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…
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.
Mr. Chair, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Walkinshaw).
Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished ranking member of the Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee.
Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 10 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Torres), a member of our committee.
Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), the distinguished ranking member of the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.
Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Florida.
Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Meng), the distinguished ranking member of the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Subcommittee and on our committee.
Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 20 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York.
Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Amo).
Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
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.
Mr. Chair, I rise in support and thank Mr. Diaz-Balart for working with me to include these bipartisan priorities in these amendments. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Tran).
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.
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.
Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart).
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I claim the time to oppose this prohibition for funding for military education and training unless reimbursed.
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.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I just want to say, when it comes to our security, our prosperity, the lives of our patriots who put on our uniform, it is, as my mom would say, penny-wise and pound- foolish to pass this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.
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.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
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.
Madam Chair, I rise as the designee of the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), and I move to strike the last word.
Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).
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.
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Massie
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.
Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
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.
Madam Chair, I have heard folks cite what we call the good, the bad, and the ugly with the U.N.
Let me just say again, at a time when conflict, hunger, disease, and displacement are affecting millions around the world, we need a place where all nations can get together.
What would it mean if the United States walks away? If we walk away, who fills the void? Fill in the blank: China, Russia, maybe even Iran.
As I have said before, penny-wise, pound-foolish.
Madam Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it. I reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
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.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.
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.