped. All over the world, teachers stopped coming. The classrooms disappeared. Here in Washington, we canceled programs. For Apsana and millions more, we closed the doors to classrooms with brighter futures. May I add, I think we went from 500 programs to 2. I know what Americans are asking. Why should we care? Why should American taxpayers care about a mother in Nigeria or a girl in Nepal? It is because helping them helps us. Clean water prevents disease. Educating girls creates stronger economies and more stable communities. Of course, we should reform programs that don't work. We should demand results and accountability. Demolition is not reform. Foreign assistance is not simply a charity. It is national security. It stops disease before it reaches our shores. It restores and creates stability before the instability allows extremists to exploit it. It creates friends, allies, and future trading partners. It builds good will toward the United States without firing a shot. For Fatima, American soft power meant clean water. For Apsana, it meant a chance to choose her own future. For America, it means fewer costly crises, fewer wars, and fewer of our sons and daughters sent into harm's way. That is what my son, Ben, learned after serving in war. Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, a well, a vaccine, a bag of food, or a schoolbook could do more for American security than a bomb ever could. To the thousands of USAID professionals who spent their careers preventing disease, fighting against hunger, educating children, empowering women, responding to disasters, and representing the very best in America, I want to say thank you. Thank you for your service, the lives you saved, the communities you strengthened, and the good will you built for our country because your work mattered, and your mission still matters. We may have lost an agency, but we will not abandon the mission. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues who are here, and I know they agree with me when I say we must work to restore America's humanitarian and development leadership, rebuild the expertise and partnership that were lost, and make sure that America leads not just through military might but through the power of our generosity, humanity, and diplomacy. I know that is what my son taught me, and the mission stays ahead.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

House of Representatives

National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2027

2026-07-15

“That amendment would cause problems. The Temple Mount is a sensitive holy site for Jews and Muslims. Even small changes there have caused violence before. We shouldn't put this in an appropriations bill. We need careful diplomacy, not a quick amendment. Don't pass this amendment.”

Official Congressional Record

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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“You want to stop U.S. aid to Nigeria. I don't agree. Nigeria is a big country in Africa. The U.S. should send money to help Nigeria. Nigeria helps America too. I don't want China and Russia to have more power in Africa. Our aid helps Nigeria be stable. If we stop aid to Nigeria, it will hurt America. We can still push Nigeria to change. We should not stop our aid programs.”

Official Congressional Record

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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“The United Nations does some good things and some bad things. But we need a place where all the countries can meet. If the United States leaves the United Nations, China or Russia or Iran will take our place. That would be bad. I think it is foolish to leave the United Nations to save money. I want the United States to stay in the United Nations. I oppose the amendment that would make us leave.”

“The United Nations does important things. It helps people in disasters. It helps children and refugees. It helps countries work together. It set rules for trade and travel. It helps feed and protect people. It is not perfect but it is necessary. The amendment will stop all the good work it does. I want to keep funding the United Nations.”

Official Congressional Record

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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“Jordan is our friend. They help us fight ISIS. They take in many refugees. We want Jordan to be stable and safe. We need to give Jordan money. I don't want to cut the money we give to Jordan.”

Official Congressional Record

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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“A bad thing happened to some people. That makes me sad. I want to keep sending foreign aid money. We should talk about how to spend it. I want to blame Iran for attacking Israel. Israel is our friend. We should keep helping Israel. I want Palestinians and Israelis to live together in peace. I don't want to talk about details now. We should talk later. I want my party to look good. I want to look like I care about foreign policy.”

Official Congressional Record

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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I oppose this amendment. I want the U.S. to spend money in the Middle East. I want to give money to Israel and other U.S. allies. I don't want to limit spending on peace building, refugees, or embassies. I want to use money to fight terrorist groups. I think the Middle East affects the U.S. I want the U.S. to be involved.”

Official Congressional Record

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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I am against this. The other side wants to stop spending money. I want to keep sending money to other countries. I say it helps us. I say it is for the environment. I say it helps stop criminals. I say look at bad news and blame it on not spending money. We need to help these countries. It is a crisis. I want the government to spend money to lead other countries.”

Official Congressional Record

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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I think this amendment is bad. It would hurt our security. It would not save much money. I want my colleagues to vote against it.”

“This program trains foreign military leaders. It's cheap. It builds ties with our military. It helps their military be more professional and respect human rights. Some countries can't pay for this training. This amendment would make them pay. I don't want that. My son is a marine. He went to war. Some of his friends died. This program keeps our soldiers safe. It prevents wars. A general said it's a good program. It helps our security. It saves lives. I want to keep this program. I don't want this amendment.”

Official Congressional Record

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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“The Fulbright Program is good. Many people want to join. Some people who were in the program are important now. The head of a government and other famous people were in the program. It is worth the money. Other countries also give money to the program. They want their students to study in our country. We should keep the program. I don't want to cut the funding. I think the people who want to cut it are not smart. I want the program to stay.”

Official Congressional Record

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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“You started a war. That costs billions of dollars. You should show leadership. This bill does not. It makes us less safe. I want the bill to be better. I urge a no vote.”

Official Congressional Record

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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want to let Ms. Wasserman Schultz speak. She is from Florida. She is also the top Democrat on a subcommittee about military construction and veterans.”

“I don't like this bill. It has less money for diplomacy and foreign aid. I want more money for those things. I think less money makes us less safe. I don't like that it takes money away from women's health programs. I want to give money to the United Nations. I think less money will let China and Russia take over. I want America to lead with money for diplomacy and foreign aid, not just military. I think those things prevent wars.”

Official Congressional Record

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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗