Randy Fine

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

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.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the so- called Faster Labor Contracts Act.

I used to run businesses. That is what I was good at, and I understand the importance of collective bargaining, but I also know that the process shouldn't be rushed.

Labor contracts are not minor administrative details. These are life- changing agreements. But this legislation imposes rigid timelines and artificial deadlines that could actually hurt both parties.

Negotiations take time because real compromise takes time. Workers deserve the opportunity to organize, consult with representatives, and review proposals carefully.

The current law provides the right incentives for good-faith bargaining, but the Faster Labor Contracts Act does not do that. It does not even promise a quicker turnaround for labor contracts. It just promises that a third party will step in sooner.

The bill gives union workers and employees 90 days to reach an agreement before being referred to mediation and then 30 additional days before going to arbitration. But there is no time limit on the arbitration, which could last for months or even years.

Think about that. The only participants who do not face a deadline under the bill are the arbitrators the government is forcing employers and employees to submit to.

Despite the name of the bill, there is no guarantee the process will actually become faster. There is only a guarantee that workers and businesses may have no say in the final product.

This bill doesn't promise higher wages. It doesn't improve workplace safety. It doesn't strengthen retirement security. It does not protect healthcare benefits. What it does do is place private negotiations on an accelerated timetable that increases pressure on workers to settle before they have fully fought for what they deserve.

This is a bad idea, and I hope that we vote it down today.

Mr. Speaker, one would have thought after October 7, 2023, the world's worst attack against Jews since the Holocaust, which obviously took place in Europe, there would have been an outpouring of sympathy and less anti-Semitism in the world. In Europe, in particular, that is not what happened.

A study conducted by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights recorded an increase of up to 400 percent in anti-Semitic activity since October 7. That same study also found that 96 percent of European Jews that were surveyed, almost every single one said that they encounter anti-Semitism in their daily lives--not once a month, not once a year, but every day in their actual existence.

Crimes linked to anti-Semitism are on the rise all throughout Europe. Even our major allies in the region have seen a dramatic increase.

France saw 1,600 anti-Semitic acts in 2024, a 300 percent increase since before October 7. The United Kingdom had over 3,500 anti-Semitic incidents in 2024, up dramatically from the 1,600, which is still too many, that they had before October 7, 2023.

Statistics only show part of the picture. My friend and colleague, the chairman, gave some stories. What is remarkable is we didn't coordinate, and every story that he told is different than one that I am about to tell you.

On February 11 in Paris, a 13-year-old Jewish boy was attacked by five men on his way to synagogue--13 years old, five adult men. During the attack, he was called Jewish slurs by the perpetrators.

On March 23, in London, four ambulances operated by a Jewish charity were destroyed in an arson attack by three men.

Mr. Speaker, these are stories that affect Europeans, but the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe affects Americans, as well, particularly when we visit Europe. This isn't just about protecting European Jews. It is about protecting Americans when we go there.

On April 29 of this year, two Jewish men were stabbed by someone who said that he went out with the intention of stabbing people who looked visibly Jewish. One of the two was an American.

On November 10, 2025, in Milan, a Jewish American was attacked after he was identified based on his ``Orthodox Jewish attire.'' These are Americans being attacked in Europe.

My bill would direct the State Department to assess the growing threat of anti-Semitism in Europe and provide diplomatic channels to make clear to our European allies that this conduct is simply unacceptable. After this assessment, the Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs will engage with European countries that are identified as countries of concern to say that they have to cooperate with us to deal with this rising anti-Semitism problem.

This commonsense, bipartisan legislation passed through committee unanimously, 49-0, and I thank the cosponsors of the bill, Republicans Max Miller, Mike Lawler, and Representative Claudia Tenney, but also Democrats Eugene Vindman and Laura Gillen.

I also thank the chairman and the ranking member, both of whom have supported the bill, and I thank the majority leader for putting it on the floor today.

Finally, I would just say this. We said, after the Holocaust, never again, but the facts are that there is a real risk of it happening.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote today to take this one small step to make sure that it doesn't happen ever again.