Randy Fine · TranslatePolitics.com

House of Representatives

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

2026-07-15

“I am against this spending. It does not matter if the spending is for a good cause. We are $40 trillion in debt. We should not borrow more money from our children. We need to be responsible with money. I want the government to stop spending so much. I want to start fixing the debt now. Our children will have to pay for it later. We need to be careful. We can't keep spending like this. I want my colleagues to support me.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. Chairman, I will close by saying this: Irrespective of the ridiculous examples that I gave before, again, the idea that there is gender responsive ways to deal with environmental problems as though somehow men and women would deal with environmental solutions differently, setting all of that ridiculousness aside, I think we have a simple question before us. When you are $40 trillion in debt, Mr. Chair, and the things you are paying for are being borrowed from your children and grandchildren, the question is no longer whether something is a good idea. The question is whether it is worth driving us further into debt to do. Even if I were to grant that these projects were noble--and I do not--it is not worth borrowing from my two sons and every American's children and grandchildren to do that. If we do not begin to deal with these problems soon, then we won't have a budget to spend. This is one small step in order to try to get our fiscal house in order. I hope that all of my colleagues will support my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIR (Ms. King-Hinds). The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fine). The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes appeared to have it.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“We spend too much. Our debt is very high. We should not borrow more. This program spends money on climate projects in other countries. They say these projects are gender responsive. I think that's a waste of money. Even the Taliban gets this money. I want to stop spending on this program. It costs $140 million. That's too much. We have large debts. We should not spend more.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. Chairman, I will start by acknowledging the extraordinary work of my friend, colleague, and mentor from Florida on this overall package, which I do intend to support, but no matter how great a job we do on anything, there is always room to improve. At a time and a place in which we have a $40 trillion debt, I have an obligation to be looking to save money wherever we can. My amendment would strike all funding for the Global Environment Facility, which would save taxpayers $140 million. The GEF, as I see it, is a wasteful fund that spends money to bankroll woke climate initiatives, including grants designed to bring countries such as Namibia and Serbia into compliance with the Paris climate agreement, which President Trump withdrew the United States from because it did not reflect American interests and priorities. My colleagues across the aisle and other supporters of the GEF and green new scam argue that it is America's responsibility to give millions of taxpayer dollars to unelected bureaucrats because the GEF fights so-called climate change. Let's examine some examples of the important work that GEF is funding with money that we are borrowing from our children and grandchildren: The Women Ocean Guardians project, which seeks ``to strengthen the sustainable use, management, and conservation of large marine ecosystems by enhancing gender-responsive ocean governance, empowering women frontliners in coastal and marine ecosystems and implementing community-led solutions'' because we have got to make sure when we fight climate change it is gender responsive. Second project, in the Central African Republic, ``to catalyze land restoration and biodiversity conservation through inclusive and gender- responsive landscape governance.'' Again, just think of the absurdity of this, gender-responsive landscape governance. Then there was a grant given in 2024 in Afghanistan for ``strengthened resilience of rural communities' livelihoods to climate risks and variability in selected provinces in Afghanistan.'' Let me remind all my colleagues that Afghanistan has been under the rule of the Taliban. Do we really think the Taliban is going to use this money to address so-called climate change? The United States, as I said before, is almost $40 trillion in debt, and that debt continues to grow every single day, every single minute, every single hour that we are here. I think it is a gross misuse of taxpayer dollars to subsidize an organization that spends money helping other countries comply with an agreement the United States is not even a party to or giving money to the Taliban for any reason, let alone for forestry. President Trump's budget request eliminated funding for the Global Environment Facility. Congress should follow that example and eliminate this unnecessary $140 million expenditure. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗