“I want the House to pass this bill. It protects our national security, helps our allies, and stands up to our enemies while saving taxpayer money.”

“Mr. Chairman, this is a really good bill. I have already talked about it, and you have heard other people talk about it. It strengthens the national security interests of the United States. It supports our allies. It confronts our adversaries, and, yes, it does all of that while saving taxpayers’ money. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes’’ vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.”

“I want the House to approve this group of amendments. Both parties agree on them. They support Taiwan, counter Chinese influence, use our aid to Mexico better, and spend more money to fight human trafficking.”

“Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bipartisan amendments en bloc, which includes amendments from both sides of the aisle. The amendments include nine noncontroversial amendments that advance the priorities of both sides, including support for Taiwan, countering the PRC’s influence in Latin America and the Caribbean, better leveraging U.S. assistance to Mexico, and increasing funding designated to combat human trafficking. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support these amendments, and I reserve the balance of my time.”

“I want to end funding for the Fulbright Program. It costs taxpayers nearly $300 million a year, promotes left-wing causes, and lets people from countries tied to our enemies enter the United States to spy on us.”

“Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of fiscal responsibility and protecting Americans from foreign adversaries. President Trump’s domestic policy is defined by his commitment to rid the Federal Government of waste, fraud, and abuse. It is time that Congress followed through on the President’s promise. Last year, the Fulbright Program cost the American taxpayers nearly $300 million, set to be repeated in next year’s State Department budget. My amendment returns these funds to the pockets of hardworking American taxpayers. The President’s FY27 budget proposed an 80-percent cut to the Fulbright Program and for good reason. For years, the Fulbright Program acted as a taxpayer-funded handout for trans fanatic, Green New Deal activists and agents of foreign powers seeking to undermine the United States of America. While the President confronted Fulbright’s board of directors about this injustice of their leftist bias, they resigned rather than face the truth. Every year, nearly 5,000 foreign applicants receive a Fulbright Scholarship. These recipients include citizens of countries with very close ties to adversaries, such as Russia, China, and North Korea, a known pathway for agents of foreign powers to enter the United States and spy on us. This is an unacceptable risk to the American people and our national security. The Fulbright Program is a bad deal for the American people, and my amendment restores fiscal responsibility and keeps our great Nation safe. For the good of our country and responsibility to every American taxpayer, we must act to end this harmful and wasteful program. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.”

“Vote no on this amendment. We already cut spending in this bill. We should not cut our exchange programs any more. They make America safer by building ties with future world leaders and fighting China's influence.”

“Mr. Chair, I thank the ranking member for yielding. I rise in respectful opposition to the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado. I share, by the way, and understand her desire to reduce spending. As a matter of fact, since 2023, as I mentioned before, I have cut spending under the purview of this subcommittee by $12 billion. The bill that we are considering right now puts forward an additional $2.7 billion in reductions. In this bill, the education and cultural exchange programs account is also reduced. It is actually $94 million below the fiscal year 2024 enacted level. We did cut back funding, but we left in place sufficient funds to support exchange programs that we can show make America safer, stronger, and more prosperous. The Fulbright Program is the crown jewel of our exchange programs. It allows the U.S. to develop key relationships with senior leaders of national security, technology, business, and entrepreneurship. Also, it strengthens U.S. relationships in fields that advance U.S. interests. In a recent official trip to South America, I heard directly from President Trump’s ambassadors about how the Fulbright Program is a valuable tool to combat Confucius centers from Communist China and other CCP malign influence efforts in this hemisphere. This is a program that gives us the opportunity to, again, create those long alliances that have been so helpful. It cultivates future leaders who champion our values, not Chinese values, and also, again, combats Chinese surveillance, data breaches, et cetera. This bill makes large reductions in wasteful programs, but Fulbright is not one of those programs. It is an important facilitator to our national security goals. Mr. Chair, I very respectfully urge a ``no’’ vote on this amendment.”

“I want the House to pass my amendment. The law already says foreign countries must pay us back when our military trains them, but the government has not been collecting that money. My amendment stops funds for this training until those countries actually pay what they owe.”

“Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment, which prohibits funds in this act from furnishing international military education and training without the reimbursement required under 22 U.S.C. 2347(b). My provision does not create new policy. It simply enforces a reimbursement requirement that has been on the books for nearly 50 years and strengthens accountability for how we spend taxpayer dollars. Under current law, nations using Foreign Military Financing to purchase military training must pay a rate comparable to what grant recipients receive. This training was never intended to be free. However, because the 1976 law lacked a real reinforcement mechanism, American taxpayers have quietly absorbed these costs instead. My amendment fixes that longstanding problem. It applies to Foreign Military Financing-purchased training and similar title 22 programs, and it requires that reimbursement actually be collected before this act’s funds can be used to provide that training. Importantly, it does not affect international military education and training grants, nor does it affect training for U.S. personnel. I offered this amendment because Congress’ original 1976 language left the door open for lax enforcement. The law says that foreign nations should pay for instruction from the strongest fighting force in the world, but it never included a means to ensure that reimbursement actually occurs. This can result in training that ends up free for foreign partners at the expense of American taxpayers. The original policy is not flawed. There is currently a gap in collection, and this amendment closes it. Our national debt is approaching $40 trillion, and much of that strain comes from years of weak enforcement and lost accountability across government. It is our responsibility to review every line item, even the small ones, because these costs add up. Given that we already provide substantial protection, personnel, and intelligence support to our partners, we should not absorb the cost of training that Congress has long required foreign nations to reimburse. Our partners are also welcome to use Foreign Military Financing or their own national funds to cover this training rather than defaulting to taxpayer-funded grants. Some of my colleagues may argue this will strain relationship with our partners. That is not the case. This amendment only applies where reimbursement is already required by law. It does not touch International Military Education and Training grants or our core training relationships. Others may suggest this is a minor technical fix unworthy of floor time. I disagree. A gap in reimbursement law is precisely the kind of overlooked taxpayer exposure Congress should address regardless of size. To my colleagues, the status quo is clearly broken. We face unsustainable debt, and too many programs lack real accountability. It is our duty to reinforce existing laws and ensure we are collecting what taxpayers are owed. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this commonsense amendment and relieve hardworking Americans of expenses that they were never meant to bear. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.”

“I want you to support my amendment. The law already says our foreign partners must pay us back for military training, but we are not enforcing it. Our national debt is nearly $40 trillion, and we need to collect the money we are owed.”

“Mr. Chair, like I said, this is already law. We are clearly just not enforcing it. I will reiterate that we are close to $40 trillion in debt. We are spending $2 trillion annually that we don’t have. As a servicemember myself, I am not trying to say that we don’t receive anything from cooperation and training with our foreign partners. The point is this is already law. This is already the law. We are just not enforcing it, and we are not collecting these reimbursements which we are entitled to. For far too long, the United States has borne the brunt of global defense, and I know it doesn’t mean a lot to many people in this Chamber that we are $40 trillion in debt, but we continue to spend money that we don’t have. Again, this is already the law. There is just no enforcement. That is what my amendment would take care of. Again, I urge my colleagues to support it, and I reserve the balance of my time.”

“I have an amendment to cut all 140 million dollars for the Global Environment Facility. Our national debt is too high. This fund wastes taxpayer money on bad climate projects in other countries, including Afghanistan under the Taliban. We should not pay for it.”

“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.”

“I want the House to pass my amendment. Our country is $40 trillion in debt, and we should not borrow money from our children to pay for these projects.”

“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.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this speech addressed the bill under debate and what it would change.

  See full analysis →

“I want to remove $3.3 billion of aid to Israel from this bill. Our country has too much debt. We should spend that money at home on our own roads, bridges, and homeless veterans instead.”

“Madam Chair, my amendment is simple. It strikes $3.3 billion of foreign aid to the country of Israel from the State Department funding bill. We have $39.4 trillion of debt. We have needs at home, which include our infrastructure, our roads and bridges. We have a shortfall in this fund. We have our locks and dams, and we are perpetually trying to figure out new funding mechanisms to come up with. We have homeless veterans. We are sending more money to Israel in this bill than we spend on homeless veterans in this country. Just to put it in perspective, there are 3,000 counties in this country, and if we divide that into $3 billion, that is $1 million from every county. This is not an insignificant amount of money that is going overseas. I think we should stop it. We should put them on a diet. They are the biggest welfare recipient of the United States and have been for many years. Madam Chair, $310 billion has been received by Israel from the taxpayers of the United States. That is in inflation-adjusted dollars since we have been giving them money. That is why I think this amendment is important. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.”

“Vote against this amendment. The bill gives $3.3 billion in military aid to Israel. This money protects Israel and America from shared enemies, honors our current agreement, and supports American jobs because Israel uses it to buy weapons made in the United States.”

“Madam Chairwoman, as chairman of this subcommittee since 2023, I am proud to be a leader in this body in providing unwavering support to our friend and ally, Israel, especially-- especially--after the October 7 terrorist attack. The $3.3 billion in foreign military financing for Israel included in this bill supports American--our--national security interests overseas. We see the same terrorists and terrorist entities that threaten Israel also threaten the United States and our people directly. When we give Israel the tools and capabilities to eliminate these terrorist threats and to protect their homeland, while including the many Americans who visit and live there, we are making America and the American people safer. The United States and Israel have worked together on successful military operations like those in the past year to decimate Iran’s nuclear program and missile capabilities. Israel is also using the overwhelming majority of this funding to actually purchase American- made weaponry, so it actually helps our defense industrial base and our economy. We have worked together extensively on developing military capabilities and other capabilities. Because of these advancements for our mutual interest and security, there is currently a discussion of moving to a new security partnership with Israel after fiscal year 2028. Just to be clear, the assistance in this bill for fiscal year 2027 is under the terms of the existing MOU, memorandum of understanding, which runs for 2 more fiscal years. This does not, in any way, prejudge the outcome of ongoing negotiations. This is about fulfilling our commitment to one of our closest and most important allies that we have in the entire world at a time when terrorists are butchering people around the world. We made that commitment because it makes the American people--our country--stronger. Madam Chair, I urge defeat of the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.”

“I oppose spending money on weapons to help defense companies. It is wrong to build our economy on making weapons that are used on innocent people overseas.”

“Madam Chair, I heard a common refrain in my colleague’s arguments there that, oh, don’t worry, all this money is going to the military industrial complex. I have a problem with that. It is not a sustainable economy--buying weapons and letting people use them overseas on other people, oftentimes innocent civilians. I am not compelled by the argument that our job is to be here and enrich the military-industrial complex, now called the defense industrial base. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro).”