Fiscal Year 2027 National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Bill
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
House Appropriations U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 2
Mister chairman, I'm pleased to present the fiscal year 2027 national security department of state and related programs appropriations bill to the full committee for consideration and approval. Let me start by thanking the chairman, Chairman Cole, for his invaluable leadership of the appropriations committee and for his commitment to ensuring that Congress upholds its responsibility, our responsibility, to provide the tools necessary to safeguard our national security. I also wanna thank the ranking member Frankel. Lois Frankel and I have been friends for many years, and I will tell you she's tough as nails, but she's honorable. And if she tells you something, you can count on it.
It is a pleasure to work with her. Again, it's a pleasure to work with my colleague, ranking member Delora, and all the members of this committee, for your ideas and insights, which have been instrumental in developing this good bill. The bill before us is the next step in our historic effort to strengthen our national security while reducing spending. Under chairman Cole's leadership and with the support of our colleagues, this Republican majority has delivered nearly $12,000,000,000 in responsible cuts to spending under the purview of this subcommittee since 2023. In fiscal year 27, this bill continues this effort with an additional 2,700,000,000 reduction below the enacted level.
Have to tell you that the greatest long-term threat to our country's stability and security is our debt, and this bill makes disciplined decisions to continue reining in unnecessary spending. Yet, our national security priorities are funded at or above prior-year levels. And so let me be very clear. If you're a friend or an ally of the United States of America, this bill supports you. And if you're an adversary or are cozying up to our adversaries, well, frankly, you're just not gonna like this bill then.
The bill maintains 1,800,000,000 for partners in the Indo Pacific, including $500,000,000 in military assistance for Taiwan and robust funding for The Philippines and our partners in the Pacific Island countries. It provides unwavering support for Israel and fully funds the United States, Israel memorandum of understanding by providing $3,300,000,000 in security assistance. Other key partners and allies in the Middle East, such as Jordan and Egypt, continue to be strongly supported. Now recognizing the vulnerable and the valuable partnerships in the Western Hemisphere, which continue to expand, by the way, those partnerships realign under the leadership of President Trump and Secretary Marco Rubio. The bill increases support for our friends and allies, such as Paraguay, Argentina, and Costa Rica.
As part of this effort, the bill increases funds for counternarcotics and related long law enforcement efforts, including investments to combat trafficking and fentanyl, which has devastated every community across America. And I'm all of us should be thankful to the leadership of the dean of the house and the chairman emeritus of this committee, mister Rogers. It also continues strong support for a democratic transition to freedom for the people of Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. The bill supports the America First Opportunity Fund, which enhances United States leverage abroad and enables a rapid response to crisis and strategic opportunities that may arise. It continues the National Security Investment Program account, which supports efficient, targeted development, and deployment of programs that support United States' national security interests.
You keep hearing this. There's a theme. This bill supports the national security interests of our country. Last year, the members of the NSRP subcommittee focused on how to responsibly transition PEPFAR, that program that we all know about, back to partner countries that are capable and ready. PEPFAR is a great success story, but I think most of us agree that a program or any program should not just go on forever and ever.
So working alongside the administration, countries are now committing significant sums of their own resources as part of the America First global health strategy, enabling this committee to reduce funding while achieving the same outcomes. Just as critical as what the bill funds is what it does not fund, and how it strengthens conditions, prioritizes oversight, and demands accountability for every dollar in this bill. The bill prohibits funds to the People's Republic Of China and the communist Chinese party, and prohibits funds to other countries from being used to repay debt owed to China. It also requires opposition to lending to the PRC within the multilateral development banks. Bless you.
There's a sneeze, if anybody's wondering why I said that. The bill continues a key provision, adopted in the previous year, that blocks assistance to anyone that supports, finances, or facilitates the operations of the Cuban military, including the Cuban Ministry of the Revolutionary Armed Forces or Ministry of the Interior. It continues the prohibition on all assistance to the Taliban and puts America first by withholding funds from Mexico until it delivers water owed to the United States in accordance with the terms of the 1944 water treaty. Assessed funding for the United Nations is cut by $1,800,000,000. No funds are included for the United Nations regular budget, and funds are prohibited to the following organizations.
The World Health Organization, the United Nations Commission of Inquiry Against Israel, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency known as UNRWA, the United Nations Human Rights Council, if you can call it that, the office of high commissioner for human rights, the International Criminal Court, and the international court of justice, just to start. The bill also includes a provision to help provide justice for victims murdered on 10/07/2023 on that terrorist attack, including, by the way, 50 American citizens, by requiring full accountability for the unrest staff involved in this vicious attack. In addition, the bill includes a new provision cutting off funds to any international organization that refuses to cooperate with inspector general investigations into whether October 7 terrorists are on its staff. A key measure from last year's bill, which is law, which was enacted in FY '26, is maintained, requiring the secretary of state to consider the UN voting records of countries in determining the allocation of funds. That's something that should have been done many years ago.
The bill supports full implementation of key executive orders that reflect clear commitment to national sovereignty, a secure border, limited government, and American values, including those related to restoring free speech and ending censorship, ending DEI programs, and other things like that. Finally, the bill maintains all long-standing pro-life prohibitions or provisions. It prohibits funds for the UN Population Fund and prohibits funds from being spent in contravention of the president's policy on protecting life in foreign assistance. These measures, alongside enhanced oversight and transparency, ensure that American taxpayer dollars do not fund abortions, a policy that Americans overwhelmingly support. Again, I wanna thank all of the members for your invaluable contributions to this bill.
I also, mister chairman, want to thank the staff of both sides, majority and minority. They have been working, frankly, through the night. And without them, none of this would be possible. With that, mister chairman, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen, for your remarks. I'd now like to recognize Miss Frankel for remarks on the bill.
Speaker 3
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And it's an honor to serve as the ranking member of this committee. Mike, I pushed, oh, I pushed the wrong button. Sorry. Okay. Mister chairman, honor to serve alongside you and as ranking member of this subcommittee, and I do appreciate the bipartisan tradition of our work.
Mister Diaz Bala, you are my friend, and you are a delight to work with. We actually agree on a great deal. But with that said, we have real differences, which we'll talk about today. But I value that we can work through them without acrimony, and I hope that is a model for how we can conduct this congress. I wanna thank the colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
We have a really terrific committee, and I do enjoy working with all of you. And, finally, you know, I'm gonna, despite my very strong opposition to this bill, I wanna thank our majority and minority staff who, under intense pressure and too many sleepless nights, helped us put this package together. And now, mister chair, this bill should be our moment to lead, to live up to the mission of the National Security and State Department subcommittee. Because real security is not achieved with just bombs, bullying, and tariffs. The apparent policy of choice for this administration, real security is built with diplomacy, development, and humanitarian leadership.
That's how we build alliances. That's how we grow trading partners. That's how we stop disease before it comes to our shores, and that's how we stop extremism. And that's how we prevent costly wars before they begin. Done right, this bill will make America safer, but we are not there yet.
And let me just say this. We're marking up this bill without a hearing with the Secretary of State and without any assurances that the funds already approved are being used as intended. And now let's be honest about the backdrop. USAID hollowed out. Programs canceled.
Expertise pushed out the door. And now a weakened State Department is expected to carry out the full load despite the fact it was never built to do so. That is not a strategy. This is a setup for failure. Programs Congress directed and funded food security, clean water, women's leadership are being ignored, with no clear plan for implementation.
The administration's cut to family planning have forced clinics to close, cut off access to contraception, and left millions of women without care. Nearly 1,400 clinics have shut down, and 9,000,000 people have lost access to services. Health care workers reporting rise in cases of hemorrhage, infection, unsafe abortions, and preventable deaths. And in a stunning example of waste, $8,000,000 worth of contraceptives already paid for by the American taxpayer were left to expire in a warehouse, instead of being delivered to partners ready to distribute them. And that's not all.
The inner administration's undermining numerous tools of global health leadership. Despite bipartisan support for the organization, it has failed to release funds for GAVI, the vaccine alliance, a program that has helped prevent more than 20 million deaths since 2000, all because of RFK Jr.'s anti vaccine conspiracy theories. And now we are seeing coercive transactional tactics, dangling lifesaving health assistance in exchange for unrelated demands on trade and critical minerals. We're also told programs like PETFU are up and running, but on the ground, life-saving medications are not reaching the people who need them. And this comes now a sweeping expansion of the global gag rule, which covers nearly all nonmilitary assistance.
And the consequences of all these decisions have been devastating. In just one year, the cuts have led to over 750,000 deaths, eighty-eight lives every hour, while malaria surges, HIV treatment is disrupted, and clinics shut down. And the projections are even worse, up to 22 million preventable deaths by 2030. And what does all this mean? Listen to this, folks.
We are forcing women and girls in pregnancies they are not ready for, and then turning our backs on their children as they suffer and die from hunger and preventable disease. And it doesn't stop there. A funding meant to protect vulnerable people fleeing conflict is being used to advance a cruel and twisted immigration agenda. After ICE rips people away from the communities, they are being sent to places where they do not speak the language and know the culture. This is not policy.
It is cruelty. Added together, and this pulls back American leadership at exactly the wrong moment with another 2,700,000,000 cut this year, and we are investing $14,000,000,000 less than just four years ago. And these reductions will weaken our diplomats, dismantle development programs, slash humanitarian aid, the lifeline that keeps millions alive, and undermine global insecurity efforts that stop threats before they reach our shores. And at the same time, the president is requesting hundreds of billions from more war. Let me be clear.
I support a strong military. But as the mother of a marine who served in two wars, I know what's at stake. And like most Americans, we rather prevent war than have our loved ones fighting one. And that's why soft power is so essential. Diplomacy stops costly wars before they start.
Global health programs stop outbreaks before they spread. Development reduces the desperation that fuels extremism. Alliances ensure that we do not face threats alone. That's how you keep America safe. But this bill abandons that strategy.
Eliminating funding for the United Nations and US peacekeeping, you know, we could go on. A billion dollar cut for you monitoring aid, cutting family planning, eliminating funding for you and FPA, zeroing out critical institutions like the US Institute of Peace and the International American Foundation and the UN African Foundation. That's not strength. It's retreat. And when we retreat, China and other rivals step in, and we should not walk away from our leadership.
This bill fails the test. Security at home depends on leadership abroad. I hope that we will do better as this bill moves along.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady, for your remarks. I now recognize myself for the remarks on the bill. Thank you, Chairman Diaz Ballard, and thank you ranking member Frankel and ranking member DeLaura, and all the members of this subcommittee and full committee. We continue full committee markups today with the fiscal year 2027, National Security Department of State and related programs bill. This legislation makes a clear statement about American leadership.
We will engage where it matters. We will invest where it counts, and we will demand accountability for every dollar spent. On a world stage where challenges are growing and competitors are threatening the global order, this bill ensures the United States is not passive. It is prepared, it is focused, and it is leading. We are aligning our resources with our interests and delivering outcomes with a disciplined, strategic approach that reflects US national priorities, upholds freedom, and promotes economic opportunity.
This is an important shift. No longer will optics drive policy. Results will set the standard for American First Agenda. And it's also the standard Chairman Mario Diaz-Balart has applied across this bill. The measure stands firmly with our friends, while drawing a clear line against our adversaries.
It reinforces support for key allies like Israel and Taiwan and directly counters threats from communist China, Iran, and other regimes that challenge our interests and principles. At the same time, it raises expectations for global partners to deliver measurable outcomes and demonstrate real performance. America will always lead, but strength always multiplies when others choose to match it. The values we hold as a nation are put into action in this legislation. We defend human rights.
We protect religious liberty. We uphold long-standing pro-life safeguards, and we align funding away from low-impact efforts, directing it toward missions that strengthen America's position at home and abroad. There's a difference between stating our values and standing behind them. Chairman Diaz Ballard has closed that gap, replacing unfocused spending with a strategy that delivers strength, clarity, and results. I thank him and ranking member Frankel and the staff on both sides for their work.
I look forward to advancing this bill and completing today's work. And with that, I yield back. I now recognize my very good friend, the ranking member of the full committee, Miss Dolora, for her opening remarks on the bill.
Speaker 5
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, mister Diaz Ballard stole some thunder here. I was prepared to really have the assembled group sing for your birthday. So and just say today is the day that the lord has made, mister chairman, and happy birthday to you. So I wanna say a thank you to Chairman Niaz Bellart and Ranking Member Frankel, for their good work and for their friendship.
I also wanna say a thank you to subcommittee staff, Erin Kolodjewski at Headstorm, Lori McNone on the minority side, and the counterparts on the majority, Susan Adams, Craig Higgins, Jamie McCormick, Trey Hicks, John Muschcolini, Gabriela Zach, Aaron McMeneman, and Clelia Alvarado as well for their work. I'm opposed to the bill under consideration today. It cuts humanitarian assistance. It slashes global health programs and threatens women's health. It reneges on our commitments to our partners and surrenders influence to our adversaries.
President Trump has stumbled from one foreign policy crisis to another. He dismantled much of our foreign policy and development infrastructure, leaving partners scrambling, and our diplomats already stretched too thin, struggling to explain why The United States would abandon its commitments. He began costly, pointless, and ultimately illegal trade wars with some of our closest allies, which increased prices for American families by 1700 dollars and isolated us on the international stage. He dismantled USAID, severing lifelines of food and medical aid around the world. A recent study published in the Lancet Medical Journal predicted that if the current trend continues, the death toll from these cuts will exceed 9 million by 2030, including 2 and a half million deaths of children younger than five years old.
The president repeatedly threatened to invade Greenland, which our closest NATO allies believe was serious enough to make physical preparations to defend against a US military operation. He has made a policy of extrajudicial killings in the Caribbean and Pacific, blowing up fishing boats, and then accusing the people he killed of smuggling drugs while providing no evidence. Experts in the law of war believe these strikes are likely to constitute war crimes. And he started a war with Iran, a war of choice that has sent gas prices skyrocketing by 40% and has no discernible objective, no strategic vision, and no end in sight. The Trump doctrine is a failure, followed by failure, alienating our allies while aiding our adversaries.
This bill continues that pattern. This bill does not provide any funding for the UN regular budget, abandoning one of the longest standing institutions devoted to global peace. Undermining the UN only erodes our global influence. It also shortchanges American businesses who receive upwards of $2,100,000,000 in UN contracts, which is more than our dues. This bill cuts funding for global health programs, particularly in the areas of reproductive health and global health security, making us more vulnerable to infectious disease outbreaks that originate abroad.
Pandemics do not respect international borders. It is in our best interest to prevent and contain them before they reach our shores, but these cuts impede our ability to do that. The bill threatens women's health around the globe, blocking any funds from going to the UN Population Fund. UNFPA is dedicated to reducing maternal mortality, violence against women, and extending family planning to women and girls everywhere. This includes work to include working to eliminate obstetric fistula, an issue I care deeply about.
By failing to provide any funding for the UNFPA, the conditions under which millions of women around the world live will only become worse. Eliminating this funding is a moral failure. This bill also eliminates all funding for the US Institute of Peace, the Inter-American Foundation, and the US African Development Foundation. Each of these programs strengthens our influence abroad, enabling us to prevent crises before they arise and build relationships with the next generation of global leaders. This bill surrenders American global influence to our adversaries.
For every step backwards we take, they take a step forward. Continually defunding the institutions that support America's international presence will have serious, long-lasting consequences. In little more than a year, the Trump administration has squandered decades of American soft power. Our ability to influence other countries without resorting to the use of force and risking military conflict. This bill hinders our ability to reclaim any of it for years to come. And we cannot forget that these steep cuts to American diplomatic efforts are being proposed before an increase of hundreds of billions of dollars, at least, in defense spending.
It is remarkable the distance between how much we are willing to devote to war and how little we can spare for peace. I encourage my colleagues to oppose this bill and work with the Democrats to craft a funding bill that strengthens American international leadership, not weakens it. Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
I thank the gentlelady for her remarks. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Molinar. Oh, excuse me. The distinguished chairman, Emeritus, and the full committee are recognized for his remarks. You're gonna have to wait, John, on the bill.
Speaker 6
I want to thank chairman Diaz Ballard for including strong funding in this bill and resources to combat the flow of fentanyl and other illicit drugs into the US. We must wield every tool that we have to curb this influx of deadly substances into the country that harm innocent Americans every day, killing our young people especially. So I hope we utilize these funds, mister chairman, in the most effective way that we can. The bill also continues strong support for Israel, and we adequately counter Chinese aggression, including 500,000,000 foreign military financing for Taiwan to strengthen deterrence across the Taiwan Strait and fully funding the countering PRC influence fund. So I thank the chairman for including the language on Finaldel.
That's the deadliest scourge that this nation has ever seen. And you and I are in a place to make improvements, save lives, especially young people. It's up to you and me. So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for doing the right thing. You're back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen, for your remarks. A distinguished gentleman from Maryland, Mister Hoyer, is recognized for remarks on the bill.
Speaker 7
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I wanna thank both the chairman of the committee, who I know is very sincere in his objective to strengthen America. I wanna thank you. Thank you, Mr. Alfred. I wanna thank the chairman, as I said, and I certainly wanna thank the ranking member, Miss Franklin, for her leadership in bringing forward a bill that achieves, for the most part, a bipartisan consensus on some of our issues, but clearly, as has been indicated by our ranking member and our ranking member of the subcommittee.
I'm disappointed as I know they are in the reductions, the majority included in this bill, chiefly with regard to our support for Ukraine. I've introduced an amendment to address that, and I'll speak about that at the time. At present, however, let me just say that the people of Ukraine and their leaders are not the only ones looking carefully at the level of support we include in this bill. The Kremlin is watching. The Chinese government is scrutinizing it as well.
Let us be mindful of the signals we are sending to our adversaries and not just to our friends. Not only with respect to the military side, but also with respect to the area of where we need to give aid and help to people who are struggling in the world. The soft weapons that we talk about. We can do better. We should do better to ensure that Ukraine has all the resources needed to complete the liberation of its sovereign territory, and to strike a blow against the forces of autocracy.
And Hall would say, I just take what I want. The era of that history should be over. The rules-based international order led by America since the end of the Second World War delivered the greatest period of peace and prosperity ever experienced. We must not retreat in our role of leadership in this area. If we wanna keep that going, it's up to us to lead in preserving that order.
Ukraine is fighting to do just that. If they lose, we lose. If they win, so do we, as does the free world. I'm glad that this bill continues the robust bipartisan support for Israel's security and the close US-Israel security cooperation that delivers so many benefits to both our nations. No matter what one's views are on the current politics in both the United States and Israel, ultimately, our nation shares a bond that goes beyond politics or personalities.
It's about shared values and democratic ideals. And our commitment to the US-Israel relationship is one that is rooted in a respect for history, justice, and the fight against global antisemitism. With regard to how this bill was brought forward, I'm disappointed not only in the bill that I am the ranking member of, but this bill as well. And as I understand, almost every other bill we consider where we have not had the appropriate hearings to give us the information that we need. That lapse, in my opinion, weakens this bill and the other bills that we are considering.
But I wanna thank both the chairman and ranking member and the staff who've worked hard on both sides for writing a bill that reflects what we've called an attempt at the psychology of consensus. We haven't reached it in this bill, as the ranking member indicated, and the ranking member of the full committee. That is, it's aimed toward reaching bipartisan agreement instead of toward furthering partisan conflict. I know that the chairman and ranking member will continue down the road with this bill, as they complete this process. This bill is close, and I hope we can prove and strengthen it.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman for his remarks. Gentlemen from Michigan, mister Molinars recognized for his remarks on the bill.
Speaker 4
Thank you, mister chairman, and thanks for spending your birthday with us today. I rise in support of the fiscal year 2027 National Security and State Department appropriations bill. This legislation makes long-overdue cuts to wasteful foreign aid while strengthening American national security and safeguarding our interests. It will keep Americans safe by countering our adversaries and supporting our allies. Specifically, it provides 500,000,000 in military financing for Taiwan, 400,000,000 for the countering China's influence fund, and 35,000,000 for the American Institute of Taiwan.
At the same time, crucial organizations like the Export-Import Bank and the Development Finance Corporation are robustly funded to combat China's Belt and Road Initiative. This sends a clear message to the world that we stand by our allies against the Chinese Communist Party's malign actions. I wanna thank Chairman Diaz Belaar for his leadership in crafting this legislation, and I urge all our colleagues to support this bill. With that, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thanks, gentlemen, for his remarks. The gentleman lady from Ohio, Miss Kaplan, is recognized for her remarks on the bill.
Speaker 8
Thank you, mister chairman, and happy birthday from this end of the table. Chairman Cole, ranking member Del Oro, chair Diaz Ballard, and ranking member Frankel, thank you for your hard work on this bill. Our focus today on our nation's role as Liberty's North Star in a complicated world is not only necessary, it is vital. Like many Americans, let me express my deep concerns about the perception by our nation of our nation's overall retreat from our allies in freedom's cause. Even alienating Canada, really, my district adjoins Canada, our largest trading partner.
What the United States does or does not do diplomatically sends clear messages. Meanwhile, America's adversaries are on the march. A prime example, Russia's invasion, brutal invasion of Ukraine and its continuing brutality on Ukraine's people reminds us of Vladimir Putin's obsession to restore the tyranny of the former Soviet Union to territories that formerly were held hostage to dictatorships all across Europe, our closest allies. Now is not the time to capitulate to repression, isolationism, and indeed, war as the ultimate abandonment of reason. The United States must not abandon its leadership and participation in international organizations and free world alliances and forums, and cede leadership to what I view as a complex global forming spider web of tyranny that links Russia, North Korea, Iran, and Chinese interests.
Imperfect though our nation can appear, our steady efforts to engage former adversaries was must not be abandoned. Slow progress toward world peace and the institutions that shape that peace took major strides forward following World Wars 1 and 2. I would guess most of our families paid the heaviest price in those wars. Mine certainly did. But it ushered in a new era, and we must not cast off the relationships that have worked.
Direct foreign assistance represents about under 2% of US expenditures that create Liberty's alliance, which has endured for half a century in achieving peace among great powers. That is an enormous testament to sacrifice and to our history. Tangentially, I took great offense globally when the administration found $20,000,000,000 to give to Argentina to send foreign beef up here, as America's farmers, including some I represent, are suffering from tariffs and seeing costs rise for everything: fuel, fertilizer, and unaffordable health insurance for families that I represent. I think about what's happening globally in our position. The United States once created goodwill around the world, and soft power protects Americans every day when they travel, like most of us do, helps American businesses find global customers, and yet this administration chose to start a trade war with our allies and cut aid to those most in need.
A Pew study last year found that America's global image among people in high-income countries nosedived under this administration to the point where only one in three have a favorable view of The United States. You know what? That's the same as China. I will say I'm glad to see continued support for funding the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission in all of this. Canada is Ohio's largest trading partner, accounting for 100,000 jobs in the Buckeye state alone and $21,000,000,000 worth of Ohio goods sent annually to our neighbor to the North and our ally to the north.
This critical partnership, and I say friendship, has been built on trust, and the harm done to our relationship with our Canadian neighbors through reckless tariffs, threats of aggression, and constant criticism will take time to repair. This is an important step through the Fisheries Commission toward healing, and I hope it sets the tone for broader reconciliation. This bill includes $15,000,000 for locating and returning Ukrainian children, over 20,000 abducted by Russia and Belarus, and with tens of thousands of stolen children from their homes in Ukraine by Russia and placed in camps where they are being reeducated and trained to fight against their own country. Russia is committing a massive war crime against humanity that reminds us of the darkest moments of the twentieth century. Turning history backwards, returning thousands of these children must be an absolute priority for this country. And ensuring that those children have a safe home to return to, I regret that this bill does little to support our Ukrainian allies.
After Ukrainians came to our aid in the Middle East to help protect Americans from Iranian Shahid drones, which were aided by Russia. We owe it to our partners to come to their events. In closing, we prevent war by promoting diplomacy and international understanding. That is our job. Fulfilled by these patriotic, talented public servants that serve in foreign affairs agencies.
The current administration is trying to defund diplomacy, to pay for more wars, and a reckless Pentagon budget of $1,500,000,000,000, not counting the hundreds of billions the president is asking for more. This is not a recipe for American success at home or abroad. I do not support this bill as written. Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentle lady. Gentle lady from Minnesota. Miss Colms, recognized for her opening remarks on the bill.
Speaker 9
And in honor of your birthday, I did a little research. Everyone has his day, and some days last longer than others. Winston Churchill. May this day last as long as you want it to. Mhmm.
On a different note, though, right now, I cannot support this bill as it's presented in front of us. So I rise in opposition, but I hope things change along the way, mister chair. It is deeply unfortunate that this bill continues President Trump's retreat from strong American diplomacy in the world and supporting developmental assistance. Know what happens when America retreats from the developing world. Poverty, malnutrition, disease take hold, and then along comes transnational terrorism.
And our adversaries, China and Russia, move in to fill the void. This is a national security threat, clear and simple when we're not engaged. This bill is a staggering $12,000,000,000 below where the bill was two years ago. That's a 20% cut. And I'm particularly heartbroken about the funding to global health initiatives, which used to be a strong way in which we rally together for bipartisan support.
And it created a lot of pride in this institution. Democrats and Republicans, we stood together to save lives. America saved lives. And we did that because it reflected our values. We did that because we knew it made the world a safer place.
The funding last year, we invested in global health security, preparedness, outbreak, epidemic response. That's not charity. That's an early warning system for each one of us. Is an insurance while this bill chips away at that insurance, that early warning system. Simply, rejecting this administration's proposed cuts would not be enough, though.
American diplomats used to walk into negotiations with credibility because The United States had a track record of showing up and keeping its word. But, sadly, that's changed with many of the things that have been cut and underfunded in this bill. The baseline has shifted so dramatically that we've lost sight of what this bill supports. It supported a child in Mozambique who won't get any malaria net or treatment because, well, we're not doing that program anymore. Or woman in Honduras who can farm for her community because our government invested in a global agriculture development, which was also heavily invested in by our private sector.
These are just a couple of programs that save lives, and at the same time, they improve our national security. We can and must do better. For that, I yield to my colleagues to keep working on this bill to improve it, so when it comes back, whether to the floor or from conference, it is something I can probably support. With that, I yield back.
Speaker 1
I thank the general lady for the remarks. General lady from Florida. Miss Washington Scholz is recognized for remarks on the bill.
Speaker 10
I thank the gentleman for yielding, Mr. Chairman. Wishing you the happiest birthday. As someone who very much loves my birthday, I cheer you on your day. Yes. I think we could all agree we wanna put a bow on that for you, Mr. Chairman.
I wanna especially single out the chairman of the subcommittee, Mister Diaz Ballard, who is my compatriot and someone who I have fought in the trenches with on so many of the issues that are embedded in this bill. I particularly wanna thank him for, and this will shorten my need to, so I can avoid speaking on the manager's amendment and thank him upfront for the ranking member for including the very important language with specificity in the manager's amendment to ensure that the oil revenue that is spent in Venezuela, related to President Trump's executive order, that we are able to hold the administration accountable on how that is spent and that those revenues are used to benefit the Venezuelan people and not line the pockets of extremely wealthy people. So thank you very much for that. I do have elements of this bill that I support, but, unfortunately, I must stand in opposition to the overall bill. Our nation is really at a dangerous juncture.
We're embroiled in a war that Congress never voted to authorize. We're increasingly seen by our allies as a threat rather than a reliable partner. We've abandoned efforts to remediate unnecessary suffering and make the world a healthier place, and it's caused hundreds of thousands of needless deaths along the way. Even the bedrock investments we made over generations to strengthen democracy, human rights, and the rule of law have fallen by the wayside. President Trump has given up our seat at the table.
He put down the torch of liberty, past presidents carried proudly, all so he can glad hand dictators and stuff his family's pockets with corrupt profits. All the while, working Americans get poorer. And, unfortunately, Americans feel the direct result of his chaotic decisions on tariffs, immigration, and military action. It pinches their pocketbook every time they fill up their gas tank or check out at a grocery store. And this bill, unfortunately, does nothing to reverse the Trump administration's policy of self-sabotage.
It does nothing to repair the damage done, the lives lost from dismantling USAID and replacing experts at the State Department with partisan cronies. It does nothing to curtail the Trump administration separating Cuban and Haitian people from their US citizen kids, then paying for them to be jailed without trials in Sub-Saharan Africa. Before ripping our international programs to shreds, Secretary Rubio said he'd assess foreign assistance based on if it's made us stronger, safer, or more prosperous. So allow me to grade this administration by their own standards. Our nation is not stronger.
Our diplomatic corps has been hollowed out, our moral authority has been stripped. Our allies look elsewhere for support because they cannot count on us. Trump's unilateral concessions to the same Venezuelan regime he once called a terrorist organization have shown his contempt for democracy, and given every dictator a playbook to exploit his weaknesses. So, no, we are not stronger. Is our nation safer?
While Trump's war in Iran has left our troops and our allies more vulnerable, instead of resolving chaos in Haiti or uplifting democracy in Venezuela, he's focusing on deporting good, law-abiding people back to further destabilize countries in crisis. His attacks on democracy have blurred the line that sets us apart from our adversaries, and that has a cost. Do we really want to present the world with a choice between a cruel transactional predictable China and a cruel transactional volatile America? So, no, clearly, we are not all safer. Finally, we are clearly not more prosperous.
The State Department was the epicenter of the Doge assault on our government, and it didn't even make a tiny dent in the deficit. However, Trump's backwards trade and economic policies putting billionaires in corrupt deals over working Americans have left us all paying more for less. And so far, the only nations getting richer off of Trump's misguided war are Iran, Russia, and Venezuela, all of whom were rewarded for their brutal despotism with jaw-dropping sanctions relief. So, no, we are not safer, stronger, or more prosperous. And this bill not only fails to put us on the right track, it guarantees our security will go off the rails.
This bill is not a course correction. It is an accelerant. Congress passed a bipartisan foreign ops bill just three months ago. That was a step in the right direction. But this administration refuses to faithfully implement the funds Congress appropriated.
Just last week, we learned they're withholding $18,000,000,000 in foreign assistance that this committee enacted, and Trump signed. Look. We're already trillions in the hole from the big ugly bill, and I can't imagine a worse prescription than a blank check for an unchecked executive. It's even more galling when you consider that money comes out of the mouths of desperate, starving children. A safe America requires diplomacy and investment.
A strong America requires faithful alliances, strong principles, and fierce resistance to our adversaries. A more prosperous America requires stable markets, open trade, and healthy communities. And all these things rely on the bedrock of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. If we forget these basic truths that underlie our nation's rise to greatness, we will surely fall from gay grace. And this bill, unfortunately, does not pass that test, despite my affection for the chairman.
And, also, I commend to you the sourdough bread home baked by my youngest daughter and wish you a wonderful markup. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentle lady. Gentleman from Texas, Mister Cuellar is recognized for opening remarks on the bill.
Speaker 11
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and happy birthday again. I wanna thank the chairman, mister Mario Díaz Barlett, the ranking member also, miss Franklin, of course, miss Delora also, and you, mister chairman also. I wanna highlight four areas in this bill that I think are important for our country to move forward. The first one that I wanna talk about is the outcome-based reviews, performance management language, which for the first time on any of the appropriations bills, I wanna say, and I think it should be added to every appropriation bill. But, the chairman and I have talked about it because we both serve in the state legislature, and I think the states are ahead on performance reviews, on looking at regulations that are outdated, looking at ways so we can streamline government.
How do we find savings without hurting services? So I wanna thank the chairman for adding this language, and I hope this becomes a modern language that we can use for other bills coming on that. So I wanna thank the chairman on the performance language. The second has to do with water and the international boundary water commission. As you know, this commission is very important for us that depend on water, the ag use, the municipal use.
And I wanna thank the chairman for a very robust funding increase for the International Water Commission for construction funding and, of course, making sure that we get Mexico to provide that water that they owe the United States. There is strong language, and I wanna thank the chairman for putting in that strong language. But, also, for the first time that we add language, where we are saying we cannot depend on the Rio Grande anymore, both on the US and the Mexican side. Sometime in the future, we gotta look at what we do for the communities that depend on the Rio Grande. And for the first time, it calls on the International Bottled Water Commission to say, hey.
Let's start looking at secondary water sources and long term conservation strategies that include water reuse, recycling, desalination, groundwater management, and other tools to make sure that our communities become more resilient. So thank you for that. Also tied into that, I wanna thank the chairman also and the ranking member for the support for the North American Development Bank and the work that they do along the border. I think I ranking my other member from the border also. I wanna say thank you for that because the Nat Bank and folks like Jesse Hefford that have been working with the Nat Bank have been doing a good job, make sure that we look at domestic storage programs along the border and other programs.
So thank you so much. Third part, counternarcotics and fentanyl. And I wanna take the leap from Chairman Rogers on it because he's been our leader on this. But I also wanna say some of the language that supplements what the chairman, Rogers, has been pushing. Language that calls for stronger action to disrupt transnational criminal organization.
Strengthen coordination with Mexico. Mexico plays a very important role. Improve precursor chemical controls, and go after the networks that manufacture, that move, and finance these deadly drugs. And, again, chairman Rogers, I wanna thank you because for many years, you've been talking about this, and we certainly wanna follow your lead when it comes to finding fentanyl. It has killed so many people, so many people in the United States and other places.
So thank you, and chairman, thank you for adding some of that language and funding there. Awesome. Finally, the last part I wanna talk about is making sure that we counter China and in Latin America. If you look at some of the work that China has been doing, they have been very strategic in looking at ports and trying to work with South America. They cannot get a hold of our backyard.
So, mister chairman, I wanna thank you for the language on strategic ports, resilient supply chains, nearshoring on the Americas, and making sure that we get Mexico, Latin America, Central America, and South America to stop depending on China in so many ways and make sure that they improve our relationship. So those four points are very important, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much, ranking member. Thank you so much, and both to Miss Zalara and Mister Cole. Thank you so much.
Thank you. And with that, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. The gentleman from Illinois, Mister Quigley, is recognized for remarks on the bill.
Speaker 12
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mister chairman, on your birthday, I'm reminded of the philosopher, the great American philosopher, Jack Benny, who said '39 again.' Last week, when we did the subcommittee markup, I was reminded that I have known many of you for such a long time. I've traveled with many of you for such a long time. Memorable trips with Mister Edwards to Ukraine, with the subcommittee ranking member to Poland, with our friend, his late brother, an extraordinary trip that mattered a lot.
But I'm starting to think despite all that that we see the same things, but we react so differently. It's a little frightening. We grew up with the notion of I'll believe it when I see it. I'm starting to think we've come to the point where we I'll see it when I believe it. Actions toward Greenland, the withdrawal from NATO, the gutting of USAID programs, placing tariffs on our friends.
This actually threatens our national security by abdicating our place in the world. We need to remember the basics. We really need each other. And the arrogance of thinking that it that they're going to stop. I mean, the world will spin without us.
From stopping life threatening diseases to fighting climate change, these funds can save the lives of millions of people around the world. Just yesterday, The New York Times reported that there was a resurgence of AIDS in Zambia after the PEPFAR program, which should save hundreds of thousands of lives, was cut off. Now that virus is advancing, and our response is to threaten to end the remaining funding we are providing unless you Zambia gives us unchecked access to their rare minerals. This is the fundamental transactional relationship. This isn't just a decision that's costing lives.
It's letting a dangerous virus spread, and it's not enough. It's a devastating loss of soft power for the US. We must be reminded that epidemics don't start here, typically in the United States, but they don't stop at our borders. What we do there saves lives here as well. And Canada was referenced.
And I said last week, if we can't get along with Canada, what's wrong with us? I'm starting to think there are members of the administration that when they were in kindergarten, they got notes home that said they don't work and play well with others. Here, it gets really serious when you don't work and play well with others. It's also time, as I said, to look at the words of someone who had a great understanding of our place in the world at a historical time. In FDR's last inaugural, which he gave at the White House, he captured the essence of the moment that we are currently in.
Before the Second World War, he had to contend with the Americans who wanted the country to remain isolationist. And after the war, he said, we have learned that we can't live alone in peace. Our own well-being is independent. Is our own well-being dependent on the well-being of other nations far away, and that we have learned to be citizens of the world, members of the human community. And finally, he quoted Emerson in saying, the only way to have a friend is to be one.
I'm not sure we have many, if any, friends right now. My friends are proposing a 5% cut to the 2026 funding. That's 12,000,000,000 lower than the 25 level. When my colleagues portray these investments as useless, some of them as useless, they miss our strategic investments, our current national security, and our children's future. Without these funds, we lose relationships abroad.
We abdicate our leadership to the world, to China, and to Russia. And finally, I wanna highlight what Secretary Mattis reminded us of. As president Trump's first defense secretary, if you cut the state department, you better buy me more bullets. If we continue this trend, I don't think we can buy enough bullets to keep ourselves and our allies safe. Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen, for your remarks. Gentleman from New Jersey, Miss Watson Coleman, is recognized for her remarks on the bill.
Speaker 13
First of all, let me congratulate you on your birthday. Happy birthday blessings to you. Let me also say to all of my colleagues, thank you for the goodies, the diversity of goodies at the table to keep us going. I rise to speak in opposition to the bill that is before us today. At every opportunity, it seems my Republican colleagues have sought to undermine the efforts to protect women.
So how do these cuts make life safer, face safer for people? This bill cuts over $180,000,000 of crucial funding dollars for family planning and programs meant to improve mental health, child health, and fight infectious diseases globally. If inactive mothers will suffer from these drawbacks, children will suffer from them, and many will likely die because of these unnecessary and unethical cuts. America is supposed to be the beacon of hope to the world. What this nation chooses to fund, it reflects what we view as our priorities.
The bill tells our allies that we are no longer willing to lead by example, making us look like an unreliable global.
Speaker 13
The bill tells our adversaries that there is an opening for them to exert their influence. This bill tells the world that the United States does not prioritize protecting the very vulnerable. I don't wanna hear arguments about America first between the gutting of domestic public health agencies and programs to president Trump's war of choice with Iran that Americans did not ask for, do not understand, and do not support. The actions by the president and his allies are the opposite of America first, and that makes it impossible for me to support this as we go forward. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I yield back.
Speaker 1
I thank the general lady for her remarks. General Lady from California, Miss Torres, is recognized for her remarks on the bill.
Speaker 14
Thank you, chairman. I rise in opposition of the bill before us and also to wish the highest ranking tourists a very happy birthday today. US global assistance is a promise to the American people that when their hard-earned tax dollars are sent into the world, their money returns to our shores in the form of safety, stability, and American influence. This bill breaks that trust. We have not held a single public hearing on the president's budget for this bill.
Americans deserve to know what is being done in their name and with their money. When we operate in the dark, Americans pay the price. Just look at the illegal war in Iran. American lives lost and injured, and more than $1,000,000,000 per day wasted. This bill fails in every way.
23,000,000 children denied an education. 95,000,000 people stripped of basic health care. These aren't just line items on a spreadsheet. They are our first line of defense. These decisions are making our communities here at home less safe now, and for a generation to come.
Ending programs that stop violence, drugs, trafficking, reduce terrorism, and maintain American leadership in the face of Russian and Chinese aggression. A few years ago, I traveled to Sierra Leone with care. In one small village, I met women caring for nearly 100 orphans of war and AIDS. These women had almost nothing, and they kept a school running. They kept children fed and hidden in the bush at night.
By doing so, they were doing the hardest, most effective counterterrorism work on the planet. They were ensuring that those boys didn't become recruits of extremists who prey on exactly that kind of desperation and grief. Again, the most obvious example of these problems is the current fiasco in Iran. Trump pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal in 2018, calling it the worst deal ever. Eight years later, we launched strikes on Iran without a vote from this Congress, without a declaration of war, without a shred of constitutional authorization, and no exit plan.
We are now in a conflict that has closed the Strait of Hormuz, and American consumers and small businesses are paying the price at the gas pump, and the pain is just beginning. This isn't toughness. It's chaos, masquerading as a doctrine without a care of how we are hurting hardworking Americans. This president has also turned American military firepower on our hemisphere with the first overt use of US force in Latin America since Panama in 1989. Globally, we have abandoned the hard work of diplomacy and regional partnership for the blunt, bloody instrument of B2 bombers.
We have a war spiraling out of control, and this committee has a chance to fund peace instead. A chance to fund partnerships, a chance to fund economic growth and safety, that will serve America for generations. Meanwhile, our adversaries are the vacuum that we are leaving behind. Make no mistake, Beijing and Moscow are celebrating this bill. This administration has handed our adversaries a gift that they could never have bought.
American retreat. UN peacekeeping has been cut by a quarter. More than 100 US embassies are now without confirmed senior leadership, leaving key partners without an American voice at the table. Because of this administration, China is now able to make a case that a Chinese offer, no matter how predatory, is more reliable than an American promise. That is not America first, my friends.
That is America gone. We have a choice before us, and I urge my colleagues to vote no and yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentlelady for her remarks. The gentleman from New York, Mister SBI, is recognized for remarks on the bill.
Speaker 15
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Feliz cumpleaños. I appreciate the bipartisan efforts by all of you, the chairman, the ranking member, the gentleman from Florida, and the gentlewoman from Florida as well. Thank you for working together to move this agenda forward.
Still, I rise in opposition to the bill because I think he fails to meet the moment, the moment that we find ourselves in. In an unauthorized war in Iran, today we saw how there is still no agreement, no consensus for peace in the region, and that's hurting us tremendously in our economy as gas prices are clearly over $4 a gallon. Still a runaway inflation. Supermarkets, folks go to the supermarket and come back home with a small bag and several small items. And so this is hurting us in profound economic ways, which, also, the crisis creates great attention across The Middle East and the global economy.
Hunger, health, and affordability-related crisis popping up everywhere here at home and abroad. Brute routine threats to our European allies that have been there for us for decades. As we will hear from the king of England today, our allies are being threatened, and these are the folks that have stood by us for decades upon decades. And yet, growing hunger and health crisis across the world. This bill, like the administration's foreign policy, in no way represents the America we love.
We were the envy of the world. There are cracks in the wall now, and we can no longer say that with assurance that, in fact, that's who we are. And so we must turn this around, and this bill, unfortunately, doesn't do that. Instead of upholding the core American principles we all know and love, the bill fails to deliver critical health care and resources to women, refugees, and countless numbers of vulnerable communities across the world. We were known to be the sentinel, the guardian of those communities that were vulnerable across the world.
They came to us, to the United States of America, for help, understanding, for collaboration. That is no longer the case. It abandons efforts to lead the growth of democracy. We saw what happened in Venezuela. Maduro is gone.
Instead of free and fair elections, the same people are in power. No change. And so this, of course, is known throughout the world. It does nothing to cultivate peace, economic equality, and private-market growth. For those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I will be unable to support this legislation.
I must, though, highlight the fact that both the gentleman from Florida and the gentlewoman from Florida have worked together, and I think that's good. I think they communicate in English and Spanish. Thank you. I yield back.
Speaker 1
I thank the gentleman. I just wanna point out, for the record, that our distinguished secretary of state is from Florida. The chairman of the foreign relations committee is from Florida. Both of you are from Florida. Would you let some of the rest of us participate in directing the foreign policy of the United States?
But, you've all done a great job. I thank my friend for his remarks. I now recognize a gentleman from California for his remarks on the bill.
Speaker 17
Mister Chairman, and happy birthday in the spirit of your birthday. I will be as brief as I can. I appreciate all the hard work that went into this bill, and there are a lot of good things I want to highlight. First, the bill includes critical funding that I, along with the San Diego congressional delegation, requested to address the ongoing crisis with sewage at the border, the Tijuana River. For decades, billions of gallons of raw sewage and trash have flowed from Mexico into San Diego and the Pacific Ocean.
This cross-border pollution has had devastating impacts on public health, local businesses, and the environment in our region. The pollution also threatens the well-being of the Navy SEALs who train in contaminated water. The status quo really is unacceptable, and I fought to change it. The funding in this bill will take us one step closer to achieving that goal. It builds on the more than $500,000,000 that the San Diego delegation has secured over the years to fix this pressing issue.
Specifically, the bill includes more than $300,000,000 in new funding for the IBWC and their construction needs, including at the South Bay wastewater treatment plant in San Diego. The bill also explicitly directs the IBWC to expedite the rehabilitation and expansion of the South Bay plant. These provisions will help sustain the important progress made last fall, when the South Bay plant expansion project was completed. The expansion now means that the South Bay plant can process an additional 10,000,000 gallons of wastewater per day. I've called on the administration to take swift action to rehabilitate the South Bay plant, and I'm really pleased this committee has made this a priority.
And I'm going to continue to work on this until our San Diego residents are safe and healthy, and our Navy SEALs can train safely, and our beaches remain open. Now on to the not-as-great stuff. I'm very dismayed the bill doesn't make the same kind of strategic investment in the rest of our foreign aid budget. I said a year ago at this committee that slashing funding for the very tools to bolster American leadership doesn't make us stronger, but more vulnerable. This year's bill doubles down on that same approach.
And over that time, we've seen the president start new wars after campaigning on ending them. We've seen the president threaten to invade our democratic allies while giving concessions to authoritarians like Putin. And we've seen the president's family treat American foreign policy as a self-enrichment exercise, profiting to the tune, by some reports, of 1.5 billion dollars. This bill should be doing everything possible to steer us back towards a smart and strategic foreign policy. Instead, it lets the president continue with policies that put American families, businesses, and service members unnecessarily in harm's way.
I'm incredibly proud to represent our marines and sailors at Camp Pendleton, and I'm always gonna do all I can for them. One of the best things that I can do is keep them out of harm's way, and ensure that war is a last resort, never a first impulse. That means funding diplomacy in countries where democracy is under threat, investing in global health leadership before diseases destabilize regions, and treating the climate crisis with urgency to prevent mass migration. For decades, bipartisan leaders have made these investments because they generate real returns in the form of fewer wars, stronger alliances, more democracy, and a healthier world. And, unfortunately, I don't think this bill lives up to that long bipartisan tradition.
Unfortunately, I believe it lets this president continue to lead the country down a dark and uncertain path. And for those reasons, I cannot support the bill as written. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Happy birthday, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
I thank the gentlemen for both. Gentleman from Georgia, Mister Bishop, is recognized for remarks on the bill.
Speaker 18
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to add my voice to the chorus wishing you a very happy birthday. I wanna thank the chairs and ranking members of the committee and the staffs of the subcommittee, for your hard work on the bill. But, mister chairman, unfortunately, I must stand in opposition to this bill. The majority is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the American public with empty rhetoric about America first.
The bill will not make America first. It will make America last. Last in global influence, last in international leadership, last in its capacity to respond to the most pressing challenges here at home and abroad. I'm concerned that the majority does not realize that the president's empty promises, his actions to stomp on the feet of our allies, and his warmongering are harming our national interests. President Trump has embarked on unilateral trade wars with our allies and partners, which has created market instability, increased consumer costs, harmed American manufacturers and workers, and damaged our global economic competitiveness.
How do we go back to our constituents and tell them that the president's action on the world stage is helping them to put food on that table when inflation is out of control? Do we think that our constituents don't notice that the price of gasoline jumped up one-third in just a month after the president instituted his war with Iran? In all of my years of public service, I never imagined the global standing of the United States of America could fall so quickly and so greatly due to the actions of one man.
Speaker 18
Today, the Republican majority in Congress lacks the fortitude to stand up to him. President Trump, again, with the help of this Congress, has sadly weakened vital American institutions that make our country safer and ensure our security, prosperity, and well-being of billions of people around the world. For example, the president has shuttered the United States Agency for International Development, and in so doing, has defunded over 80% of all global health and development programs. USAID has played a vital role in combating food insecurity around the globe, which is an issue that is very important to me as the ranking member on the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture. Particularly near and dear to me, the decision to shut a USAID that's taking a devastating multibillion-dollar toll on American farmers, as USAID has historically been one of the largest buyers of US-grown crops.
USAID has sourced 41% of the food aid directly from American farmers. Everything from wheat from Kansas to soybean oil to peanut products from Georgia's 2nd Congressional District. As a result, the closure of USAID has hurt American farmers too, not to mention the millions of lives that will be lost by steep cuts to its global health and conflict-prevention initiatives. President Trump has also effectively shut down the United States Institute of Peace, which promotes conflict resolution mechanisms and advances peace around the world. The US Institute of Peace is zeroed out in this bill.
Mister chairman, if these cuts are what America First is about, then we should consider renaming it America Alone or America Concedes. If it isn't abundantly clear by now, I don't believe that there is any true representation of our values as Americans, who are among the most generous, kind, and charitable people anywhere. Our sense of charity and kindness to foreigners is often guided by our religious faith. Our patriotism is not always self directed. It's directed outwards.
But more than a century of American presidents working with the United States Congress have recognized that global challenges require cooperation and institutions to resolve differences in ways that avoid costly wars and economic destructions. We have lived more prosperous, peaceful, and free lives as a result. This builds a portrayal of the principles for which America stands, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it. I hope that before this process is over, we will be able to come to an agreement on a bill that more accurately and more prominently and fairly reflects the true values of The United States Of America. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. The gentlelady from Pennsylvania, Miss Dean, is recognized for remarks on the bill.
Speaker 19
Thank you, mister chairman, and I too wish you a very happy and blessed birthday. Thanks for sharing so much of it with us. Do you know whose birthday you share or who shares your birthday? I wasn't going to cite him. How about Anne-Margaret?
Anne Margaret and Jay Leno. James Monroe. But Anne, Margaret, and Jay Leno. And you're nearly as funny.
Speaker 19
That's a good one. That's a good one. Thank you, Chairman Cole, Chairman Diaz Ballard, Ranking Member Deloro, Ranking Member Frankel. I rise in opposition to this bill, which despite the name change implemented by my Republican colleagues, actually weakens our national security. The cornerstone of US foreign policy has always been a three-d approach: defense, diplomacy, development.
While my colleagues across the aisle are taking a robust approach to funding that first d, defense, I am deeply concerned about the continued deprioritization, defunding of diplomacy and development. Foreign aid is not charity. It is critical for our national security. Our diplomats and development workers not only embody our values, working in crisis zones to promote peace, health, and human rights, but also promote stability and prosperity, reducing the risk of future conflicts requiring military engagement. The provision of humanitarian assistance is not just our moral responsibility as the richest, most powerful nation in the world, but it is also in our best interest.
This funding not only saves lives, but mitigates the destabilization effects of natural disasters, disease outbreaks, and conflicts. Why in God's name would we want to cut this funding even further than it has already been cut by this administration, as my colleagues propose in this bill? Further, this bill slashes funding for contributions to international organizations, including eliminating funding for the UN regular budget and certain UN organizations, including UNICEF, the United Nations Population Fund, the UN Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, and the World Health Organization. By withdrawing from these global forums, we not only lose a critical source of soft power, but we create a power vacuum that our adversaries are happy to fill, reducing our international footprint, making us less safe. The bill, sadly, is shortsighted, failing to invest in diplomacy at a time when we arguably need it more than ever.
This administration has been reckless, led us into a war with Iran with no clear objectives, no clear exit plan, and without the consent of Congress. Meanwhile, con president Trump continues to burn bridges with long-standing allies at the time we need them more than ever. If you can't be swayed by the impact of this administration's foreign policy on humanity, hundreds of thousands of people have already died due to the USAID dismantling and this administration's cuts to foreign assistance. Perhaps you could be persuaded by the economic costs. From an article that is from last September, hundreds of thousands of people have died as a result of our withdrawal and shuttering of the USAID.
Public health initiatives like deworming, vitamin A distribution, have collapsed. Immunizations are being missed. Contributions contraception harder to get. Ordinary people are growing weaker, hungrier, and more fragile. And because of all this, children are particularly vulnerable.
They are often the first to starve and the first to die. It is estimated that last year, as many as 500,000 children died as a result of our shrinking away from our human side. On cost, the war in Iran is already dealing a dangerous blow to the global economy. Inflation is up. Fertilizer prices are surging.
Gas prices in my area: 419, 424, 414. They're bouncing all over the place, and my constituents are feeling it. We are poised to spend billions of additional taxpayer dollars on defense to offset the cost of the Iran war, which has achieved no clear aim, and I would argue has made us far less safe. So I urge my Republican colleagues, think bigger, think better of our country and of ourselves. Stop surrendering to a president who is as unfit and unwell as he is uncaring of others, as he is uncaring of our standing in the world.
Please join me in opposing this bill. We can do better, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady. Seeing no other members wishing to make opening remarks, I'd like to recognize Chairman Diaz Ballard to offer a manager's amendment.
Speaker 2
Mister chairman, I have an amendment on the desk, and I would ask unanimous consent that the clerk dispense with the reading of the amendment.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman's recognized to discuss the amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment contains noncontroversial bill and report language agreed to by both sides. I'm not gonna go through all of them, but let me just throw out some highlights, including the use of certain libraries as passport acceptance facilities, clarifying language on limitations on assistance for Nigeria, and a reporting requirement on Venezuela. I wanna thank my colleagues for their contributions. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. The gentlelady from Florida, Miss Frankel, is recognized to respond to the amendment.
Speaker 1
I thank the gentlelady from Connecticut. Mister Lore is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 5
Mister chairman, I support the manager's amendment, which includes a provision that I authorise to withhold 25% of the secretary of state's representation expenses or party money until he testifies before the committee. We are today debating a bill that includes funding for the Department of State, and yet the Secretary of State has not come before the Congress to testify, to justify to us the executive branch's budget proposal, to answer our questions, and to provide information that is highly relevant to our work on this committee. The secretary will state himself as a former U.S. senator. He, of all people, should understand the crucial role that Congress plays in allocating resources throughout the federal government. The secretary cannot find time to come before the our committee.
We will not fund his entertainment expenses. I urge your support, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. Any other members seek to recognize or speak on the amendment? Mister chairman. Gentlemen from Maryland, Miss Troy is recognized.
Speaker 7
Mister chairman, I rise in support as well, but I lament the fact that we are including properly a 25% cut to the secretary if he does not appear before the committee. That is a responsibility and duty that the secretary has. I lament the fact that we included a 25 percent cut if the secretary of veterans affairs did not appear before this committee. But I rise because I lament the fact that we did not adopt an amendment to do the same thing to Mr. Vote. We rejected that amendment.
I'm not sure what the reason was when we adopt this for the secretary of state and for the secretary of veterans administration. But I thank the chairman for including it in this bill, because if we're gonna stand up for our committee, this is the kind of action we ought to take and are taking. And I congratulate the chair.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. Do any other members seek recognition to address the amendment? Gentleman from Maryland. Any other gentleman or another of the many gentlemen.
Speaker 20
Thank the chairman for including the language on Nigeria. The persecution of Christians by the Muslim tribes in Nigeria. We will need the help of the government of Nigeria to deal with that. And I think this language goes a long way toward making sure the government of Nigeria knows that we want them to respect the rights of every religion in Nigeria and to defend those rights under this bill. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. Do any other members seek recognition to speak on the amendment? If not, the gentleman is recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 2
Mister chairman, I have this great speech, but let me just say, good amendment. I yield back.
Speaker 1
That rivals the Gettysburg Address in being brilliant, short, and to the point. The questions now on the amendment. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no.
The opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The amendment's adopted. The gentle lady from Florida, Miss Frankel, is recognized for an amendment.
Speaker 3
Mister chair, I ask you not to consent to that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the general ladies are recognized for remarks on her amendment.
Speaker 3
This amendment would withhold 54,000,000 from the office of the Secretary of State until the State Department releases the funding for GAVI Vaccine Alliance. And I wanna be clear what GAVI is, and why this matters. GAVI is a public-private partnership launched in 2000 that brings together governments, World Health Organization, UNICEF, the World Bank, vaccine manufacturers, and simple and civil society to do one simple but extraordinary thing, ensure access to lifesaving vaccines around the world. Agavi helps to deliver vaccines efficiently at scale and at a cost countries can afford. Agavi pools demand from lower-income countries, negotiates lower prices, strengthens health systems, and helps countries build the infrastructure they need to immunize their own people.
It supports routine childhood vaccinations and response to outbreaks, whether it's measles, Ebola, or COVID-19. And the results speak for themselves. Since its creation, Gabi has helped vaccinate more than 1,000,000,000 children and prevent more than 20 million deaths. Twenty million lives, mostly children, saved because the world chooses to act together. This is not a moral, just a moral imperative.
It's a strategic one. From a health perspective, vaccines are one of the most effective tools we can have to stop deadly diseases before they spread. And reduce strains on fragile health systems and prevent outbreaks from becoming global crises that show up on our doorstep. From an economic perspective, immunogen is one of the smartest investments we can make. Healthier children become healthier, more productive adults.
Countries with stronger health systems are more stable, more resilient, and better trading partners. Every dollar invested in vaccines yields many times that in economic return. And from a national security perspective, this protects Americans. Because in today's interconnected world, a disease outbreak anywhere can become a threat everywhere, and we learned that the hard way with COVID-19. Gavi helped stop outbreaks at the source before they reach our borders, disrupt our economy, and cost American lives.
It strengthens global stability. And let me just say that this is why this is why congress has repeatedly supported GAVI on a bipartisan basis. In fiscal years 2025 and 2026, Congress appropriated $300,000,000 each for GAVI. That's $600,000,000 total. And yet, despite those clear directives, those funds have not been released.
Instead, the state department is now pointing to the Department of Health and Human Services for directions on where those decisions are being influenced by Secretary Kennedy's vaccine conspiracy theories rooted in misinformation. And I'm just gonna say this plainly again. Lifesaving vaccines are being delayed not because they don't work, not because they aren't needed, but because of doubts that defy overwhelming scientific consensus. That is dangerous, and it's unacceptable. This amendment is about accountability.
It's about ensuring that when Congress makes a decision on a bipartisan basis in the interest of global health and American security, that decision is carried out. And, let me just say this. We cannot stand by while children die from diseases we know how to prevent. So it's not only, it's not just charity. As I said before, it's smart policy.
I urge, mister chair, I just wanted to speak on this. I'm not gonna call for a roll call on this because I am hoping that we're gonna come together and get these funds released. And with that, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen, for your remarks. Gentlemen from Florida, Mister Diaz-Bilart, recognized and responded.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the goal of the ranking member on this amendment, to ensure the contributions made available under our bills reach their intended recipients. I look forward to working with the ranking member. I think she wants to withdraw the amendment, but it's an issue that we're gonna continue to work on. And we've done so before.
We'll do it again. So I wanna thank the gentlelady from Florida for bringing this issue up. And, we'll continue to work, Mr. Chairman, on this issue. And I know that her intention is to withdraw. I appreciate that, and she has my commitment to work with her on this issue.
Yeah.
Speaker 3
Mister chair, I'm gonna withdraw. But first, I would wanna yield to some of the members who wanna speak on this, and then I will. I certainly will. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Don't worry about that. Thank you very much. Gentle lady from Connecticut, Miss Dolores, to address the amendment.
Speaker 5
I thank the chair, and I thank the chair of the subcommittee and the ranking member, for their efforts and cooperation on this, really very, very critical issue. I'm supporting ranking member Frankel's amendment. This amendment withholds funding from the office of the secretary of state until the department obligates fiscal year 2025 and '26 a $600,000,000 through GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance. And since the year 2000, GAVI has helped deliver vaccines to over 1,200,000,000 children in some of the poorest countries around the world. It has they've saved an estimated 20 million lives.
This is a pro-life amendment. Every dollar the United States invests in immunization through GAVI generates upwards of $54 in economic activity. It is one of the most efficient investments that we can make. Yet the administration is still withholding $600,000,000. This was passed on a bipartisan basis, Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate.
We said yes to support GAVI. And this amendment reasserts Congress' power of the purse. We appropriated the funding, and the Department of State must follow congressional direction. The State Department has not provided this funding because they are deferring to the secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert Kennedy Jr., who said in the hearing last week that he, in fact, is holding up the funds. He said, yes, he's holding them up.
He is a vocal vaccine skeptic, and this is becoming a game of moving the goalposts. HHS asks questions. Gavi answers. HHS asks more questions, Gavi answered. But there is no movement on the funding.
And in the meantime, more and more children are left vulnerable to infectious diseases, increasing the risk that an outbreak begins and spreads to us in The United States. It's unacceptable. We appropriated the funding for this program. It must be provided, and it is the responsibility of The Department of State to move forward on this effort and not defer its responsibility to someone who is not leading on the science on this, but his own particular ideology. That's wrong.
None of our own particular ideologies ought to make that determination. We ought to be able to do what we established that we wanted to do, and that is to provide funding, the $600000000 for GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance, to help to save lives. I thank the ranking member for raising this important issue, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, general lady, for your remarks. The general lady from Florida, Miss Washington Schultz, recognized to respond to the amendment.
Speaker 10
Thank you, Madam Chairman. I rise in strong support of ranking member Frankel's amendment to hold Secretary Rubio to his obligations to enforce the law. Right now, the secretary of state is sitting on funding that can save children's lives. Every day the secretary refuses to obligate resources to Gavi is a day that vulnerable children around the world go without vaccines that protect them from measles, polio, and pneumonia. GAVI, the Global Vaccine Alliance, has immunized more than 1 billion children since 2000 and saved nearly 19 million lives.
It has driven a 70 percent reduction in deaths from vaccine preventable diseases, and it delivers $54 in economic benefits for every single dollar invested. While the impacts of these investments are miraculous, this isn't just charity. It is strategic and supports our economy. Gavi is the world's leading purchaser of American-made vaccines, supporting honest-to-goodness manufacturing jobs in my home state of Florida and a dozen other states across the country. GAVI invests more dollars into the American economy than the United States contributes to GAVI.
Let me repeat that. They invest more in us than we invest in them. That is an extraordinary return on investment. GAVI also protects Americans at home. Diseases do not respect borders.
The COVID pandemic made that abundantly clear to Americans. GAVI's vaccine stockpiles for Ebola and cholera have repeatedly stopped regional outbreaks before they became global crises. When GAVI stops an outbreak from becoming an epidemic, American lives are also saved. Above all, GAVI is about building towards independence. It supports countries on a sliding scale, so they can eventually take over immunizations for themselves.
Funding global immunizations has been a bipartisan priority for more than 2 decades. Every Congress and every administration since 2001 have supported Gavi. Even President Trump during his first term pledged a record $1,160,000,000 to Gavi and called it a great partnership. Today, that bipartisan legacy stands at risk. Why?
Because for the last two years, the State Department has refused to release congressionally mandated contributions to Gavi. That's $600,000,000, enough to immunize more than 20,000,000 children. And why is it being held up? Because the Trump administration has cleared the decks of global health experts and stacked its payroll with antivaccine nut jobs and anti-science conspiracy theorists. I can't believe I have to say this, but sentencing millions of children to preventable death does not make America healthier.
News flash. This amendment sends a clear message. Congress will not allow the secretary to sit on life-saving funds while children die from preventable diseases. We will not allow the administration to unilaterally abandon one of the most effective, cost-effective, and successful investments that we've made. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I thank the distinguished ranking member for offering it. I know she's going to withdraw it, but I hope at the end of this process that the right outcome occurs, so we can save millions of lives that have been lost for many years. Thank you so much.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentle lady. Gentlemen from Maryland, Miss Torres recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 7
I thank you, gentlemen. And I know this amendment's gonna be withdrawn. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a bill. It's not a suggestion. If we pass it, it's a law.
If the president signs it, it's a law. Mister Vote takes the position. He can spend either $1, no dollars, or all the money that we appropriate. I use the phrase, we are the authors of our own impunity. Either we pass this bill and the administration carries it out as we have put it into law, or it doesn't.
If it doesn't, we become irrelevant. I don't think I hope that was not the intention of any of you who joined this committee. Your intent was to make the law. Your intent was to say that we believe this objective is an important objective. And when we put it into law, you carry it out.
That means the executive department executes the law that, under article one, we adopt, we have authority for, and the constitution provides for that. So although this amendment is gonna be withdrawn, I hope we would start to think about what it does mean when they refuse to spend money that we believe is important to spend through adoption of bills? Does it mean that it is a suggestion? I think not. And they should have spent this money.
And if they don't wanna spend it, they should have come back to us and either ask that it be defunded, transfer the funds to some other objective they think is important that we would approve or disapprove, or spend the money and follow the law. Is that too much to ask the administration?
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman. Gentleman from Wisconsin, Mister Pocan, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 16
And happy birthday. You have an interesting way of celebrating it. So I am glad that this amendment's at least forward, and I'm glad the ranking member spoke the way he did. But let me just say, I was at that hearing we had with RFK junior, and he said actually a little more, and I think it's worth putting this out there. So when he was questioned by Mister Harter about mercury in air pollution, he, you know, don't forget, RFK Junior was a lawyer who fought environmental law, who was strongly against mercury.
He said he agreed when he came to the administration not to debate energy policy, so he didn't really answer. But he still said he has a problem with mercury. And then coming out of this conversation, he said his problem with some vaccines, and this is, again, an environmental lawyer, not a doctor, saying that Mercury is used as a preservative in some vaccines, and that's why he was holding back Gavi's funds. 10 to 15% of the vaccines that Gavi distributes have that. The other 85 to 90% don't, but he's holding back funding for the polio vaccine, for example.
I understand we have measles doing a resurgence in this country. We don't need polio, with a resurgence. At minimum, I'm hoping those of you who sway on the Republican side of the aisle could at least release all the funds because we've approved it. But if the holdup is this idea of a preservative, release the minimum, the 500-plus million funds that go to polio and all the other vaccines. By not doing that, we're risking all of these diseases having a resurgence.
So I appreciate all the comments you said, but if you could have that private conversation about release if he's it is a moving target. I completely agree with Miss DeLauro on that. But if what he said to us in a public setting was it's because mercury is a preservative in some vaccines, it's 10 to 15% of the vaccines that Gavi's using, then why are we holding up the funding on all of those? I would hope that at minimum that could happen.
Speaker 5
I would say within that hearing, and in conversations with Gavi, with the alliance, they indicated to the secretary of HHS that, in fact, they can remove the mercury so that it would make it safe. And yet, still, HHS continues to hold this up. And as I said, they keep moving the goalpost and holding back on this, which is not their responsibility. It is not their responsibility. It is our responsibility.
I thank the gentleman.
Speaker 16
Yeah. So just the messages, this is actually something we could solve very easily. But, honestly, I don't think RFK Junior is taking my advice. I think he would take yours a little more directly. But this is one where we could, you know, get the polio vaccine back out to people across the world as we voted to do.
You know, regardless of this amendment being taken back. This is something we can still get done as a Congress. And, again, I'd appreciate any efforts you could do on that behalf, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. Are there other members wishing to address the amendment? If there's no further debate, then the gentlelady is recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 3
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanna thank my colleagues for their very articulate, forceful arguments. And just to explain, the reason I'm withdrawing this amendment is it has nothing to do with the merits of it, because this is the right thing to do. But, mister chair, I don't wanna, this is a type of issue. Do I do not want to put our bipartisan and split it up and put us at odds because I do believe that we can work together to get this money released. And with that, mister chair, I'm gonna withdraw the amendment and yield back.
Speaker 1
I wanna thank the gentlelady, and just remind everybody. Actually, these debates are helpful, quite frankly, and we're in a process of negotiating a bill effectively right now. And so these kind of points are important to make, and many times offered and withdrawn myself for the same reason the general lady is today. So I thank her. With that, now I would recognize chairman Diaz Ballard to offer a Republican en bloc amendment.
Speaker 2
Mister chairman, I have an amendment on the desk. I would ask unanimous consent that the clerk dispense with the reading.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman's recognized to discuss his amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This en bloc amendment includes several changes to the bill and the report, and I'm gonna go through them. In the bill, the en bloc restricts funds for the National Endowment for Democracy from going to any organization attempting to influence elections in NATO member countries. It prohibits use of funds and contravention of executive order 14172 relating to restoring names that honor America's greatness, including to create, procure, display any map that inaccurately depicts the Gulf of America. It prevents discrimination based on personal religious beliefs around marriage.
And now to the report. In the report, the en bloc directs funds to counter drug cartels and transnational criminal organizations, and increases training for the Department of State diplomatic personnel on identifying, trafficking, and reporting victims of human trafficking. Finally, the amendment includes two, a bunch of tough new conditions on censorship, which I think are really, really good conditions. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the amendment. I yield back.
Speaker 1
I thank the gentleman. The gentlelady from Florida, Miss Frankel, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 3
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I strongly oppose this amendment and these additional extreme provisions. You know, the world is facing serious challenges from great power competition, increasing authoritarianism, and challenges across borders, such as migration, disease, and climate change. But instead of discussing these critical issues, we're talking about policies that really have no place in this bill. Labeling activities as censorship denies that everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but that we don't all get to have our own facts. Misinformation and alternate realities are polarizing our world and our country, and not being able to call out that information only pulls us further apart.
We should be focused on global problems that affect our constituents and not extreme provisions that we know will go nowhere. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady. Do any other members wish to address the amendment? Gentlemen from Maryland, Mr. Harris is recognized.
Speaker 20
Thank you very much. I wanna thank the chairman for including the language that prohibits NED recipients, NGO recipients from interfering with NATO ally elections. I think that we should never be interfering with any of our allies' elections, just as we would hope they wouldn't interfere with ours. And I specifically want to thank the gentleman for the language that starts on page four that, limitations on the use of funds made available for certain online speech related activities because, you know, some of our allies in The UK, you know, they passed the online safety act, which has been used to actually imprison people, for political free speech, or what should be political free speech. In the EU, it's the Digital Services Act.
We should be very careful because these funds are going to overseas NGOs. And if these NGOs support those censorship measures, we shouldn't be funding them. It's that simple. But look, other countries don't agree with us that we actually have a constitutional right to political free speech. One person's misinformation is another person's political free speech, and that's the way it is in the United States.
That's the way it should be in the Western democracies. And I wanna thank the gentleman for not funding policies that are antithetical to our First Amendment. I yield.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen, for his remarks. The gentleman from Maryland, Mister Hoyer, recognized for his remarks on the amendment.
Speaker 7
Thank you. I'm sure Jimmy Kimmel would agree with the remarks of the gentleman from Maryland. Will the chairman yield? The chairman
Speaker 7
So, would you yield? I know I have the time, but the first paragraph says that none of the funds appropriated under this heading may be made available to an organization involved in attempting to influence elections in North Atlantic Treaty Organization member countries. How would that have impacted Vice President Vance's, in Budapest urging the election of Mister Orban, in the past election?
Speaker 2
Where are our US government funds actually going to impact, affect elections in NATO countries? And, you know, it doesn't change what somebody may say. We're not here to censor. What we're here to trying to do is making sure that we are not funding with our taxpayer money to trying to influence elections in allied countries.
Speaker 7
Reclaiming my time, do you think it would be a fair assumption that Mister Vance did not pay to have the Air Force plane fly him to Hungary? We can and ask continuing the question, if so, would that be precluded by this provision?
Speaker 2
We don't fund, you know, military planes. That tends to be a defense issue. But, look, we could go down that rabbit hole. I mean, there have been instances that reports of during the Obama administration trying to influence elections in Israel. What we're trying to do on here is a very basic assumption, which is if you're a NATO country, we should not be trying to influence elections in your country.
It's a pretty simple provision.
Speaker 7
My colleague brings up other instances, but I won't go into further instances. But, frankly, I think the actions of this administration, I'm gonna vote against this amendment, but were contrary to the assertions in that first paragraph. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. Are there other members wishing to address the amendment? Argentina. Seeing none, the gentleman is recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 2
Mister chairman, I don't think I need to spend a minute. I think everybody knows what this amendment does. I appreciate your support, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
I thank the gentleman. The question is now on the amendment. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed, say no.
No. In the chair, the ayes have it. Roll call has been requested. Please, a sufficient number of hands have been raised. The support demonstrated.
So the clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 22
Mister Aderholt. Mister Aderholt, aye. Mister Aguilar? No. Mister Aguilar?
No. Mr Alford? Mister Alford? I. Mister Amaday?
Mister Amaday? I. Missus Bice? Missus Bice, I. Mr Bishop?
No. Mister Calvert? Mister Calvert, aye. Mr. Carter? Mr. Carter?
I. Mr Case? Mr. Siscamani? I. Mister Siscamani, I.
Mister Klein? No. I. Mister Klein. Mister Cloud?
Mister Clyburn? Mister Clyburn, no. Mister Clyde? Aye. Mister Clyde, aye.
Mr. Cole?
Speaker 22
Mister Cole, aye. Mister Cuéar? No. Mister Cuéar? No.
Miss Dean? Miss Dean? No. Mister Loro? No.
Mister Loro, no. Mister Diaz Pollart?
Speaker 22
Mister Diaz Pollart, aye. Mister Edwards? Aye. Edwards, aye. Mister Elzy?
Mister Elzy? Aye. Miss Escobar? Mister Espéat? Mister Fleishman?
Mister Fleishman, aye. Miss Frankel?
Speaker 22
Miss Frankel, no. Mister Franklin? Mister Franklin? Aye. Mister Guest?
Ay. Mister Guest? Ay. Mr. Harder? No.
Mister Harter, no. Doctor Harris? Doctor Harris, I. Missus Henson? Missus Henson, I.
Mr. Hoyer? No. Mister Hoyer, no. Mister Ivy? No.
Mister Ivy? No. Mr. Joyce? Miss Captor? Miss Captor?
No. Mister Lolota? Aye. Mister Lolota, aye. Miss Lee?
No. Miss Lee, no. Miss Lutlow? Mr. Levin. Mister Levin, no.
Miss Malloy. Miss Malloy, aye. Miss McCollum? No. Miss McCollum, no.
Miss Ming? No. Miss Ming, no. Mister Molinar? Mister Molinar, aye.
Mr. Moore? Mr Moore? Aye. Mister Morelli?
Speaker 22
Mister Morelli? No. Mister Mervann? Mister Newhouse? Mr. Newhouse?
Aye. Miss Perez? Miss Pingry? Mister Pokan. Mister Pokan.
No. Mister Quigley. Mr. Quigley. No. Mister Rashenthaler.
Mister Rogers. Mr. Rutherford. Mister Rutherford, I. Mister Shreev. Mister Shreev, I.
Mr. Simpson. Mister Simpson, I. Mr Strong. Mister Strong, I. Mrs. Torres.
Missus Torres? No. Miss Underwood? Miss Underwood? No.
Mister Valladeo? Mister Valladeo? I. Miss Wasserman, no. Miss Watson Coleman?
No. Miss Watson Coleman? Mister Womack, aye. Mister Zinke. Mister Zinke, aye.
Speaker 1
Does any member wish to record their vote or change their vote? Gentle lady from Maine?
Speaker 1
Are there any other members wishing to change or record their vote? Seeing none, the clerk will tally. On this vote, the ayes are 31, the noes are 27. The amendment is adopted. General lady from Florida, Miss Frankel is recognized for the purposes of an amendment.
Speaker 3
Mister chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentlelady is recognized for remarks on her amendment.
Speaker 3
This amendment would prohibit funds in this bill from being used to deport or transfer individuals against their will to countries that are not their country of origin. And let's be clear. This policy that I just described is part of an inhumane agenda, one that is sweeping people off our streets in aggressive raids, often targeting individuals with no criminal record, eroding due process, and even leading to dangerous confrontations where Americans have been caught in the crossfire. I'm talking about the action activities of ICE, of course. This is not the targeted removal of violent criminals that was promised.
This is an outsourcing of human suffering. My amendment is about stopping this disturbing and dangerous practice that is not worthy of our country. Right now, the administration is operating on people who have built lives here. The home health care aide is caring for a senior. The construction worker is rebuilding after a hurricane.
The farm worker is putting food on our tables. These are our neighbors, our coworkers, parents, people who work hard and contribute every single day. And yet they are being taken off the street by mass agents and sent thousands of miles away to countries where they have no family, no ability to speak the language, no legal ties, no support system at all. They have been sent to places they have never been, isolated, vulnerable, and, in some cases, in grave danger. And we have already seen the consequences.
I'll give you some examples. Sarah, a 28 year old Christian convert from Iran, fled a regime where her faith could cost her her life. She endured the dangerous journey to get to The United States. Instead, she was detained, placed on a plane, and sent to Panama, a country where she has no ties, no family, no future. And after weeks alone, a hotel, and a detention center, she was released onto the streets with nowhere to go.
Today, her whereabouts are unknown. Take Farah, a 21-year-old woman from Rocko, fled after her own family tried to kill her because she is gay. An immigration judge determined she would face persecution if she returned home, yet she was deported to Cameroon, where being gay is a crime. Terrified and alone, she ultimately made her way back to Morocco where she now lives in hiding, still fearing for her life. And, folks, this gets worse.
We're now hearing reports that more than 1,000 Afghan allies, people who risk their lives to support American troops, are. And I wanna just say, personally, my son was one of those troops. These people risk their lives to support American troops, being forced to choose now. Choose now between returning to the Taliban-controlled Afghanistan or being sent to the Democratic Republic of Congo, a country already gripped by violence and humanitarian crisis. Folks, this is not about border security.
It's about how far we are willing to go, and who we are willing to harm. And let's be clear now that this is happening. The State Department is pressuring other countries to take these individuals through threats of tariffs, visa restrictions, and even withholding assistance. Human beings are being treated like bargaining chips. That's not leadership.
It's coercion, and it comes at a cost, millions in taxpayer dollars, to push other countries to take people they have no obligation or ability to protect. So, what are we really funding here? Not safety, not law and order, but something truly cruel. And my amendment is simple. It's grounded in basic decency.
The United States should not use taxpayer dollars to send people to countries where they have no connection and no chance to rebuild their lives. If we continue down this path, we diminish our credibility. We weaken our moral standing, and we put lives at rest. So I ask my countries, is this who we are? Are we a country that believes in fairness, dignity, and responsibility?
This amendment gives us the chance to draw a line. I urge a yes vote, stop the cruelty, protect our taxpayers, and restore a measure of humanity on how we act in this world. And I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady. The gentleman from Florida, Mister Diaz Pollard, is recognized to respond to the amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition to this amendment. The amendment is way overly broad and would tie the hands of the administration in ways that I don't think we want to do. Look. I think we can all agree that we do not want serious criminals in our country.
Today, there are numerous convicted terrorists, criminals, murderers, drug dealers, pedophiles sitting in our jails waiting for their countries of origin to take them back. And, unfortunately, American taxpayers are paying for that. So under this amendment, if that individual, and I'm talking about potentially, you know, I'm talking about serious criminals in our prisons who are, as I mentioned, drug dealers, pedophiles, whatever. If they object, then we can't send them out of the country. Again, under this amendment, if those individuals objected to be in return, which obviously they would, the secretary of state would be precluded from negotiating with the country so that those countries can take them.
I don't think the American people would want to continue paying to keep criminals in the United States when the department could potentially facilitate their removal. So I respectfully vote, would urge a no vote on this amendment, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. General lady from New York, Miss Feng is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 23
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of this amendment and would like to thank the ranking member for offering it. In 2025, this administration made a deal with the country of Eswatini to accept deportees from Vietnam, Laos, the Philippines, Cuba, and Jamaica. These deportations are not only cruel, they are un-American. This issue is near and dear to my district in Queens, where immigrants and refugees weave the beautiful tapestry of New York City.
I'm proud to represent a large Afghan diaspora community, including Women for Afghan Women, a grassroots organization dedicated to Afghan women's empowerment. Our Afghan allies fought bravely alongside our forces against the Taliban. We promised them refuge. But years later, many still remain stranded, including at Camp Azalea in Qatar. Last week, we learned the administration is planning to shutter the camp and force the 1,100 Afghans stranded there, mostly women and children, to go to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, a war-torn country where they have no ties, or go back to Afghanistan where they face almost certain death at the hands of the Taliban.
This is wrong. As former NATO supreme allied commander James Stavridis said, shame on us. I think of the brave Afghans who stood alongside us against the Taliban. It is incomprehensible to me that we would not bring them here to the United States, fulfilling the most fundamental obligations of trust and honor. What message does it send when the State Department rolls out the red carpet for South Africans who skip the line, only to strand those who put their lives and their families' lives on the line for America's security?
I saw a video from a young Afghan girl, Zara, whose parents were in the Afghan military and fought alongside our forces. She has been at the camp for a year and a half. She said, I've been away from education for 4 years. We do not want anything big, only a peaceful life, a chance to get a better education, and a brighter future. Today is Zara's 15th birthday.
Zara, we hear you, and happy birthday. I'll be supporting this amendment. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentle lady. The gentleman from Maryland, Mister Ivy, is recognized to respond to the amendment.
Speaker 24
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and happy birthday. Thank you. I rise in support of this amendment. I have to say I have a lot of people in my district, who've been dealing with issues like this for some time. It's a different version of it now.
When I was a local prosecutor, I prosecuted many people. Some of them were MS-13 gang members. They served their time, and then they were deported. And we didn't have any issues with respect to the deportation at that time, because they were all convicted criminals. And after they'd served their time and we made them serve the time before they were deported because we wanted to make sure that they paid the price for what they had done.
We wanted to make sure we had the measure of justice done here in The United States before they were sent away, because sometimes, to be candid, you can send them off to a country. You don't know what's going to happen in that country. They might be back before the plane gets to turn around. So we made sure we served the jail time first, and then they were deported. But what we're doing right now isn't deporting, in many instances, people who've actually been convicted of any kind of criminal conduct, much less violent criminals and terrorists, like the administration likes to talk about.
Many of the people who've been sent away haven't been convicted of anything. And so people in my district, they were in the middle of these kinds of battles right now. Almost none of them have been convicted of any kind of crime here in the United States. Nevertheless, they've been deported in some instances, sent away to countries they'd never been before. And the key part of this that really troubles me is there's no determination as to how long they will be incarcerated in the place that they go to.
So for Kilmar Orego García, when they deported him to El Salvador, he hadn't been convicted of any crime here in the United States. They sent him to El Salvador, with no determination of how long he would be jailed there. And he hadn't committed any kind of crime there or here. There was a group of Venezuelans, I think about 250 of them, who were also arrested and deported from The United States, sent to the same jail, the gulag hellhole in El Salvador called CCOT. None of them had been convicted of any crime.
And, eventually, the United States cut a deal with Venezuela and allowed them to be released to Venezuela. But those were not people who had been convicted of any kind of criminal conduct. Nevertheless, we were sending them to one of the worst jails in the world with no determination as to how long they would be held, and they hadn't committed any crimes here, in El Salvador, or in the group from Venezuela in their home country either. That doesn't make any sense. That's not what we should be doing with this.
And by the way, we're parents paying millions of dollars to do this. So I understand that the administration wants to be aggressive in its deportation efforts. But incarcerating people who haven't committed a crime is not what we should be doing, and we shouldn't be paying money to other countries to do that either. So I will certainly support this amendment. I think it's critical for us to make sure that we're doing these things in the right way.
And just lastly, I would say this. When we asked for the agreement, the contract between the United States and El Salvador that governed the arrangement for the incarceration down there, the administration refused to give it to us. So the only way we got the information is when the case went to court. A civil case was filed to force The United States to produce the document. That's the only way we got the agreement. That certainly isn't the way it should work either.
Not only should the congress be able to get this information directly, but the American people should know what these agreements are, how much money they're paying for it, and we should certainly know that we're paying to incarcerate people in jail who have never been convicted of anything here or there. So with that, I support the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen. Are there other members wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 3
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The track, which is a nonpartisan research center that looks at federal data, here's what it's telling us. That as of April 4, 42,000 plus of the 60,000 plus detainees by ICE, 42,000 had no criminal conviction. That's over 70% who had no criminal conviction. And our Afghan allies to even suggest that they're anything other than heroes or heroines is not genuine.
And just say one other thing. If you take a look at the people who are being deported, you know, come into my area and go into an assisted living facility or a nursing home and see the women who come from other countries who are now gonna be sent where? To some country in Africa, they know nothing about. That is just so wrong. It is so indecent.
We should never put innocent people in harm's way under the guise of security. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield back.
Speaker 1
In fact, gentle lady, the questions now on the amendment offered by the gentle lady from Florida. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no. No.
Opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
Speaker 1
Roll call has been requested. Sufficient support having been demonstrated. The clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 22
Mister Aderholt? Mister Aderholt, no. Mister Aguilar? Mister Aguilar, I. Mr. Alford?
Mr. Alford? No. Mister Amaday? Mister Amaday? No.
Missus Bice? Missus Bice? No. Mr. Bishop? Mister Bishop, I.
Mister Calvert? Mr. Carter? Mr. Carter? No. Mister Case?
Mister Case? I. Mister Siscamani? Mister Siscamani? No.
Mister Klein? Mister Klein? No. Mister Cloud? Mr. Clyburn.
Mister Clyburn. Mister Clyburn, I. Mr. Clyde. Mister Clyde, no. Mr. Cole?
No. Mister Cole, no. Mister Cuéar. Mistine? Mistine, aye.
Mr. Loro ? Aye. Mr. Loro, aye.
Mr. Diaz Ballard? Mr. No. Diaz, Mr.
Edwards? Mr. Edwards? No. Mr.
Elzy? Mr. Elzy? No. Mrs.
Escobar? Mister Esbayat? Mister Fleishman? Mister Fleishman? No.
Miss Frankel? Hi. Miss Frankel? Hi. Mister Franklin?
Mr. Franklin? No. Mister Guest? Mister Guest? No.
Mister Harter?
Speaker 22
Mister Harter? Aye. Doctor Harris? Doctor Harris? No.
Missus Henson? Missus Henson? No. Mister Hoyer? Aye.
Mister Hoyer? Aye. Mister Ivy? Aye. Mister Ivy?
Aye. Mr. Joyce? Miss Captor? Miss Captor, aye. Mister Lolota?
No. Mister Lolota, no. Miss Lee? Aye. Miss Lee, aye.
Miss Letlow? Mister Levin? Mister Levin, aye. Miss Malloy. Miss Malloy, no.
Miss McCollum? Aye. Miss McCollum, aye. Miss Ming? Aye.
Ming, aye. Mister Molinar? No. Mister Molinar? Mister Moore?
No. Moore? No. Mister Morelli? Aye.
Mister Morelli? Aye. Mister Mervann? Mr Newhouse? Mister Newhouse?
No. Miss Perez? Miss Pingry.
Speaker 22
Miss Pingry, aye. Mister Pocan. Mister Pocan, aye. Mister Quigley. Mister Quigley, aye.
Mister Rashenthaler. Mister Rogers. Mister Rogers, no. Mr Rutherford. Mister Rutherford, no.
Mister Shreev. Mister Shreev, no. Mr. Simpson. Mister Simpson, no. Mister Strong.
Mister Strong, no. Missus Torres. Missus Torres, aye. Miss Underwood? Aye.
Miss Underwood, aye. Mister Valladeo? No. Mister Valladeo? No.
Miss Wasserman Schultz? Miss Wasserman Schultz? Aye. Miss Watson Coleman? Aye.
Miss Watson Coleman? Mister Womack? Mister Womack? No. Mister Zinke?
Mister Zinke? No.
Speaker 1
Are there any members wishing to cast their vote or change their vote? Gentlemen from California.
Speaker 22
Aye. Miss Escobar, aye. Gentlemen from New York. Aye. Mister Esbayat, aye.
Speaker 1
Are there others wishing to change or record their votes? Seeing none, the clerk will tally. Oh, gentle lady, from I thank you. Well, I just didn't want to.
Speaker 1
K. While we're waiting for a vote, just to announce that lunch is available. So Peruvian, I think. Peruvian. Peruvian lunch.
On this vote, the ayes are 25 and noes are 31. The amendment is not adopted. A gentlelady from Connecticut, mister Laura, is recognized for an amendment.
Speaker 5
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask for unanimous consent.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentlelady is recognized for remarks on her amendment.
Speaker 5
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. My amendment would reverse the rescission of $1,000,000,000 in humanitarian aid funding. What this administration has done to the humanitarian mission of America will have devastating consequences for millions of people, especially children around the globe. As I stated in my opening remarks, the decimation of USAID alone is predicted to lead to more than 9 million deaths, two and a half million of whom are children younger than five years old. A report from the Council on Foreign Relations noted that in 2025, the American people collectively spent more money on Halloween candy than their government did on life-saving humanitarian aid.
Humanitarian aid funding fell from 14,000,000,000 in 2024 to 3,700,000,000 in 2025. Since 2022, American humanitarian aid funding has collapsed by more than 80%. We are diminishing our aid efforts, even as humanitarian crises proliferate around the world. In Sudan, over 26,000,000 people, more than half the population, are facing crisis levels of food insecurity. More than 92% of the housing in Gaza has been damaged or destroyed.
Over 55 thousand children are suffering from acute malnutrition, and only 14 out of the 36 hospitals in Gaza are even partially operational. In Ethiopia, the number of critically food insecure people is predicted to reach nearly 11 million this summer. In Haiti, 90 percent of the population suffers from poverty. Some 4.4 million people are critically food insecure or worse. In Myanmar, recent natural disasters have thrown millions into crisis.
More than 8,000,000 people face moderate to severe levels of food insecurity. I could go on, but I trust that my point is clear. There are millions of people suffering around the world who depend on humanitarian assistance to survive. There are plenty of worthy ways to spend this funding. It is tempting to look away, to pretend that this is not happening, but it is.
Just because we cannot see or hear from these people as we go about our lives, does not mean that they do not exist. Many of these cuts to humanitarian aid were made under the pretense that we need to stop spending our money abroad, and instead invest here at home. I agree with the second half of that sentiment. I do believe we ought to invest resources to support Americans at home. But that is not what this administration is proposing.
That is not what the bills we are considering this year will do. This administration is slashing domestic funding for programs that help support Americans at home while seeking unprecedented increases to spending on foreign wars, billions of dollars on foreign wars. These cuts to humanitarian aid are unjustifiable. I encourage my colleagues to support my amendment and to help alleviate the suffering and prevent the deaths of millions of people around the globe. Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentlelady. The gentleman in Florida, mister Diaz Blarge, recognized, respond to the amendment.
Speaker 2
Very much, mister chairman. I rise in opposition to the amendment. The gentlelady's amendment proposes to strike issues, to strike a $1,000,000,000 decision with no offset. The bill before us provides $5,000,000,000 in international humanitarian assistance to ensure adequate resources are available for humanitarian and disaster assistance. This amendment would put us above our allocations, so I urge a no vote on the amendment.
And, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
Speaker 1
I thank the gentleman. The gentlelady from Florida, Miss Frankel, is recognized to respond to the amendment.
Speaker 3
Well, thank you. I rise in support of ranking member Dolores' amendment to strike the one billion-year decision to humanitarian assistance. And let me start by saying, this is a very bad top line. We shouldn't have to be debating this. Humanitarian assistance is one of the clearest expressions of American leadership and American values in the world.
It's the food that keeps a child nourished through famine. It's the clean water that keeps people alive in times of drought. It's the shelter for a displaced family fleeing violence. It's the medicine that prevents disease from reaching our shores. Through partners like World Food Program and UNICEF, The United States helps deliver life saving aid to millions of people facing war, disaster, and extreme poverty.
And this practice is not charity. It's a strategy. It prevents instability that fuels conflict and extremism. It reduces mass migration driven by desperation. It stops disease outbreaks before they become a global threat, and reinforces American leadership in a dangerous world.
This $1,000,000,000 decision is not just a budget adjustment. It's a decision with life and death consequences, and I strongly support this amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the general, lady. Are there other members wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the general lady is recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 5
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just remind the chair of the subcommittee that, you know, he quoted what is there at the moment. The humanitarian aid I don't make up these numbers. Humanitarian aid funding fell from 14,000,000,000 in 2024 to 3,700,000,000 in 2025. Since 2022, American humanitarian aid funding has collapsed by more than 80%.
So it just you're continuing to dig the hole deeper. There is so much good that this 1,000,000,000 can do to rescind it as unconscionable. It's just not the moral thing to do, but the smart thing to do for our national security. Fewer desperate people means more stability for everyone. Take a look at the French Revolution and why it started.
It's over food prices, to be very honest with you. Just take a hard look. I'll leave you with the words of former secretary of defense during President Trump's first term, General James Mattis, who said, and I quote, if you don't fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition. Ultimately, if we abandon our international aid efforts, it will only increase the likelihood of costly and deadly conflicts. I guess, but the billions of dollars spent in that direction don't make any difference to some folks here.
And, again, it's about the money we're willing to spend, for war and not a dime for spending, for peace. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
I thank the gentlelady. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from Connecticut. All those in favor, say aye.
Speaker 1
Roll call has been requested. Sufficient support has been demonstrated. The clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 22
Mr. Aderholt. Mister Aderholt. Mister Aguilar. Aye. Aguilar.
Aye. Mr. Alford. Mr. Alford. No. Mister Amaday.
Amaday, no. Mr. Spice. Mister Spice, no. Mister Bishop? Yes.
Mister Bishop, I. Mister Calvert? Mister Calvert? No. Mr. Carter?
Mr. Carter? No. Mr Case? Mister Case? I.
Mister Siscamani? Mister Siscamani, no. Mister Klein. Mr. Cloud. Mr. Clyburn.
Mister Clyburn, aye. Mister Clyde? Mister Cole? No. Mister Cole, no.
Mister Cuellar. Mistine. Mistine, aye. Mister Lauro?
Speaker 22
Mister Lauro, aye. Mister Diaz Ballard? No. Mister Diaz Ballard? No.
Mister Edwards? Mister Edwards? No. Mister Elze? Mister Elze?
No. Miss Escobar? Aye. Miss Escobar, aye. Mister Espayat?
Aye. Mister Espéyat, aye. Mister Fleishman? No. Mister Fleishman, no.
Miss Frankel? Aye. Miss Frankel? Aye. Mr. Franklin?
Mr. Franklin? No. Mister Guest? No. Mr. Guest?
No. Mr. Harter? Doctor Harris? Missus Henson? No.
Missus Henson? No. Mister Hoyer?
Speaker 22
Mister Hoyer? Aye. Mister Ivy? Aye. Ivy?
Aye. Mister Joyce? Mister Joyce? No. Miss Captor?
Miss Captor, aye. Mister Lolota? No. Mister Lolota, no. Miss Lee?
Aye. Miss Lee, aye. Miss Letlow? Mister Levin? Miss Malloy?
Miss Malloy? No. Miss McCollum?
Speaker 22
Miss McCollum, aye. Miss Ming? Aye. Miss Ming? Aye.
Mister Molinar? No. Mr. Moore? No. Mister Moore?
No. Mister Morelli? Aye. Mister Morelli? Aye.
Mister Marvan? Mr Newhouse. Miss Perez. Aye. Miss Perez, aye.
Miss Pingry. Aye. Miss Pingry, aye. Mister Pokan. Aye.
Mister Pokan, aye. Mister Quigley.
Speaker 22
Mister Quigley, aye. Mister Rashenthaler. Mr. Rogers. Mister Rogers, no. Mr. Rutherford.
No. Mister Rutherford, no. Mister Shreev? No. Mister Shreev, no.
Mr. Simpson? Mister Simpson, no. Mister Strong? Mister Strong, no. Mrs. Torres.
Missus Torres, aye. Miss Underwood? Aye. Miss Underwood, aye. Mister Valladeo?
No. Mister Valladeo? No. Miss Wasserman Schultz? Aye.
Miss Wasserman Schultz, aye. Miss Watson Coleman? Aye. Missus Watson Coleman, aye. Mister Womack?
Mister Womack? No. Mister Zinke? Mister Zinke?
Speaker 1
No. Are there any members wishing to record their vote or change their vote? The gentleman from Texas?
Speaker 1
Keep you guys voting together, sir. Self-corrected mechanism there. A gentleman from Washington.
Speaker 1
Are there any other members wishing to cast their vote or change their vote? Seeing none, the clerical tally. Is the gentleman from Georgia recorded? Gentlemen certainly may be.
Speaker 1
This vote, the ayes are 27. The notes are 32. The amendment is not adopted. Gentlemen from Maryland, Mr. Hoyer is recognized for the purposes of amendment.
Speaker 7
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As was observed earlier in the day, the chairman I ask unanimous consent that the reading
Speaker 1
of amendment objection. The reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman's recognized for remarks on his amendment.
Speaker 7
Mister chairman, as I started to say, at the beginning, I think maybe of this session or last session of congress, the majority renamed the name of this committee as the National Security Committee. I think that's accurate. I think this does deal with national security. I think this amendment deals directly with the national security of this country. I wanna thank the ranking member for her leadership and strong support on this issue, as well as my colleague Representative Castor and Mr. Oxley who are very strongly in favor of Ukraine.
Also wanna thank the subcommittee for including the important language in section 7047, which I believe has been carried before. That language says that we will not support any country that aids and abets the illegal takeover of Crimea and such other territories, as they have taken over in Ukraine. Our failure in the West to respond decisively to the taking of Crimea initially, and I say the West, not just the United States, was, in my opinion, the mother of this war in Ukraine today. When Vladimir Putin's forces invaded the sovereign nation of Ukraine four years ago, Russian media predicted its democratic government would fall in three days. Now January days later, Ukraine is still holding the line and even making gains to liberate territory.
The nation's military is fighting not only Ukraine's war for independence. It is fighting for all who believe in freedom, self-determination, and international law. Ukrainians have developed ingenious military technologies and are leading on drone technology on their own behalf, some of which is now helping our forces become more capable and better prepared. Mister chairman, Ukraine is surviving and holding its own. No small part because of the military and financial support of its allies, including the United States.
Since the war began, we have appropriated money towards Ukraine's battle for freedom. This included both direct aid to Ukraine, as well as funding for associated US military operations in Europe. When we enacted the last supplemental approach preparation. Now hear me, ladies and gentlemen. It was April 23.
We have not acted for 24 months on appropriating funds for Ukraine. In fact, over 12 votes that we've had, on every vote that we've had to support Ukraine, we've had over 300 votes. And on almost every one of those votes, the majority of Republicans and the unanimous Democrats voted to support Ukraine financially and in every other way. In fact, over 12 votes, 80% of the members have voted to support Ukraine. There's an undeniable bipartisan will to stand with the people of Ukraine in their fight for freedom.
Now in the fiscal year '27 defense authorization bill, we have put $800,000,000 for Ukraine to be allocated in '26 and '27. This bill allocates and was an authorization. This appropriates $500,000,000, which I will point out to the chairman is not more money in the bill. It is a portion of the national security investment program of $6,900,000,000, of which about $700,000,000 is allocated in the bill, leaving some 5 plus billion dollars available. This is $500,000,000 for Ukraine.
America needs to speak. It needs to speak for those troops who are in the field. It needs to speak for those 28,000 people in the military who have been either injured or killed since 04/23/2024. In fiscal year 26, our committee allocated $6,760,000,000 to the National Security Investment Program. It now is $6,900,000,000.
And I suggest this is a critical action for The United States Of America to take. We have been silent, voiceless on any additional resources to Ukraine for 24 months. Is that sending a signal to the world of America's leadership on behalf of freedom and security? I think not. It is an uncertain trumpet that we have been sounding.
We must remain steadfast on behalf of Ukraine. Make no mistake, a defeat for Putin is a victory for America and for all free people around the world. And a victory for Ukraine is a reminder to those who would use violence to seize territory that is a long and losing proposition because the free world stands together on behalf of Ukraine. For 1,524 days, I've worn this pin, the Ukrainian flag. As a signal of my continuing support.
This is a single signal of our continuing support of the Congress of the United States for freedom, international law, and democracy. I pray that you will make an exception to the unanimous opposition to amendments and support this amendment for our country, for the Ukrainian men and women who are bravely fighting for their freedom and their national integrity. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman for his remarks. The gentleman from Florida, Mister Diaz-Balart, is recognized to respond to the amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me first start by saying that I really seriously appreciate the spirit by which mister Hoyer has offered this amendment. I really do. I have, however, cannot support this at this time. And that's from somebody, as you know, who led the effort on the House floor to pass the last Ukraine supplement.
The president and the secretary have been emphasizing diplomatic efforts to end Russia's war of aggression and bring about a just and lasting peace. They've also been pressuring our European allies to do more than they should do more. And, again, meanwhile, our European partners have stepped up with additional support, including agreement this month on a $106,000,000,000 loan to Ukraine to cover its financial need over the next two years. Now once those funds have been drawn, an additional $117,000,000,000 in European Union funds is expected to be allocated to Ukraine. I think that's a positive step in the right direction.
In addition, providing this amount of national security investment program funding, and, again, I give the sponsor credit for actually looking at ways to find it in other parts of this bill. But taking that money from the National Security Investment Program funding and putting it to Ukraine would negatively impact bill directives that we have in this bill, to support other allies and partners such as Jordan, the Philippines, and key partners in the Western Hemisphere, that have been neglected far too long. So, again, while I understand where the gentleman is going, I respectfully urge a defeat of this amendment at this time. And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman. The general lady from Florida, Miss Frankel, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 3
Thank you, mister chair. And I rise in strong support of this amendment. Unless, mister, to my colleague, miss Adiaz Vallard, I agree with so much you have said in terms of supporting other allies. But Ukraine is also an ally, and the resilience of this country is absolutely amazing, and we need to still stand with them and be with them. It's gonna deter other actors, like, for example, China from invading Taiwan.
It will, send a message to Russia that we will not accept them to take their war further into Europe, and we'll be standing for democracy and self determination. And with that, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady, for your remarks. Gentlelady from Ohio, Miss Captur is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 8
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank Mister Hoyer for offering this crucial amendment and really measured amendment. And chair Diaz Bellard for his respectful comments. The purpose of the amendment is to support freedom, somewhat support freedom, for Ukraine, and to restore some shred of support for our time-tested dear allies in Ukraine. I thought I would put a few facts on the table.
And Congressman Hoyer has mentioned that every time a vote has occurred in Congress, a majority of members of both parties have supported assistance and attention to Ukraine. But I thought I would step back briefly and put a few facts on the table for those who might be listening to this debate. Russia has 11 time zones. Ukraine has one. Kiev, the capital of Ukraine, was settled and formed long before Moscow.
Moscow is much further north. Russia has never known liberty. It has never been a part of its history. Most recently, you might remember Vladimir Putin, the dictator of Russia, made sure that a political rival, Alexei Navalny, was put to death in a cold, frigid camp in the Arctic. It was just brutal.
It was just subhuman. And Russia and the former Soviet Union have perfected mass murder on a national scale. The notorious, and I'll just put this again for the history records, 1937 order number 00447 written and imposed by Russian dictator Joseph Stalin called for mass execution and exile of socially harmful elements as enemies of the people. Today, the term to describe what happened back then is genocide. The purposeful elimination of all or part of a social group or a political group.
Personally, I view the soils of Ukraine as sacred because, in the last century, more lives were forcibly obliterated there on its lands than anywhere else on the face of the earth. No one knows the number. We think it's between 9 and 20 million human beings put to death purposefully by dictator Joseph Stalin through forced starvation of millions of peasants, mass murders of millions of kulak farmers, many believers who did not believe as the state wanted them to believe, and were deemed subhuman, common laborers, and people that fit today's definition of DEI. Stalin was a crude and vile man, and truly the book Bloodlands by Timothy Snyder can walk people through who want to learn more about the history and the purpose of congressman Heuer's amendment. The backdrop had me recall just last week, the European Union passed, as was mentioned, a $105,000,000,000 aid package to try to make up for what happened in the past and to make sure Russia doesn't overrun Ukraine, which it is attempting to do.
So today, we debate whether to support less than half of 1% of the amount the Europeans have pledged. It's no wonder that our allies are losing faith in our ability to lead where it matters, where liberty matters. Ukraine is not asking for charity. It's asking for partnership to stop another rogue dictator who threatens liberty and, frankly, would turn on all of us when given the moment. When our nation failed to learn the lessons of modern air defense, as Iran supported by Russia killed our soldiers in the Middle East, remember that.
Who came to our aid? Ukraine came to our aid. Ukraine shared its experience and technology to save our lives, as Russia and Iran bombed our service members. And whether we include this amendment matters. It matters because we choose a side.
We're asking to choose a side and work with the majority. It matters that we choose liberty at this moment and democracy rather than side with Russia and dictators, as this administration, for the first time in history, has been voting with dictators at the United Nations. I have never seen anything like it. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and hope it receives unanimous support. The world is indeed watching.
It's watching us. It's watching this vote to see whether we side with Ukraine or whether we abandon our allies and friends in liberty's cause. I yield back support, the Hoyer amendment.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady, for your remarks. Gentlelady from Minnesota. Mister Collins recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 9
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ukraine assistance initiative, as been pointed out, was started in 2015, and it was right after Putin went into Crimea and seized it. And so for over a decade, Congress has supported Ukraine in a very bipartisan way. Last year, in fiscal 2026 Defense Appropriations Act, we included $400,000,000 for the European capacity building, which could be used to support Ukraine. And, again, that passed with bipartisan support.
Just yesterday, chairman, Calvert and I, along with the senate leaders from defense appropriations as well as the authorizers. We had a discussion with the secretary of defense, Mister Hexeb. And Mr. McConnell, Senator McConnell pointed out, this money has not been released. It's been signed into law. It hasn't been released.
Speaker 9
And all of us down the table were like, this is the law. The president signed it. The money's there for Ukraine. Why hasn't it been released? So finally, the secretary of defense spoke. He said, well, I'm not sure why.
I guess I'll look into it. That's not an answer to the Congress. And so I think this vote today could also help to reaffirm to the Secretary of Defense and the President of the United States. The law is the law. We voted bipartisanly for money to go to Ukraine.
That defense appropriation should go there just as well as the assistance that's being discussed in the SIP bill. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady, for the remarks. Gentlelady from Pennsylvania. Miss Dean's recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 19
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too rise in support of mister Hoyer's amendment number one that would say that of the funds appropriated by this act under the heading national security investment programs, not less than 500,000,000 shall be made available, notwithstanding any other provision of the law. This is for Ukraine. I have to say I serve on both the foreign affairs and this esteemed committee. I've had the chance to travel to Ukraine.
I have many Ukrainian American citizens in my district, suburban Philadelphia, and Philadelphia has many Ukrainian American citizens. Very proud. They've taught me so much about their culture, their history, their beliefs in democracy. They're striving for independence and, of course, their sovereignty. This war was begun so brutally, in February 2022.
It's hard to imagine. A war that people thought would end probably in Ukraine's fast defeat within days or even weeks. Somehow, the Ukrainians have held on. They have shown such grit, such determination, such courage. And at first, we were so bipartisan and said yes.
We must do everything we can to support Ukraine, to make sure Ukraine is successful and remains sovereign as a democracy in charge of its own destiny. I was proud of us when we did that. I fought with the last administration to do more. We used to say the expression, give Ukraine everything it needs. And I always thought the sentence was incomplete.
Give Ukraine everything it needs to win is what the sentence should have been all along for the last four plus years. Everything it needs to win. So I was critical of the last administration, though we got a lot of support out. And then you saw how long it was before we got the supplemental. By strange coincidence, the day we passed the supplemental in a bipartisan fashion, and I was proud that we got that done, I had the chance to travel to Ukraine with a Democratic member and two Republican members.
We went first to Poland, and saw our brave soldiers there at the logistics hub, where they're moving so much material in. I asked one of our soldiers, why are you here? Why did he ask for the assignment. He said, I asked for this assignment because I wanted to be able to say to my children, when Ukraine, when a democracy, an ally was in need, I was right there helping them be supplied with everything we could possibly get to them to save lives. Then we had the chance to go on the ten hour train ride in and meet with president Volodymyr Zelensky.
Could not have been more thankful, more appreciative. If he thanked us once, he thanked us 100 times, as did all of the generals and military members from Ukraine who thanked us and showed us the difference our support was making. And that's a long time ago. So, I don't understand it. We saw it clearly then.
Civilians murdered brutally. Civilian property destroyed. Tens of thousands of Ukrainian children are missing, have been captured. They're in so-called reeducation camps. Think of what that would do to you and your family, and then times it by tens of thousands.
A stripping of their culture, a stripping of their heritage, trying to eliminate the beauty of the Ukrainian people. So I would ask everybody here to just say yes. We reaffirm our support for Ukraine. In the billions and billions of dollars that we're gonna pass this year, in order to support other allies and friends, why wouldn't we say, yes, at least $500,000,000,000, get Ukraine everything she needs to win, and spare the lives of those who are being killed still, civilians being killed, soldiers being killed as Putin just comes in and rolls over and cares nothing for his own loss of life. I support the amendment.
Speaker 1
Seeing none, the gentleman is recognized. Oh, I'm sorry. The gentlelady.
Speaker 7
Mister chairman, the Republicans voted to authorize an additional $800,000,000, 197 to 18. That really didn't do anything other than say we're going to authorize some expenditures. From that point to this, 24 months have gone by, and we have not done that. What that has done to the morale of the Ukrainians, I can't quantify, but it has not been good. I came to Congress in 1981, and I stood with Ronald Reagan against many of the people in my district for the MX missile, for the deployment of armor in Europe that the Russians didn't think we would do.
I stood with the gentleman from Florida, my good friend, on behalf of democracy in Cuba. My friend is shaking his head. Yes. I believe in standing up for freedom here and around the world. And I believe that 24 months of inaction is not doing so.
Again, at 197 to 18, you voted for this authorization. Was that an empty promise to the people of Ukraine and to the world on behalf of our security? I hope not. 12 votes, over 300 members of the Congress of the House of Representatives said yes. We are going to support freedom, democracy, and oppose the breaking of international law and Putin's authoritarianism.
I know I've gone over time. Twenty-four months waiting is over time. Do not make this a partisan vote. Do not make this a vote that says no. We're not going to follow up on that which we voted 197 to 18 on your side of the aisle.
I plead with you for the people of Ukraine and for the United States being a partner that can be counted on. Mister chairman, this committee needs to speak. The congress needs to speak for democracy, for freedom, and not in a partisan way. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. 500 million and I, with all due respect to the chairman of the committee subcommittee, I would say, in your report, you set aside $517,000,000 for certain objectives.
Shut up, Jordan. This will not adversely affect that because you have clearly enough money for half 1,000,000,000. And ladies and gentlemen, half $1,000,000,000 is one day's expenditure, half of one day's expenditure in Iran. This is not enough, but it is at least the congress saying we're still with you. Please vote for Ukraine.
Vote for American reliability. I heard I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman for his remarks. Questions on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no.
No. The opinion of the chair, the noes have it. Old call has been requested. What? Score the call.
Speaker 22
Mister Aderholt. Mister Aderholt, no. Mister Aguilar? Aye. Mister Aguilar, aye.
Mr. Alford? Mr. Alford? No. Mister Amaday? Mister Amaday?
No. Missus Bice? Mr Bishop? Aye. Mister Bishop, aye.
Mister Calvert? Mister Calvert? No. Mr. Carter? Mr. Carter?
No. Mr. Case?
Speaker 22
Mister Case, aye. Mister Siskemani. Mister Klein. Mister Klein. No.
Mr. Cloud. Mr. Clyburn. Mister Clyburn. I. Mr. Clyde.
Mr. Clyde. No. Mr. Cole.
Speaker 22
Mister Cole, no. Mister Cuéar? Mister Cuéar? I. Mistine?
I. Mister Lauro? I. Mister Lauro, I. Mister Diaz, no.
Mister Diaz Ballard? No. Mister Edwards? Mister LZ. Mister LZ, no.
Miss Escobar? Miss Escobar, aye. Mister Esbayat? Mister Fleishman? Mister Fleishman?
No. Miss Frankel?
Speaker 22
Miss Frankel, aye. Mister Franklin? Mister Franklin, no. Mister Guest? No.
Mister Guest, no. Mister Harter? Mister Harter, aye. Doctor Harris? Missus Henson?
Missus Henson? No. Mister Hoyer? Aye. Mister Hoyer, aye.
Mister Ivy? Aye. Mister Ivy, aye. Mister Joyce? Mister Joyce?
No. Miss Captor? Aye. Miss Captor, aye. Mister Lalota?
Miss Lee? Aye. Miss Lee, aye. Miss Letlow? Mister Levin?
Aye. Mister Levin, aye. Miss Malloy? Miss Malloy? No.
Miss McCollum? Aye. Miss McCollum, aye. Miss Ming? Miss Ming, I.
Mister Molinar. Mister Molinar, no. Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore. No.
Mister Morelli. Mister Mervann. Mister Newhouse, no. Miss Perez, aye. Miss Pingree, aye.
Miss Pingree, aye. Mister Pokan, aye. Mister Quigley,
Speaker 22
Mister Quigley, aye. Mister Rashenthaler, Mister Rogers. Mister Rogers, no. Mr. Rutherford. Mister Rutherford, no.
Mister Shreev. Mister Shreev, no. Mr. Simpson. Mister Simpson, no. Mister Strong.
Mister Strong, no. Missus Torres, aye. Miss Underwood, aye. Miss Underwood, aye. Mister Valadayo.
Mister Valadayo, no. Miss Wasserman Schultz, aye. Miss Watson Coleman?
Speaker 22
Missus Watson Coleman, aye. Mr. Womack. Mr. Womack. No. Mister Zinke.
Mister Zinke, no.
Speaker 1
Are there any members wishing to record their vote or change their vote? Gentlemen from Maryland?
Speaker 1
Are there any other members wishing to record or change their vote? Seeing none, the clerk will tell him.
Speaker 1
On this vote, the ayes are 27 and the no's are 32, and the amendment is not adopted. Gentlemen from Illinois, Mister Quigley is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Speaker 12
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mister chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. Can I ask you an immense consent to dispense with the reading?
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman's recognized for remarks on his amendment.
Speaker 12
Mister chairman, I've always supported Israel's right to defend itself both as an ally of the US and as a nation whose people deserve freedom and security. But how it does so matters. The Palestinian people have that same right to freedom and security. The only way to achieve those goals is through a two-state solution. However, over the last two and a half years, that goal is slipping further and further away due to the devastation across Gaza and the severe escalation of violence in the West Bank.
Mister chairman, I will offer and withdraw this ordinance after any discussion, and hope that it would make a small but significant step toward that two-state solution. My men would prohibit funding for defense articles like armored military bulldozers that are used to damage or destroy Palestinian property in the West Bank. Specifically, it would block any US funding from being used by Israel for any actions that expand settlements or outposts or that harm or demolish homes, schools, farms, orchards, or other civilian property in the West Bank or Gaza. Under the Netanyahu government, Israel has been using bulldozers to raze entire towns in Gaza, and they have been a tool of settlement expansion in the West Bank. Let me be clear.
This amendment does not weaken the US commitment to Israel's security. It does not restrict Israel's ability to defend itself, and it does not change the partnership between our two countries. What it does is establish a clear and necessary limitation on how US tax dollars are used. US payer funding should not be used to impose an illegal occupation or to violate international humanitarian law and human rights. If we are serious about long-term stability across the region, then we must be honest about the conditions that are undermining the possibility of a lasting peace.
Continuing to fund the Israeli government's action in the West Bank and Gaza will only continue to destabilize the region and put US forces and allies at risk. It is in Israel's security interest to have a stable neighbor in a Palestinian state, and is in the US's best interest to support an Israel that is not constantly preoccupied by war and support the creation of a Palestinian state. Over the last decade, conditions in both the West Bank and Gaza have deteriorated significantly. In Gaza, entire neighborhoods have been reduced to rubble. In the West Bank, the expansion of settlements and outposts has accelerated, alongside increased incidents of violence and the destruction of civilian property.
US assistance is intended to support security and stability. It should not be used in any way that contributes to the destruction of civilian infrastructure or the expansion of settlements that further undermine the prospect of a two-state solution. This amendment ensures that we are not acting against our own best interests. It ensures that American tax dollars are not being used to damage or destroy civilian property. It would also curb the rapidly increasing settlement in the West Bank.
This is not a radical position to take. It is a matter of aligning our funding of our allies' defense with our long-standing US policies and international law. We have to be honest about where we are after two and a half years of conflict, and what will happen if we continue to allow these actions. Every expansion of a settlement, every demolition of a home or school, every loss of civilian infrastructure makes the possibility of that two-state solution more unlikely. This is not Israel's long-term security interest, and it's not in our national security interest.
A future where both Israelis and Palestinians can live in security and dignity with recognized rights and secure borders is possible, but that future is only possible if we begin laying the groundwork for it. This amendment will help do that. We have an opportunity here to be clear, consistent, and responsible with how we use taxpayer dollars. I believe this amendment reflects that responsibility and reflects a commitment to a future where Israelis and Palestinians can live in peace and security. Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman for his remarks. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Diaz-Balart, is recognized to respond to the amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mr. Truman. And I know that the gentleman will be withdrawn the amendment, so I'll be very brief. But I rise in opposition. First, let's make one thing absolutely clear. It is documented everywhere, very well documented, that terrorists in the West Bank and Gaza use human shields, including hiding terrorist infrastructure under schools, hospitals, and UN buildings.
Secondly, security assistance to Israel, like security assistance to every country in the world, is subject to human rights conditions in the Arms Export Control Act, and other vetting requirements. So these other conditions, additional conditions, are totally unnecessary, and I think they're totally inappropriate to one of our closest allies that is under serious threat right now. So, again, I know the gentleman is gonna be withdrawing, but I just remind people that Israel is a vital ally of the United States. We work very closely with Israel to eliminate the threats posed by Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas. And I think, which is why I would strongly oppose this.
But, again, I understand, and I thank the gentleman that he's gonna be withdrawing it. With that, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. Gentle lady from Florida. Miss Frankel is recognized for remarks on the amendment.
Speaker 3
Yeah. Thank you again. I respect the gentleman's willingness to withdraw this amendment. I just wanna say this is obviously become a contentious situation. I, myself, I'm a strong supporter of the security of Israel, the people who live there, and also the decency to innocent people nearby.
And I respect your offering and willingness to withdraw. Yode back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen, lady. A gentleman from Georgia. Mister Clyde is recognized for remarks on the amendment.
Speaker 21
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As a steadfast supporter of our greatest ally in the Middle East, Israel, I rise in strong opposition to Representative Quigley's amendment number 1, which seeks to prohibit US funds for assistance to Israel related to the expansion of outposts or settlements or the damage or demolition of certain property in the West Bank or Gaza. This amendment is yet another misguided attempt to tie the hands of our closest ally in the Middle East. While it fights for its very survival against Iranian-backed terrorists, Israel stands as the only democracy in a region dominated by authoritarian regimes and radical ideologies. Surrounded by 22 Arab countries with a combined population exceeding 500,000,000, Israel, with just 7,000,000 Jews, faces existential threats in a land mass where the Arab world is 500 times larger.
Yet it upholds equal rights for its Arab and Jewish citizens alike, a model of pluralism unknown to most of its neighbors. Mister Quigley's amendment would punish Israel for defending itself and securing the territory necessary to prevent future attacks. It injects one-sided pressure on our aid and into our relationship, at a time when Israel needs our full support to dismantle terrorist infrastructure. Americans' bipartisan commitment to Israel has never been about micromanaging its defensive actions. It is about standing with a vital partner against radical Islamic terrorism that threatens us all.
Instead of restricting Israel, I believe we should affirm its right to secure its borders and eliminate threats. This amendment weakens our ally and rewards those who reject peace. I urge my colleagues to reject it, and I appreciate Mister Quigley's desire to withdraw it. Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen, for your remarks. General lady from Connecticut. Mister Lawrence recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 5
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of Congressman Quigley's amendment, which would require the United States to live up to our obligations under international law. It is clear that Israel's conduct in the West Bank and specifically the rapid expansion of illegal settlements violates the Oslo Accords, the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions, and more. I have seen it with my own eyes. This February, this past February, I led a week-long congressional delegation to visit Israel and the West Bank.
The most recent of several trips I have taken in recent years to better understand the region and the needs of the people who live there. What I saw on the ground is clear. Annexation of the West Bank is happening before our very eyes. I strongly support a two-state solution, but I think it is slipping through our fingers. We were planning to visit the village of Ras An Auja in the northern West Bank.
But three weeks before the trip, all 700 residents of the village, sheep herders, fled due to violence from nearby settlers. We drove through the ruined remains of the building of the village, all bulldozed buildings. Schools bulldozed. You could see the lesson plans on the ground. We saw a group of Israeli settlers having a picnic.
A similar story played out at the village of Fusa Yale Al Husa in the Jordan Valley. When we visited, six of the eight families had fled. Two weeks later, the IDF demolished the home, bulldozed again the family we visited. Not only one of those families is left. These are not isolated incidents.
They are part of a strategy to destroy the possibility of a two-state solution by abrogating the Oslo Accords and carving up Palestinian territory such that a viable state cannot exist. In 2025 alone, Israel approved 54 new West Bank settlements. In President Biden's four years as president, there were 14. 86 new settlement outposts, which are illegal even under Israeli law, were established in 2020. And the Israeli government has allocated millions of dollars to support them.
These new outposts serve as a basis of operations for settlers to launch attacks against Palestinians. And 2025 saw over 1,800 attacks, the highest number on record. Since the war with Iran began, settler violence, and it's been documented, has escalated further, averaging more than 6 attacks per day. The attacks have resulted in the murder of seven Palestinians and injuries to dozens more. Since October 7, over 38 West Bank communities have been emptied, bulldozed, and their residents driven away by settlers.
Most of the people who live there are sheep herders, and they are gone, with and move themselves, their families, and their sheep with them. Like all other nations, Israel remains bound by the Geneva Conventions. And as a member of the UN, it is also bound by the UN Charter. Population transfers, land seizures, forced displacement are illegal, no matter the circumstances. This amendment would recognize United States obligations under international law, which are in a minimum to cease support for Israel's illegal settlement policies.
But there are impacts at home as well. The more the US ignores lawless actions, turns a blind eye to the violations of Palestinian territory and sovereignty, the more our credibility and influence erodes on the global stage. In a world these days where no one trusts The United States or believes that we act in good faith, we are left to rely only on military might to achieve our goals. That is a world that is more dangerous for the United States and for democracy, and one where we must spend more in blood and treasure to reach the same goals. One can be a strong supporter of Israel, and at the same time, be a strong supporter of a Palestinian state where two peoples can live side by side as the Oslo Accords have laid out, and which the majority, I believe, of people in the United States and in Israel believe.
We cannot allow the indiscriminate use of machinery like bulldozers to tear down people's homes, houses, and just put an end to their ability to exist. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I know my colleague is going to withdraw it, but I thank him for introducing it.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady. The gentlelady from Minnesota, Mister Collins, to address the amendment.
Speaker 9
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are watching the two-state solution just evaporate in front of our eyes. I've had the honor, and I mean, the privilege of working with Israelis on human rights issues in Israel for the past, well, almost a decade. And I do this because I want Israeli children to be able to be tucked in at bed at night and not worry about missiles raining down on their heads. And I do it because I want Palestinian parents to tuck their children into bed, into their home, looking forward to going to school tomorrow, and not worried about what could happen to their family, their village the next day.
The two-state solution. It was a creation of the Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza with the Eastern Jerusalem as a capital, broadly along the lines that existed in the 1967 Arab war. But what happened recently? Since taking office in 2022, the current Israeli government significantly increased the approval of new settlements and have begun legislation process for unauthorized auspoles. That's what they're calling them, unauthorized outposts, and recognizing them now as neighbors and existing settlements.
These are in violation of the UN Charter. The approvals came just last day. The United Nations has said that the settlement expansion has reached its highest level since 2017. So I'm just going to give you a couple of examples of what's happened this month. And I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut for sharing what she saw.
April 20, April 7, April 16, the occupation forces conducted demolition operations as part of ongoing efforts to expand settlements. That's how Israel described it. Israeli bulldozers on April 19 demolished dozens of homes, leaving approximately 1,500 residents at risk of displacement. On April 20, military bulldozers demolished inhabited, two story houses. And two days in April, April 27 and 28, multiple teams of bulldozers were reported clearing Palestinian land and uprooting olive trees to expand settlements.
When you uproot an olive tree or when you drive the shepherds out of their field, you destroy not only lives, but the livelihoods for future generations. I know the gentleman's gonna withdraw this amendment. I have a bill if you'd like to work or learn more about how US taxpayers' dollars cannot be used in violations of human rights, your taxpayers' dollars. It is bill 75 45, and I suggest you take a look at it. I thank the gentleman for offering the amendment.
This is something we don't discuss very often around here, and we're doing it, I think, in a very thoughtful manner. And I hope people take time to read not only international newspapers, but Israeli newspapers as well. This is not a slam dunk in Israel to destroy these homes, these buildings, and these schools. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady, for your remarks. Gentle lady from New Jersey, Miss Watson Coleman, is recognized to respond to the amendment.
Speaker 13
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanna thank my colleague, Mr. Quickley, for offering this amendment and bringing this whole issue up for discussion. I believe in the safety and security of Israelis, and I believe in the safety and security of Palestinians. I believe in the safety, security, and prosperity of both these people. But what I see happening on the West Bank is wrong.
This is the actual bulldozing of communities. Can you imagine somebody coming into your whole community, eliminating your whole community, uprooting your family, your job, your children, your any notion of where you could possibly go to be safe and to enjoy your life? Well, that's what's happening on the West Bank, and it is not an issue of Israeli security with regard to the West Bank. And to our chairman of the subcommittee, it's not an issue of hiding terrorists. It's an issue of moving innocent people, innocent god-loving families out of their homes and out of their opportunities to take care of, to raise their families, and to find peace. You know what we need to do with the United States of America?
We need to be teaching the children of the next generation how to love one another, even though they may look a little different and even though they may praise their creator a little differently. At the end of the day, the United States of America blindly allowing Israel to do some of the things that Israel is doing has nothing to do with Israel's protection of its safety and security. It is wrong. It is wrong-headed, and we need to confront the reality that we have a greater stake in this discussion and on behalf of humanity for all people. And we can think of it lightly, and we can try to put it all on terrorists and put it on issues, but just because we say it does not make it so.
And so I thank you, Congressman Quigley, for offering this amendment. It is saddening to me that we can't go forward and be put on the record with regard to it. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentle lady. Gentle lady from Pennsylvania is recognized to address the amendment. Miss Dean?
Speaker 19
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too rise in support of mister Quigley's amendment, understanding that you will withdraw it. But what it would do is it would prohibit US assistance for Israel to be used for the expansion of outposts or settlements, or demolition of civilian property in the West Bank. I don't know how anybody in this room could disagree with that. It's a simple fact of right and wrong.
Israel is our ally. That does not mean Israel gets a blank check from us to pursue activities that gravely undermine any chance, any remaining chance, of a two-state solution. And quite frankly, these activities are lawless. They're against our laws. They're against international law.
The Israeli government is approving new settlements in the West Bank at a record pace, enabled by the complicity of this administration. Palestinian homes and villages are being destroyed. Fields are being destroyed. Shepherds being run off their land. I was along with the ranking member in February, just weeks before the Iran war.
And what we saw was devastating. Whole villages destroyed. Humble homes bulldozed. A simple mosque burned to bits as we leaned in on what was left of the mosque. People, hundreds of people, run off land that they had been on for decades, if not centuries.
Simple right and wrong. We had to change our visit schedule simply because one whole area had been cleared by these illegal West Bank demolitions. Israel enabled some laws passed to enable it. You know, we must not follow our own laws. The laws and other relevant provisions of the Foreign Assistance Act ensure that Israel is held to account for violations.
What does it say when they violate our own laws, and we are quiet? This is not a singling out of Israel. Rather, it's an assuring that we hold Israel to the same standard that we hold all of our allies and partners, and I hope we hold it ourselves. Our hope is for a stable, peaceful Middle East. It's for a two-state solution that allows for Israelis and Palestinians to live with dignity, security, self-determination, for the children to stop being terrorized.
Allowing Israel to pursue unchecked expansion is wrong. It's illegal, and it makes the future impossible. I thank you, Mister Quigley, for offering this amendment and at least giving us the chance to raise this important set of issues. You lift up simple wrongs, and we must not be a party to it. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank the gentlelady for her remarks. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentleman's recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 12
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is difficult. It's sort of fundamental for many of us who started here. My first CODL was with APAC to Israel, and our allies, our friends aren't always right. I think the problem with how those discussions went is wasn't a lot of dissent.
There wasn't in the air a thought that maybe we're wrong or we should look at this, and I think it's time that we do. You can be for two things. I'm for the elimination of Hamas in a safe country. That doesn't mean I'm against the Palestinians. What I saw most in my multiple trips to the West Bank was a loss of hope, extraordinary unemployment, which is a breeding ground for recruitment and terrorism, which makes Israel less safe, the Palestinians less safe, us, ourselves, and our other allies less safe.
It's okay to dissent against your own country. Well, if that's okay, then why isn't it okay to disagree with Israel? Why is it that different? I think we have to look within ourselves at how we became aware of this issue and whether differences were tolerated there. And we're still at that point.
Where are the voices against illegal annexation? Where are the voices from within us against violence, against the ADF, by sellers, against the Palestinians in the West Bank? We can be for both of these things. Indeed, it's absolutely essential that we do. I'd appreciate your support, and I will withdraw this amendment at this point.
Speaker 1
I thank the gentleman. Just, before we move to the next one, just for the purposes of being clear, about 02:15, we will recess no matter where we're at. Obviously, you're asked to be in your seats in the chamber if you're going to the address by the king by 02:30. Immediately after that, we will come back and resume. So, with that, the gentleman from Illinois is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Speaker 12
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do a lot of amendments, but we'll do two in a row. I rise to offer an amendment. I ask that the reading be dispensed with.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman's recognized for remarks on his amendment.
Speaker 12
This amendment would carve out 400000000 within existing funding for reconstruction efforts in Gaza that would rebuild essential civilian infrastructure like water, electricity, and sanitation. Let's be clear, that does not increase overall spending. Simply directs a portion of existing funding within the national security investment program's account toward an urgent and strategic need, and it does so with guardrails, ensuring that all funding is administered only through vetted international organizations and nongovernmental organizations. Mister Chair, the scale of devastation across the Gaza Strip is unprecedented in modern history. During the Second World War, 30% of all buildings were destroyed in Poland.
Today, in Gaza, that number is much higher. According to a recent assessment by the Geographic Information System at Hebrew University, about 70% of all structures in Gaza have sustained severe damage. Others are now reporting 81%. At least a quarter of all buildings have been entirely destroyed. This month, the United Nations, European Union, and World Bank released an operational damage and needs assessment that reported over 76% of all housing across Gaza has been directly damaged, including housing units and apartments in the Palestinian refugee camps.
Entire neighborhoods have been leveled. Schools and hospitals have been severely damaged and destroyed. Critical infrastructure, including water, sewage networks, electrical grids, has been decimated, and the cost of rebuilding the strip is staggering. The UN, EU, World Bank estimate that the total cost to rebuild the strip is $70,000,000,000 and that it will take decades. This amendment is a meaningful, targeted first step toward helping civilians in Gaza rebuild their lives.
Without the basic necessities of clean water and electricity, there is no path to stability, and instability takes root when the most basic needs are not met. Supporting the reconstruction of Gaza is not only a humanitarian endeavor, it is a matter of national security in the US best interest. For half a century, the region has been plagued by chaos and devastation that has fueled extremism, instability, and conflict. If we are serious about long-term stability in the region and about Israel's security and laying the groundwork for a lasting peace, then we must also commit to rebuilding Palestinian civilian lives. This amendment reflects this reality, and the reality that the US has already taken steps in that direction.
The Trump administration has already consulted with Congress on the use of up to 1,000,000,000 in existing funding for humanitarian purposes in Gaza. This amendment builds on this progress and does so in a way that should be able to secure bipartisan support. US has both a responsibility to assist the people of Gaza, as well as an inherent interest in doing so if we were to prevent further conflict and radicalization in the region. We have seen the unbelievable consequences of this conflict, and the loss of life, physical destruction, and overall destabilization of the region. The instability makes everyone less safe, including the US and our closest allies.
Intel agencies in both the US and Israel agree that Prime Minister Netanyahu's strategy in Gaza will not lead to security for Israelis or Palestinians. His tactics have played into Hamas' hands by radicalizing another generation and making it easier for Hamas to recruit in the future. Reconstruction done responsibly with proper, strict oversight is one of the few tools we have to reverse that trajectory. This amendment ensures that the US is used only for its intended purpose, its assistance. Rebuilding civilian infrastructure and cannot be diverted.
It is targeted, and it is responsible, and it is necessary. The right thing to do is often the smartest thing to do. Mister Chair, this is not a partisan issue. It is about recognizing the reality of two and a half years of war, and responding appropriately. We cannot ignore the scale of destruction.
We cannot ignore the long term consequences, and we cannot of inaction, and we cannot expect stability to emerge from devastation. This amendment offers a practical step forward, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman for his remarks, and the gentleman from Florida, Mister Diaz-Balart, is recognized to respond to the amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition to my friend's amendment. President Trump has made remarkable progress towards peace in Gaza, including successfully securing the release of all remaining hostages, even those who unfortunately had already died. Hostages that Hamas was holding for a very long time. The president and his team are working on executing his 20-point peace plan for the future of Gaza.
This bill is currently drafted, gives the president and the secretary the flexibility to provide resources for that plan if they need them. But here's the key. With the same strong vetting and oversight requirements that have long been in place for any assistance to Gaza. You know, I don't have to remind you we're talking about a place that has been a war zone for years now and where Hamas continues to pose a threat, including killing their own people. So it's obvious that we can't predict how long each stage of this process is gonna take, nor do we know how much, if any, actually, the United States funding, United States would have to fund.
So, again, look, the president, as we've seen, is working with our Gulf allies to address the funds that may be necessary and the needs for Gaza. So I don't think we benefit at all from setting a funding level in this bill at this time. So I respectfully but strongly urge a no vote on the amendment. And with that, Mister Chairman, I will yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman for his remarks. Gentle lady from Florida. Miss Frankel's recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 3
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Rise in support of this amendment, which would make funding available for reconstruction of Gaza from the National Security Investment Program account. I feel good. My colleagues, know, it's well known. I am one of the most ardent, proud supporters for the security of Israel that you're gonna find in this congress.
And I represent one of the largest Jewish communities in this country. And, incidentally, it's estimated that within the population of Palm Beach County where I represent, that they have over 50 to 100,000 relatives who actually live in Israel. So my support is not just based on our own security, which is important, but also for the security of people who live there. And I do think, Mister Quigley, that your amendment advances the security, and that's why I support it. Because there's a moral and strategic imperative to ensure that assistance leads to the people of Gaza to begin rebuilding.
And let me be clear, Hamas should not play a role, but that does not change the reality. That, are you okay? Mhmm. Good. He's coughing up a storm over here.
But that does not change the reality that for millions, the most basic of necessities can mean the difference between life of promise or a sharp turn down to the path of extremism, and we don't want that. Children all around the world, especially in places where conflict and violence persist, deserve access to roofs over their heads, clean water to drink, full bellies, and the opportunity to get an education. We have a very long road ahead of us really to achieve the kind of peace we want, but we must take, we must go step by step, live up to our commitment to make stability, peace, and prosperity possible for Israelis and Palestinians alike. And that's why I encourage my colleagues to vote for this good amendment. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the general lady for her remarks. Now recognize General Lady from New York, Miss Ming, to address the amendment.
Speaker 23
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, too, rise in support of this amendment. While humanitarian aid is flowing, the situation in Gaza is not sustainable. 1,900,000 Palestinians remain displaced. Most still live in tents and temporary shelters.
Once Hamas disarms, and Hamas must disarm, this amendment would provide funding to start the process of rebuilding Gaza. Some of the work to clear rubble and ordnance has already begun. I'm proud this bill includes language I authored to make funds available to support these efforts. Importantly, this amendment makes sure that only vetted organizations are eligible to receive reconstruction dollars. That's on top of some of the strictest restrictions on aid to Gaza included in this bill, which will help make sure Hamas does not divert assistance.
This amendment would be an important step towards building a more secure, peaceful future for Israel and the Palestinian people. I support this amendment. Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thanks, gentlelady, for your remarks. A gentleman from Georgia is recognized to the amendment.
Speaker 21
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong opposition to Representative Quigley's amendment number 2, which would direct no less than $400,000,000 for Gaza reconstruction. This proposal would force American taxpayers to bankroll the rebuilding of a terror stronghold controlled by Hamas. I mean, y'all do realize that the Gaza Strip, at least 47% of it, is still controlled by Hamas, and Hamas is a terrorist organization. After Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, Hamas violently seized power in 2007, and transformed the territory into a launch pad for thousands of rockets targeting Israeli civilians.
On 10/07/2023, that investment in hatred exploded into the deadliest attack on Jews since the Holocaust. Hamas has repeatedly vowed to repeat such atrocities as its leaders openly call for Israel's destruction. Directing hundreds of millions of dollars to so called reconstruction in Gaza without first ensuring Hamas's complete demilitarization is not compassion. History shows that past US development spending in Gaza since Hamas' takeover has already exceeded hundreds of millions, and yet all it has produced is a terrorist army, not prosperity. You know, everything in critical infrastructure, which is what this 400000000 is supposed to be for, is dual use.
It's needed by a terrorist army just like it's needed or used by civilians. So rebuilding without security guarantees or completely disarming Hamas simply resets the battlefield for another October 7. Israel, as the frontline democracy fighting radical Islam, has every right to exercise the sovereignty and security measures necessary to prevent Gaza from remaining a perpetual threat. The ultimate path to stability lies in defeating Hamas and ending its reign of terror, and ensuring that any future governance in Gaza rejects the ideology of annihilation, not pouring American dollars into a region still dominated by those who celebrate murder. Now if Gaza was sovereign Israeli territory and all of Hamas was either annihilated or disarmed and deported never to return, you know, this could potentially be considered support for Israel, perhaps to make Gaza the Gaza Seashore into another Mediterranean Riviera, then maybe I could support it.
But only if Gaza was under total Israeli sovereignty. The flag of Israel flew over all of Gaza in peace. But at a time of record national debt and pressing needs here at home, from border security to military modernization against the Chinese Communist Party, we cannot afford to subsidize the reconstruction of terrorist havens. Our focus must remain on supporting Israel's right to defend itself decisively, cutting off funding to Hamas and its Iranian sponsors, and prioritizing American interests and the defeat of terrorism. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, let us safeguard the American taxpayer dollar, and ensure that it never supports terrorism.
Thank you, and I yield.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen, for your remarks. Gentlemen from Wisconsin, Mister Pocan, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 16
Thank you, mister chairman. And I wanna thank Mister Quigley for introducing both of these amendments. The last amendment I knew was being taken back, so I chose not to talk about that. But I do wanna talk about this in Gaza, in particular. Having just come back from South Korea, we went to the DMZ, we briefly walked literally steps into North Korea.
You know, clearly, that's one of the most elusive and secretive places on the planet, but that's by their choice, that we don't go and know much about North Korea. In fact, ironically, the information they had about the leaders' children comes from not intelligent sources, but from Dennis Rodman. Literally, we were told that while we were there. But Gaza is just as elusive and secretive, not by their choice, but, unfortunately, because of our negligence and, bluntly, Israel's. They've literally looked the other way.
It's been an open air prison for 2,300,000 people for decades, and we just looked the other way and ignored what was happening where 95% of people didn't have drinkable water, where people got food assistance and education through UNRA and other organizations that we've all defunded now. And once this terrible thing happened on October 7, the attack, the response showed the power differential that existed, and the devastation of Gaza. 81 to 83% of all structures are damaged or destroyed. 80% of schools, 84% of health centers, 90% of people are living in tents among the rubble. And we can just look the other way.
I've been to the region three times. Twice, I've tried to get into Gaza and been denied. But who was I denied by? It was the Israeli government. That's the difference between North Korea and Gaza.
And so, at best, we've been indifferent. More accurately, we've been complicit. But with what's happened right now, this is out of, like, a Mad Max episode, what it looks like on the ground. And if we can't find the ability to put some US dollars to help rebuild medical clinics or schools, what do you think is gonna occur in that region? What do you think the response will be from the tens of thousands of people killed in that region?
What do you think we'll be doing for decades, spending money in that region? Or we can do the right thing, which is to invest some of our dollars to help rebuild it now. And the cost, as Mister Quigley said, could be $70,000,000,000. This is a small part of that. But I'll tell you, I, for one, you know, am embarrassed that The United States hasn't done more.
When I was there the last time, it wasn't just that I got turned down by Israel, but I had the US government try to convince me not to go into Gaza. Well, what would the reason be to not allow a member of Congress to go into Gaza except not to see what was on the ground before the devastation, much less after the devastation? So we need to open up our eyes and be a little more honest about this. This isn't about making one group of people or another group happy. This is about what is happening on the planet.
And if there is an area that may be, if not the most, in the top five biggest humanitarian concerns we have right now, it has to be this part of the world, specifically Gaza. And our indifference for decades compels us to do something. So I appreciate this amendment before us. I hope we can look at it from that perspective, not from a political perspective. I certainly have to disagree with our subcommittee chair who said Donald Trump has made remarkable progress in Gaza, because I do not find rubble to be remarkable progress.
But I do think we can do something, and we have to do something. And it's in our national interest to do something. So I support this amendment, and I hope everyone will yield back.
Speaker 1
I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from New York, Mister Espiat, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 15
Mister Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. As the previous amendment presented by Mister Quigley. This is a common-sense amendment. A previous amendment spoke about stopping the expansion of the settlements to give peace a chance, and to give the two-state solution and the creation of a Palestinian state a real chance, so there could be peace in the region. And I support this amendment because the destruction has been staggering.
Everybody in this room understands the level of destruction in the Gaza Strip, and our shared responsibility as global leaders to help with the reconstruction of the Strip for families, for neighborhoods, for schools and health centers, not for casinos, not for a Vegas type atmosphere, but for families. And so, according to the United Nations analysis, the civilian infrastructure damage to the Gaza Strip eclipses $70,000,000,000. So the gentleman's proposal is just the beginning, no less than $400,000,000. And so this is just the beginning of a road back to stability and peace. And incredible estimates suggest that 80% of the structures in the strip have been leveled.
But I am sure that once a deep analysis of the situation is done, it could be even higher than that. Structures, the integrity of a structure is not really evaluated in a safe way until engineers and others get in there and look at the damage that has occurred. Similarly, almost all the health care facilities, road networks, and education-related structures are also compromised and nonserviceable. So this is devastation, and we have a responsibility to go and assist in the rebuilding of the area, in bringing robust humanitarian aid for children and families that are disproportionately victims and hurt in this horrible war. So I rise in support of this amendment, and I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, folks that support Israel, like myself and others, could come together for this important humanitarian effort.
History has its eyes on us. We must do better. This is important work, humanitarian work, particularly for children and families, and we must rebuild Gaza. Again, not for a casino, not for, you know, a resort for the rich and famous to go and party, but for families that need the help that they deserve to have. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman for his comments. A gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 19
I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too rise in support of Mister Quigley's amendment, which appropriates $400,000,000 for the reconstruction of civilian infrastructure in Gaza. Ladies and gentlemen, you all know it. Even though the prime minister won't allow journalists or congressmen and congresswomen into Gaza because he doesn't want us to see, Gaza is in rubble. The scale of the destruction is staggering.
More than half of the population have lost their homes. 1,900,000 people have been displaced, often more than one time. That's not even to discuss the horrendous numbers. More than 70,000 are dead. 170,000 or more are injured.
And that doesn't even begin to tell you how many thousands are buried in the rubble, as families continue to dig and sift through the rubble to find the remains of their loved ones. A recent assessment conducted by the European Union and the World Bank estimates the cost of reconstruction to be more than $70,000,000,000, with more than $20,000,000,000 needed in the next eighteen months. President Trump said that the US will contribute 10,000,000,000 to the board of peace, though it's unclear where that money will come from. And during the February trip that we talked about, we actually met.
Speaker 19
As what's called the CMCC, and he called it the Garage Of Peace or the Warehouse Of Peace. It was terrific to see US military and 27 other nations, militaries, and nonprofits there working in coordination to move in hundreds of trucks a day into Gaza. That was February. And they had reported some progress and a greater number of trucks getting in, although many were blocked. That was February.
And you know that the war in Iran has now interrupted that flow, interrupted that work, and interrupted that saving or removal of the debris and the chance to rebuild. It's all been interrupted. And I find it puzzling because I've been to Israel multiple times. I love to go there. I love the people, the culture, the history, the religions that are born there.
My own fact is born there. I love to retrace that. But the multiple times I've been there, I one time sat five weeks after the horror of October 7 at a table this size with Mr. Netanyahu, five weeks after that horror that is indescribable. And he said to us, as did his then defense secretary, he said, regardless of what has happened, the Israeli military is so superior. The Israeli intelligence is so superior that even in a difficult place like Gaza, we will be able to micro target where we can find Hamas even in that difficult place.
And look at Hamas now. As I say, we really don't get a good look at it, but it is estimated 80% of this place is in rubble. The US has an obligation to contribute to Gaza's reconstruction. Congress has an obligation to appropriate accordingly, not just for the sake of our humanity, but for the sake of our future security. And a two-state solution is essential for a peaceful, stable, secure Middle East.
Again, when I was there in February, the mission was so clear to try to help Gaza and the Palestinians rebuild, refine their lives, rebuild their houses and their schools, try to give the children some sense of normalcy, of a chance to play, to go to school, to hope for the future. How do you do that in years of rubble, torture, and torment? The United States has a responsibility to be a leader in this place and to make sure that Gaza is rebuilt, and we don't get distracted by a war in Iran. Remember, this was the president who was gonna bring us peace. He's brought us nothing but violence and rubble.
I support the amendment.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady. Are there others wishing to make remarks and amendments? General Lady from Ohio is recognized.
Speaker 8
Thank you, mister chairman, very much. And I would like to say to Congressman Quigley that your amendment is very well intentioned and deserves consideration. But there's something I don't understand, and that is, is it your intention to allow these funds to be expended once a peace agreement has been negotiated between whatever is defined as the legitimate leadership of the Palestinian Authority and Israel. And the reason that I wanna ask this question is because I had the privilege of serving President Jimmy Carter when he negotiated the last peace agreement that really held in that part of the world. He dedicated himself to that activity for months with the best advisers in the world.
To date, that agreement between Egypt and Israel has held. And there are reasons that it held. But two years after that agreement was signed, and I was present for its signing, I will never forget that moment in history. And Marsedat was assassinated, and inside Israel, Ishtaq Rabin. And I remember Rabin's quote.
Why did he support that agreement? Because he decided life was better than death. It was a very interesting comment that he made, and a very consequential one. But I guess my real question is, one could put the funds out there, but unless you have legitimate negotiators on both sides, so much of what you work for collapses. I have represented in my gerrymandered career part of Cleveland, Ohio.
And the Mandel School of Social Work and very generous people in Cleveland helped hospitals to exist in the West Bank and to bring people over to Israel for cures, especially children. I've witnessed the generosity of the American people. But so much of what they did is all gone because of the war, because of this fighting. So I know you have to have a stable agreement for anything to hold. And I'm wondering if your amendment, if you could explain to me, does it do that?
Does it anticipate negotiators on both sides? Because quite frankly, I find very troubling what Israel is doing in the West Bank, excuse me, in the West Bank, very troubling. And in the Palestinian Authority, as I talk to some individuals even in our own country, I say to them, what is the boundary? What is it we're negotiating here? And their answer is from the river to the sea.
So I see intransigence on both sides, and I'm just asking where will these funds be put in anticipation of a peace agreement? What do you expect as the stable agreement that we would have to enforce? I would yield, gentleman.
Speaker 12
If she is, then we're in the same position with the board of peace. Right? Now when my colleague across the aisle suggested that by doing things like rebuilding electrical and water in schools, which I would argue is humanitarian, the board of peace is talking about a billion dollars of humanitarian aid, and there's nothing conditioned in there, at least not yet. The point being, humanitarian aid is necessary now. So if the implication is I'm helping Hamas by rebuilding electrical in support of this and sanitation and fresh water in schools, I'm doing arguably the same thing that the board of peace is doing, with absolutely no guarantees.
It was we'd love to have that understanding. But to tell the people who are starving, who don't have water, who have disease, who aren't getting proper medical attention, we're gonna wait till everything is resolved, and we have a peace treaty that we know is gonna be secure. I don't think those on the board of peace, they certainly haven't said it publicly. So someone help me differentiate what Trump is doing under the border piece, versus what we're trying to do here. We're trying to help people who are starving, who are not getting medical aid, who aren't getting fresh water.
So, you know, my understanding is they haven't come to that conclusion. We would love that to take place, but we can't wait until the destruction and devastation go on for these people to have all that resolved. Love to see it happen. But for me to say we're not gonna do anything until we have a surefire peace for all time is unrealistic.
Speaker 1
Are there any others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentleman is recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 12
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm not naive. I have been in Israel 5 times. I have walked through the streets of Gaza without any security, and I've seen on both sides, the devastation, the loss of hope, that the people of Gaza lived through on a day-to-day basis. I've also seen the extraordinarily cynical use of civilians by Hamas, and the reign of terror that they bring about.
Putting all that aside for a second, we can't forget the devastation and the need to help. Again, it is the right thing to do, and it's the smart thing to do. That instability just is a recruiting tool for the next generation of Hamas. Don't think of Hamas as a military. Think of it as a movement.
And the manner in which Israel has conducted its activities in Gaza is the extraordinarily best recruiting tool for Hamas to continue recruiting. We can work against that tactically, strategically, being smart, but it's also the right thing to do. I encourage your support.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman. Just quickly before I move on, if we move into vote, which I suspect we will, we will recess immediately so that you have time to go to the chamber, then we'll resume the debate. As soon as it's over, we do advise you there's a chance that votes may be called shortly after the king's address to the congress. We don't know that yet, but it's one of the possibilities. So just please keep an eye on your devices and keep in touch with your staff, because you may, rather than come back here, if we move quickly into votes for some reason, have to stay there.
I don't wanna drag you back and send you right back. So just to ask you to stay alert. With that, the question's now on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois. All those in favor, say aye. Aye.
All opposed, say no. No. The opinion of the chair, the noes have it. Roll call has been requested. Sufficient support for that.
The clerk will call the roll. But, once you vote, if you want to leave, feel free to leave, because we will end immediately after the vote. Clerk will call.
Speaker 22
Mister Aderholt. Mister Aderholt. No. Mister Aguilar. Aye.
Mister Aguilar, aye. Mr Alford? Mister Amaday? Mister Amaday? No.
Missus Bice? Mister Bishop? Yes. Mister Bishop, aye. Mister Calvert?
Mister Calvert? No. Mr. Carter? No. Mister Case?
Mister Case? I. Mister Siscamani? Mister Siscamani? No.
Mister Klein? Mister Klein? No. Mister Cloud? Mr. Cloud?
No. Mister Clyburn? Mr. Clyburn, aye. Mr.
Clyde. Mr. Clyde, no. Mr. Cole?
Speaker 22
here. Miss Dean. Miss Dean, aye. Mr. Loro ?
Aye. Mister Loro, aye. Mister Diaz-Ballart? No. Mister Diaz-Ballart?
No. Mister Edwards? Mister Edwards? No. Mister Elzy?
Mister Elzy? No. Miss Escobar? Miss Escobar? Escobar?
Escobar? Aye. Aye. Escobar? Mister Fleishman?
No. Miss Frankel? Hi. Miss Frankel, aye. Mister Franklin?
Mister Franklin? No. Mister Guest? No. Mister Guest?
No. Mr. Harder? Hi. Mister Harder, aye. Doctor Harris?
Doctor Harris, no. Mrs. Henson. Mrs. Henson, no.
Mr. Hoyer. I. Mr. Ivy.
I. Mr. Ivy. Mr. Joyce.
Mr. Joyce, no. Ms. Captor. I.
Ms. Captor, I. Mr. Lelota. Mister Lolota.
No. Miss Lee. Miss Lee, I. Miss Letlow. Mr. Levin.
Mister Levin. Miss Malloy. Miss Malloy. No. Miss McCollum.
I. Miss Ming.
Speaker 22
Miss Ming, aye. Mister Molinar? Mister Molinar? No. Mister Moore?
No. Mister Morelli? Aye. Mister Morelli? Aye.
Mister Mervann? Mister Newhouse? Mr. Newhouse? No. Miss Perez?
Miss Perez, aye. Miss Pingry. Miss Pingry, aye. Mister Pokan. Mister Pokan, aye.
Mister Quigley. Aye. Mister Quigley, aye. Mister Rashenthaler. Mister Rogers.
Mister Rogers, no. Mr. Rutherford. Mister Rutherford, no. Mister Shreev. Mister Shreev, no.
Mr. Simpson. Mister Simpson, no. Mister Strong. Mister Strong, no. Mrs. Torres.
Miss Underwood. Miss Underwood, aye. Mister Valladeo? No. Valladeo?
No. Miss Wasserman Schultz? She is in here. Miss Watson Coleman? Yes.
Missus Watson Coleman, aye. Mister Womack? Mister Womack, no. Mister Zinke? Mister Zinke, no.
I'm sorry. I didn't see you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Are there any members wishing to vote or change their vote? General ladies from Oklahoma?
Speaker 1
Vice? Are there others wishing to vote or change their vote? Seeing none, the clerical tally.
Speaker 1
On this vote, the ayes are 25. The notes are 32. The amendment is not agreed to. The committee will now stand and recess. We'll reconvene at the conclusion of the joint session.
Good. The committee is called back to order.
Speaker 1
The gentle lady from New York, Miss Ming, is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Speaker 23
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. I would like to request to dispense with the reading.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentlelady is recognized for remarks on her amendment.
Speaker 23
Mister chairman, over the past year, this administration has wreaked havoc on the women and girls of the world. It eliminated the State Department's Office of Global Women's Issues, illegally refused to spend lifesaving international family planning money provided by Congress, tried to burn $10,000,000 worth of birth control only to let most of it expire, and cut off an estimated 3,000,000 women and girls in humanitarian crises from access to programs that prevent and respond to gender-based violence. This bill, as written, would double down on that destruction by slashing funding for international family planning and reproductive health programs, which save the lives of an estimated 34,000 moms per year. It would also ban funding to the UN Population Fund.
Speaker 23
It is a lifeline for women around the world who are fighting for equality, starting families, and seeking safety in conflict zones. It would also entrench the administration's new, expanded global gag rule. Historically, Republican administrations apply this policy to a narrow slice of foreign aid. But this administration's new policy weaponizes all nonmilitary foreign assistance, almost $40,000,000,000 spanning 160 countries and even multilateral organizations. This policy's unprecedented scope is dwarfed only by its cruelty.
It bans organizations, even American organizations, from receiving US funding if they provide information about abortion, even in countries where abortion is legal. In practice, this means more women and girls will die because they are not able to access the services they need. Adding to the preventable death toll caused by this administration's destruction of USAID and cuts to life-saving aid programs. I would like to remind my colleagues that for over fifty years, it has been illegal for funds from this bill to be used for abortion. My amendment is simple.
It would restore bilateral family planning funding to the enacted level Congress agreed to only a few months ago. It would replace section 7057's radical attacks on women's health with the language enacted in law, including repealing the ban on UNFBA funding. Lastly, we'd also prohibit any funding from being used to implement, administer, or enforce one of the new rules that comprise the new expanded global gag rule policy, which violates the First Amendment rights of American organizations, applies to all foreign aid, not just family planning assistance, and will export this administration's extreme right-wing social ideology worldwide. I ask that you support this amendment. Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thanks, gentlelady, for your remarks. The gentleman from Florida, Mister Diaz-Balart, is recognized to respond to the amendment.
Speaker 2
Mister chairman, thank you so much. I rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendment strikes, as you heard, language that would prohibit any funds used in contravention of the rule published in the federal registry on 01/27/2026 entitled, quote, protecting life in foreign assistance, end of quote, and strikes the funding cap for family planning programs in the bill. The amendment also strikes the prohibition on funds to the UNFPA. This organization is an unaccountable bureaucracy.
That has a track record of funding controversial programs, to say the least, that do not align with core American values and which actively undermine US interests. The amendment also would tie the hands of the administration in implementing the protecting life and foreign assistance rule. I think it's our duty to strengthen, not weaken, pro life protections in our bill. You've heard me say this time and time again, and I'll say it again, but US foreign assistance dollars must be used for bipartisan priorities that strengthen our national security. It's pretty clear that Americans have not and do not support using foreign assistance to fund abortions or other controversial programs overseas.
And this bill reflects that, so I respectfully urge a no vote on the amendment. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman for his remarks. A gentlelady from Florida, Miss Frankel, recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 3
Thank you, Mr. Chair. My. My. My. Now you really got me going because I am really.
Speaker 3
You could say it with me. Yes. Because here we go again. Once more, we're forced to defend the health, dignity, and basic rights of women and girls from political ideology that has no place in this bill. Instead of strengthening life saving care, this bill plays politics, women's and girls' health, putting their futures at risk in the process.
And let I be clear because, and thank you, Grace Meng, for this amendment, because it's not about using taxpayer dollars to pay for abortion. That's already prohibited under a very archaic law, and nothing in the amendment changes that. What this amendment does is to stop politicians from censoring doctors, shutting down clinics, from cutting off basic lifesaving care, because women, not politicians in Washington, decide whether or not they should grow or start a family. And I'm gonna tell you what's going on in this world. Everybody, it's an abomination what is happening to women in conflicts.
I'm gonna give you some examples. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, alright, studies suggest hundreds of thousands of women have been raped over the decades. Study estimates 48 per hour at peak periods. In Tigray, reports that tens of thousands of women and girls have been raped, and many of them involve gang rape and extreme brutality. In Russia, invasion of Ukraine, thousands of cases reported and investigated through actual numbers are much higher, and what's happening to women in these conflicts?
In most cases, not all. The men are going to war. The women are left with the children. They are brutalized. They are left without money.
They are left without support. And then comes along this bill that takes away support from the women of the world. And, look, if you know anything about raising children, I'm gonna say this as a mother and a grandmother, and we're all here. Most of us are parents and or no parents. And you know how important a parent is for the upbringing of their children.
And so you have conflicts where the fathers are away, and the women are brutalized. So thank you for this amendment. Because let me tell you something, folks. When you strip women of control, you are not just harming their health. You are undermining their ability to care for their families, to be the mothers they wanna be, and because and going to port their children towards a better future.
And this bill doesn't stop at the existing law. It slashes funding for family planning programs that prevent unintended pregnancies. It reduces maternal death and gives a woman a chance of stability. It zeros out funding for the United Nations Population Fund, a global lifeline providing maternal care and protecting women from violence in more than 150 countries. It expands a global gare rule, policy so extreme that it blocks providers from even talking to patients about their full range of options.
And, worse, it dictates what organizations can do with their own non US funds. And let's call this what it is. It's not fiscal responsibility. It's not health policy, and the consequences are devastating. At this very moment, this bill strips away humanitarian aid that keeps families and lives safe.
It also blocks access to reproductive care. The result, women and girls in impoverished countries in conflict zones, many of them survive with rape, used as a weapon of war, are forced to carry pregnancies against their will, forced to give birth in a crisis without care, without choice, without dignity. And then the same bid budget with a billion-dollar cut to humanitarian care abandons the children. It cuts the food. Cuts the medicine.
The vaccines that keep babies alive. So let's be clear. Forced birth, followed by neglect. That is not pro-life. That is policy-induced suffering, and we are already seeing the consequences.
Clinics closing, cut off access to contraception, leaving millions of women without care. And I could go on. 1,400 clinics have already been shut down, and 9,000,000 people have lost access to services. Health care workers are reporting. They're reporting rising cases of hemorrhage, infection, unsafe abortions, and preventable deaths.
And this is a cycle, this bill fuse. More intended pregnancies, more disease, more instability, more poverty. And think what this means. I'm gonna say this again. We are forcing women and girls into pregnancies they are not ready for, and then turning our backs as their babies suffer and die from hunger and preventable disease.
How wrong, which is just an abomination. And I'm gonna say it again. I do as I do every year. Women deserve to control their own bodies. No one should be forced into an unwanted pregnancy.
Women deserve information, freedom, and dignity. They deserve support, not sabotage from the United States of America. I urge my colleagues to support this very good main amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the general lady for her remarks. The general lady from Connecticut, Mister Lawrence, recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 5
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of this amendment, and thank the general lady from New York for introducing it. In 2003, UNFPA launched the campaign to end fistula, which is active in more than 55 countries. For many in this room, you may be asking, what is obstetric fistula, and why have you never heard of it? You have not, because despite being one of the most serious childbirth injuries, it has been effectively eliminated in the United States.
Obstetric fistula still impacts more than 500,000 women each year. What happens to these women? Without access to timely, high-quality treatment or emergency treatment, a prolonged obstructed labor results in either death or severe injury for the mother, and is tragically nearly universally fatal for the baby. Ninety percent of women, and these are women, mostly women who are overseas, who develop obstetric fistula, deliver a stillborn baby. The worst thing is, it is entirely preventable.
For the women and girls who survived, a hole between the birth canal and the bladder and or rectum has developed, leading them to leaking urine, feces, or both. As a result, these women suffer painful ulcers, constant incontinence, in addition to shame and social segregation. UNFPA's clean delivery kit provides the essential hygiene items in this package. The essential hygiene items for individual safe deliveries in low resource settings, in emergencies, or during travel to a facility that ensure a clean delivery. This is provided by the UNFPA.
The label is here. What is included in here? Two medical gloves for clean baby delivery hands. A large medical sheet for a clean childbirth delivery surface. Oftentimes, the women go in on a stone slab, so you have a delivery surface that they can lie on.
There's sterile scissors for umbilical cord cutting, sterile twine for umbilical cord tying, soap, and sterile gauze for the umbilical cord care. There is also a blanket. It is a blanket to keep the baby warm, and instructions on warning signs of a dangerous delivery. My friends, the cost of each kit that could save a woman's life, her health, and her child, what is that cost? $7.88.
$7.88 to help prevent a woman from dying or delivering a stillborn baby, and having to live her life with obstetric fistula. When this bill prohibits UNFPA because you do not support family planning services, you cut off the efforts. You cut off the $7.88 for this kit that keeps mothers and children alive. May 23 is the international day to end obstetric fistula, and this year's theme is her health, her right, shaping a future without fistula. Tragically, this bill fails to help build a future without fistula.
And, again, this is according to Johns Hopkins. Almost 500,000 women between the ages of 15 and 64 are living with obstetric fistula. And the majority in the 1900s, United States, to eradicate fistula. These are mostly women and girls, 15-year-old girls, who in some instances are forced to deliver a child. That's who is being heard here, and they are women in other countries.
If anything, by prohibiting US funding to UNFPA, we are condemning more women and girls to serious and tragic childbirth injuries that we as a country again eradicated in the 1900s. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to help women and girls globally, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentlelady for her comments. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 23
I know this administration wants more American exports, but radical anti-abortion, anti-human rights policies should not make the cut. Instead of endorsing extreme culture war agendas, my amendment would simply restore enacted law, providing long-standing support for family planning programs, striking the ban on funds to UNFPA, and prohibiting funds for this or any prior bill from supporting this administration's ill-conceived expanded global gag rule. Thank you, and I urge a yes vote on this amendment.
Speaker 1
Thanks, gentlelady, for the comments. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from New York. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no.
Speaker 1
In the opinion, the chair of the noes have it, but I anticipate that, and recognize, sufficient support has been demonstrated. Clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 22
Mister Aderholt? No. Mister Aderholt? Mister Aye. Mister Aguilar?
Aye. Mr Alford? Mister Alford? No. Mister Amaday?
No. Mister Amaday? No. Missus Bice? Missus Bice?
No. Mister Bishop? Aye. Mr. Bishop, I.
Mr. Calvert? No. Mr. Calvert?
Mr. Carter? No. Case? Mr.
Siscamani? No. Mr. Cline? Mister Cloud, mister Clyburn, I.
Mister Clyde? Mister Clyde, no. Mister Cole? No. Mister Cole?
No. Mister Cuellar? Mistine? Mistine, aye. Mister Loro?
Aye. Mister Loro, aye. Mister Diaz Bellart? No. Mister Diaz Bellart?
No. Mr Edwards? No. Mister Elze? Mister Elze?
No. Miss Escobar? Miss Escobar, aye. Mr. Esbayat?
Mr. Fleishman? No. Mr. Fleishman?
No. Miss Frankel? Aye. Mr. Franklin?
Mr. Franklin? No. Mr. Guest?
Mr. Harter. Mister Harter, aye. Doctor Harris. Doctor Harris, no. Missus Henson, Mr. Hoyer.
Aye. Mister Hoyer, aye. Mr. Ivy. Aye. Ivy, aye.
Mr. Joyce. Mister Joyce, no. Miss Captor. Mister Lolota. Mister Lolota, no.
Miss Lee. Miss Lee, aye. Miss Letlow. Mr. Levin. Mister Levin, aye.
Miss Malloy. Miss Malloy, no. Miss McCollum. Miss McCollum, aye. Miss Ming.
Miss Ming, aye. Mister Molinar. Mister Molinar, no. Mr. Moore. Mister Moore, no.
Mister Morelli, aye. Mister Morelli, aye. Mr. Marvin. Mr. Newhouse. Mister Newhouse, no.
Miss Perez. Miss Pingree, Mr. Pocan. Mister Pocan, I. Mr. Quigley. I.
Mister Quigley, I. Mister Rashenthaler. Mister Rogers. Mister Rogers, no. Mr Rutherford.
Mister Rutherford, no. Mister Shreev. Mister Shreev, no. Mr. Simpson. Mister Simpson, no.
Mister Strong, no. Missus Torres? Missus Torres, aye. Miss Underwood? Aye.
Miss Underwood, aye. Mister Valladeo? Mister Valladeo? No. Miss Wasserman Schultz?
Aye. Missus Wasserman Schultz, aye. Miss Watson Coleman? Aye. Missus Watson Coleman, aye.
Mister Womack? Mister Womack? No. Mister Zinke? No.
Mister Zinke? No.
Speaker 1
Are there any members wishing to vote or to change their vote? Gentlemen from Virginia.
Speaker 1
Are there any other members wishing to vote or change their vote? Seeing none, the clerk will tally. On this vote, the ayes are 24, the noes are 31. The amendment is not adopted. The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mister Pokan, is recognized for an amendment.
Speaker 16
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask that it be considered read.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman is recognized for remarks on his amendment.
Speaker 16
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So this amendment would simply have GAO do a study on whether or not there are the number of deaths that have occurred because of the dismantling of USAID, the stopping, work discontinuation, shuttering of the department. But this should be of interest to anyone, because part of our job is oversight, and we wanna know that dollars are spent wisely. This is something that we didn't make the decision on. This is something the administration made the decision to do after we funded it over and over again through the appropriations process.
USAID has been the leading agency that's provided humanitarian assistance from the United States for over 20 years. It's estimated they've saved 91,000,000 lives because of our funding, our generosity, our goodness as a nation. Yet it's been less than 1% of the federal budget, generally 0.3 to 0.7% any given year. In 2024, the US funded about 47%, about half of all global humanitarian aid, making it the largest provider of humanitarian assistance on the planet. China has been coming into more and more countries doing assistance.
But in July 2025, at that point, 80% of USAID operations were terminated, and what was left was merged into the State Department. Roughly 5,200 contracts were just canceled. Not by us, that article one of the constitution gives the power of the purse to, but by the executive branch, and another 1,000 were transferred to the Department of State. Oxfam estimates that that effect will be 23,000,000 children losing access to education, 95,000,000 people losing access to basic health care, and millions of preventable deaths every year. Now Secretary Marco Rubio, back in May, said no one had died because of cuts to USAID.
He said, no children are dying on his watch. Well, a lot of groups have said just the opposite. By studies, respected organizations, Boston University, an epidemiologist estimated in November that the USAID cuts had already caused about 600,000 unnecessary deaths. The Center for Global Development estimates that the number of lives lost just in the first year would be upwards of 1 million, and that annually after that, 670,000 to 1.6 million people. The UCLA study in July '25 estimated that their dismantling will lead to up to 14 million deaths by 2030, including 4 and a half million deaths among children under five, because of those cuts.
In Lancet's study, back in February, said that it would estimate 9.4 million additional deaths by 2030. So all these groups that do this work have said the actions of dismantling USAID, not only does that help us around the world on every other front, it's just this diplomacy, soft power, and a lot of other fronts. They're saying that this is having a huge impact. Well, why are they saying it? Well, look at what's happening.
The World Food Program cuts in Yemen. They're estimating 2.4 million people have stopped getting their food assistance, nutritional care for 100,000 children. The World Food Program's operation in Kenya abruptly cut off, that their rations now are less than 600 calories per day to the folks that are there, the 308,000 refugees with almost nothing to eat. The food program cuts in Malawi, a sharp increase in criminality, sexual violence, and instances of human trafficking within a large refugee camp because of what's happening. And HIV medications have been delayed, antimalarial medications in over 40 countries.
In fact, just yesterday's New York Times shows in Zambia that AIDS, their headline, AIDS creeps back in parts of Zambia a year after US cuts to HIV assistance. So we should all care. And if you think that we don't need to spend that money, you also should want this study, because if it proves that there aren't deaths, then quite honestly, Russ Vote made a wise decision. I don't think that sentence will ever be uttered, in reality that he made a wise decision, but he shouldn't be. It's up to Congress to make those decisions.
But we should know, either way. So this would simply get a GAO study to know the actual impact of what happened when we do the USAID cuts. And if it is millions of people around the world who are dying, it may be something that we, Congress, should exert our authority, and I hope you'll support this amendment. And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman for his comments. The gentleman from Florida, Mister Diaz-Balart, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition to this amendment. I was a very young guy when Ronald Reagan was president, but I remember Gene Patrick talking about the blame America first crowd. You know, that crowd that always blames America for all the ills in the world. Let's be very clear.
The United States is and will continue to be the largest contributor of foreign assistance on the planet. No one comes close. But we also have to be conscious of the fact that our national debt is a very real issue, and it's a real threat to our future, our children's future. So we're long overdue in evaluating and re-evaluating our foreign assistance. What we're doing in areas where we should be spending money, we're spending money.
But we're just not gonna do this blindly. Foreign assistance should not be treated as an entitlement. And, so you heard about, oh my gosh, the horrible things that the United States is doing in Yemen and Kenya and Malawi. Did you hear any criticism of what Portugal is maybe doing or not doing in Yemen or Spain or anyone else? It's the United States' fault always.
The United States continues and will continue to be the most generous country in the world. And this concept that when, you know, all of the yields of the world are our responsibility is something that I just respectfully don't buy. It's about time this congress, and we passed our bill in fiscal '26, where we looked at foreign assistance, where we should be spending and where we shouldn't be spending. And, again, we're going back to the blame America first crowd. I keep hearing of all these evil things that The United States is doing, but I yet to hear criticism of what China's doing, what Western Europe is doing, what Eastern Europe is doing, what the rest of the world is doing.
Their money, their funding of foreign aid doesn't come close to what we are doing, but I am glad that we are now doing it more effectively, more efficiently, and yes, saving taxpayer money. So for those reasons and many others, I respectfully urge a no vote on this amendment. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman for his remarks. Gentle lady from Florida, Miss Frankel, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 3
Yeah. Thank you, mister chair. And I rise and support a rep, representative Pocket's amendment that would require a report on the number of deaths caused by the Trump administration's reckless, callous, and illegal dismantling of USAID. And let me just say that we are debating our budget. I don't know if I was in China.
Maybe I'd debate that budget too, but I'm debating this budget. And it's very interesting because we just came from the chamber where we heard from the king of England who got multiple standing ovations because he told us how the United States, how we lead, not only in what we say, but we should lead in our actions. And everybody stood up and applauded, and I applaud too all the acts of kindness that we do around the world. And it's not just because we're doing charity, folks. When we keep children from starving, when we keep women from dying of illnesses, from rape, when we stop disease from spreading, and we keep and we're keeping the world, helping to keep the war more stable, that means we're less likely to have our men and women go into war.
And to me, when you look at it, mister Pokano, thank you for your amendment because we are spending billions of dollars on war. This is The United States Of, we even changed our defense. No, it's not the secretary of defense. He's now the Secretary of War. And all those billion dollars that supposedly we can't afford because we have a deficit, they're being cut, they're being cut from efforts that would prevent war.
And for that reason, I do think it is a very wise amendment, and I am very grateful to support your amendment. We need a full accounting of the chaos and destruction caused by the administration's decisions to destroy USAID. And I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, lady, for the comments. There are other members wishing to address the issue. Dillman from Maryland is recognized.
Speaker 7
I just wanna make an observation. And that is blaming the Trump administration for policies which have been harmful, hurtful, and consequential in a very negative way, is, my dear friend, not blaming America. And to conflate the two, where your side blamed Biden for a lot of missteps, blamed Obama for missteps, blamed Clinton for missteps, was not blaming America any more than our calling attention to the failures, particularly of those, which is going to go down as one of the most negative ninety days perhaps in America, which is what it was essentially, is not blaming America. My view is America deserves better than it's getting. But having said that, I do not conflate the two, Trump and America.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, for his comments. Are there other members wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentle lady, excuse me. The gentleman is recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 16
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, I think the subcommittee chair's comments seem to me a little bit to be internalized guilt because he's talking about Ronald Reagan. Well, let me tell you about Ronald Reagan. You can do this really easy on ChatGPT. Did Reagan cut USAID?
No. President Reagan did not cut or dismantle USAID, but rather strengthened it as a tool of American foreign policy. I didn't write that. I didn't write that. That was AI.
But then they go on to say, Reagan utilized USAID to enhance agricultural and humanitarian efforts, creating early warning systems. Unlike 2025 cuts, which are discussed in a couple publications, Reagan's era saw a or sometimes increased focus on certain USAID programs. So, look, this is about whether or not we want to, as the greatest country on the planet, a democracy, make sure other countries see what democracies do, and that is by providing assistance to those countries. It is much cheaper than the billion or 2,000,000,000 a day we're spending right now in Iran. But if you think USAID wasn't needed, let's do this study, and then you've got actual provable information that you can show us.
So it's easy. It should be a win-win for all of us. I hope we'll support this amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
I thank the gentleman for his comments. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no.
No. Opinion of the chair, the noes have it. Roll call has been requested. Sufficient support has been demonstrated. The clerk will call the wrong.
Speaker 22
Mister Aderholt. Mister Aderholt. No. Mister Aguilar. Mister Aguilar.
I. Mr. Alford. Mr. Alford. No. Mister Amaday.
Mister Amaday. No. Missus Bice. Missus Bice. Bise.
Mr. Bishop. Mister Calvert? Mister Calvert? No. Mr. Carter?
Mr Case? Mr Case? I. Mister Siscamani? Mister Klein?
Mister Klein? No. Mr. Cloud? Mister Clyburn? Mister Clyburn, aye.
Mister Clyde? Mr. Clyde? No. Mister Cole? No.
Mister Cole? No. Mister Cuéar? Mister Cuéar, aye. Mistine?
Mistine, aye. Miss Doloro? Aye. Mister Doloro, aye. Mister Diaz Bellart?
No. Mister Diaz Bellart? No. Mr Edwards? No.
Mister Elzy? Mister Elzy? No. Miss Escobar? Miss Escobar, aye.
Mister Esbayat? Mister Esbayat, aye. Mister Fleishman? No. Mister Fleishman?
No. Miss Frankel? Hi. Miss Frankel, aye. Mister Franklin?
Mr. Franklin? No. Mister Guest? No. Mister Guest?
No. Mr. Harder? Mr. Harter? I. Doctor.
Harris? Doctor. Harris? No. Mrs.
Henson? Mr. Hoyer? Aye. Mr.
Hoyer? Aye. Mr. Ivy? Aye.
Mr. Joyce? Mr. Joyce? No. Miss Captor?
Miss Captor, aye. Mister Lolota. Mister Lolota, no. Miss Lee. Miss Lee, aye.
Miss Letlow. Mr. Levin. Mister Levin, aye. Miss Malloy. Miss Malloy, no.
Miss McCullum. Miss McCullum, aye. Miss Ming. Miss Ming, aye. Mister Molinar?
No. Mr Moore? No. Mr Moore? No.
Mister Morelli? I. Mister Morelli, aye. Mister Mervann? Mr Newhouse.
Mr Newhouse. No. Miss Perez. Miss Pingree. Miss Pingree.
Aye. Mr. Pocan. Mister Pocan, aye. Mister Quigley. Mister Quigley.
Aye. Mister Rashenthaler. Mister Rogers. Mister Rogers, no. Mr. Rutherford.
Mister Shreev. Mister Shreev, no. Mr. Simpson. Mister Simpson, no. Mr Strong.
No. Strong? Missus Torres? Hi. Missus Torres, I.
Miss Underwood? Aye. Miss Underwood, I. Mister Valadao? Mister Valadao?
Miss Wasserman Schultz? Miss Wasserman Schultz, I. Miss Watson Coleman? Missus Watson Coleman, I. Mr. Womack.
Mister Womack, no. Mister Zinke. Mister Zinke, no.
Speaker 1
Are there any members wishing to record their vote or change their vote? The gentleman from Texas?
Speaker 1
Are there others wishing to record or change their vote? Seeing none, the clerk will tally. On this vote, the ayes are 26 and the noes are 31. The amendment is not adopted. General lady from California, Miss Torres, is recognized for the purpose of amendment.
Speaker 14
Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment and ask that the reading be dispensed with.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentlelady's recognized for remarks on her amendment.
Speaker 14
Chairman, my amendment is based on a very simple question. Either we believe child traffickers should face consequences, or we don't. Just last month, Interpol announced 60 arrests across The Americas in a child sex trafficking ring that produced and distributed child sexual abuse materials. This isn't just about the predators. It is also about the cowards who shield them and the ones who bury the evidence, twist the system, and protect the powerful, while little children spend a lifetime living with the trauma.
This is about what powerful people think they can get away with behind closed doors, and the prosecutors, politicians, and enablers who help them. My amendment simply stops taxpayer dollars in this bill from removing US sanctions that our government has placed on individuals who have credible allegations of child trafficking made against them. If our government has determined that there are credible allegations of an individual committing child trafficking, then we should not be welcoming them to the US with open arms. My amendment includes a waiver. If the secretary certifies that this is the urgent and crucial interest of the US national security.
We must draw a line and say that child trafficking is too horrific of a crime for the type of pay to play behavior we have seen, that no child trafficker should be able to pay for their sanctions to be lifted and their consequences be erased, to walk free because they knew the right rich and powerful people.
Speaker 1
You, gentlelady, for her remarks, and chair recognizes mister Diaz Ballard to respond to the amendment.
Speaker 2
I just wanna thank the general lady for this amendment. We're willing and able and ready to accept the amendment if great. Mister Jim, accept the amendment.
Speaker 1
Any others wishing to address the amendment? Yes. General Lady from Florida is recognized.
Speaker 10
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm really glad to hear that this amendment's gonna be accepted, and I really commend Congresswoman Torres for her leadership in offering it. I don't think we can call enough attention to, even though I know it's being accepted, the scourge of child trafficking. So please bear with me, my remarks, because we should make sure that nobody that credibly is accused of trafficking children is granted relief from sanctions. We are living in an alternate reality where we have a president and his party that can profess to be tough on crime and to get dedicated to going after the, quote, deep state, while unabashedly selling off pardons to well-connected insiders.
President Trump has lifted sanctions on foreign adversaries, criminals, and brutal despots. He handed Iran and Russia billions in frozen assets in exchange for zero concessions. He lifted sanctions on Venezuela's corrupt regime-owned oil company and unfroze Delcy Rodriguez's personal bank accounts. At the same time, this administration's brazen cover-up of the Epstein files illustrates the president's lack of concern for following the law, unmasking Epstein's affiliates, and securing justice for victims. I am not a newcomer to this issue.
Along with ranking member Frankl, I've been fighting for transparency and accountability for Epstein's trafficking ring for nearly seven years. In 2019, we raised the alarm about the slap on the wrist deal that Trump's cabinet secretary, Alex Acosta, gifted Epstein while he was a prosecutor in the home state of Florida. And together, we fought for reforms to our justice system to ensure victims of these abhorrent crimes are not victimized once again by backroom deals. But backroom deals are simply how this president operates. That's why his administration has not initiated a single prosecution based on revelations in the Epstein documents, and they are openly debating a pardon for convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell.
I proudly sponsored the No Escaping Justice Act to impose sanctions on foreign nationals incriminated in the Epstein files, and prohibit them from entering our country. And this amendment serves the same purpose. Nobody who exploits children should be admissible to the nation. Nobody responsible for enabling the purchase or sale of children should be able to buy and sell anything with US-denominated assets. And, certainly, no child trafficker, regardless of how many donations they make, probably they stay higher, or Mar-a-Lago events they attend, should be able to buy their way off the sanctions list.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I thank the general lady for offering it, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the general lady for the comments. Are there any others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the general lady is recognized to close for one minute.
Speaker 14
Thank you, chairman. Just wanna thank my colleagues on all sides of all the aisles. And with this amendment, we are sending a big message to children around the world. We see you. We won't forget you, and you matter.
And with that, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from California. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed, say no.
No. General, in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. A gentle lady from California, Miss Torris, is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Speaker 14
Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment, and I ask that the reading be dispensed with.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the general lady is recognized for remarks on her amendment.
Speaker 14
My amendment simply places consequences on our special envoys who do not fill out the financial disclosures that all special envoys need to fill out. Why does this matter? It matters because the American people deserve to know what financial interests may be motivating the face of America abroad. It matters if you are sent to negotiate a peace deal with Iran and Pakistan, but all your business interests depend on the price of oil. It matters if a foreign government invests in your business, and then you advocate for trade deals that enrich that nation.
Right now, we have two special envoys who are negotiating on behalf of our nation, despite their serious financial conflicts of interest. One has previously advocated in advance of AI chip deal with The UAE while receiving 2,000,000,000 in financial investments in one of his businesses that he operates with Trump family members. Another, the president's son-in-law operates an investment firm that has taken in billions of dollars from the sovereign wealth funds of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE. His business literally depends on them. Do we really expect these deals to be made in the best interest of hardworking Americans?
All of this is happening after more than 100 Senate-confirmed ambassadors. The real faces of America have been revealed by the Trump administration. And instead of strengthening our foreign service, the experts who know how to engage in negotiations, this administration is appointing special envoys and shadow diplomats who are not Senate confirmed and who have not filled out the financial disclosures. Americans should know whether their representatives at home and abroad have conflicts that potentially undermine the best interests of our nation. And if those special envoys are too afraid to provide that information to the American people, then they should not be using taxpayer dollars to represent us.
I urge support for my amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, general lady, for your remarks. Gentleman from Florida, Mister Diaz-Balart, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I respectfully rise in opposition to the amendment from my distinguished colleague. Section 76 4 of the bill already contains a limitation on special envoys. That provision requires that none of the funds under the heading diplomatic programs may be made available for support of a special envoy, a special representative, or other position performing a similar function unless expressly authorized by statute or has affirmatively received the advice and consent of the Senate. Additional limitations on the appointments of special envoys and similar positions, I believe, should be considered by the authorizing committees.
So, accordingly, I respectfully urge a no vote on this amendment. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. The gentleman from Florida, Miss Frankel, is recognized to respond to the amendment.
Speaker 3
And I just wanna thank Mister Torres for this very, very good amendment. I rise in support. And put simply, this amendment ensures that the people who represent The United States sometimes in the most sensitive national security discussions. I'm not gonna name names. We know who we're talking about. You name the name.
There could be other names. But they need to be up in front about their financial interests. We should not be kept in the dark about potential conflicts of interest, and transparency is the best way to prevent special dealings. Corruption and fraud, especially when issues of war and peace are at stake. And, thank you for this very good amendment.
I urge everybody to support it.
Speaker 1
Thank the general, lady. Are there others wishing to make remarks on the amendment? Seeing none, the general lady is recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 14
Chairman, I believe that every American special envoy representing us abroad should disclose their financial interests, zero exceptions. The stakes are too high when unconfirmed shadow diplomats negotiate peace deals and trade agreements. Hidden conflicts of interest endanger us. Background billionaires shouldn't be deciding on what deals America gets without telling America exactly who is pulling their strings. If you won't tell the American people who's paying you, you don't get to spend their tax dollars on these deals.
This is about accountability. My amendment doesn't end anyone's career. It just requires that the faces of American diplomacy prove their loyalty. It is to this country, not their pocketbook. And I urge support for my amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady, for your comment. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from California. All those in favor, say aye.
Speaker 1
Roll call has been requested. Sufficient show of support has been demonstrated. The clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 22
Mister Aderholt. Mister Aguilar. Mister Aguilar, I. Mr. Alford. Mister Alford, no.
Mister Amaday? Mister Amaday? No. Missus Bice? Missus Bice?
No. Mister Bishop? Mister Bishop, aye. Mister Calvert? Mister Calvert?
No. Mr. Carter? Mister Case, aye. Mister Siscamani, no. Mister Klein, mister Cloud, mister Clyburn, aye.
Mister Clyde? No. Mr. Cole?
Speaker 22
Mister Cole? No. Mister Cuéar? Miss Dean? Aye.
Miss Dean, aye. Mister Lauro? Aye. Mister Lauro, aye. Mister Diaz Bellart?
No. Mister Diaz Bellart? No. Mister Edwards? Mister Edwards?
No. Mister Elzy? Mister Elzy? No. Miss Escobar?
Miss Escobar? Aye. Mister Esbayat? Mister Esbayat? Mister Fleishman?
Mister Fleishman? No. Miss Frankel?
Speaker 22
Miss Frankel, aye. Mister Franklin? Mister Franklin? No. Mister Guest?
No. Mister Guest? Mr. Harter? Aye. Mister Harter, aye.
Doctor Harris? Doctor Harris? No. Missus Henson? Mr.
Hoyer. Aye. Mr. Hoyer, aye. Mr.
Ivy.
Speaker 22
Mr. Ivey, aye. Mr. Joyce. Mr.
Joyce, no. Ms. Captor, Miss Captor, aye. Mr. Lolota.
Mr. Lolota, no. Ms. Lee. Miss Lee, aye.
Miss Letlow. Mr. Levin. Mister Levin, aye. Miss Malloy. Miss Malloy, no.
Miss McCollum, aye. Miss Ming? Aye. Miss Ming, aye. Mister Molinar?
No. Mr Moore? Mr. Moore? No. Mister Morelli?
Aye. Mister Morelli? Aye. Mister Mervann? Mr Newhouse?
Mr Newhouse? No. Miss Perez? Miss Perez, aye. Miss Pingree.
Miss Pingree, aye. Mr. Pocan. Mister Pocan, aye. Mr. Quigley. Mister Quigley, aye.
Mister Russenthaler. Mister Russienthaler, no. Mister Rogers. Mister Rogers, no. Mr. Rutherford.
Mister Rutherford, no. Mister Shreev? Mister Shreev, no. Mr. Simpson? Mister Simpson, no.
Mister Strong? Mister Strong? No. Mrs. Torres? Aye.
Missus Torres, aye. Miss Underwood? Mister Valladeo? No. Mister Valladeo?
No. Miss Wasserman Schultz? Miss Wasserman Schultz, aye. Miss Watson Coleman?
Speaker 22
Missus Watson Coleman, aye. Mister Womack? Mister Womack? No. Mister Zinke?
No. Mister Zinke? No.
Speaker 1
Are there any members wishing to record their vote or change their vote to yes, gentlemen from Virginia?
Speaker 1
Are there any others wishing to change or record their vote? Gentlemen from Alabama?
Speaker 1
Are there others? Seeing none of the clerical talent? On this vote, the ayes are 25 and the nos are 33. The amendment is not adopted. A gentleman from New York, mister Espiots, recognized for the purposes of an amendment.
Speaker 15
Chairman, I have introduced an amendment and asked to dispense the reading of the amendment.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman is recognized for remarks on his amendment.
Speaker 15
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mister chairman, this amendment requires the secretary of state to submit a report to Congress on the measures that are being implemented to mitigate any risk whatsoever or impact to the Department of State, its diplomatic efforts, and its personnel following reports around proposed currency swaps with foreign nations that are in financial distress. Now I did intend to withdraw this amendment, but I am compelled to detail the troubled behavior and stakes at play. Like many American families, national governments in every corner of the world are financially strained by the president's unlawful, unnecessary war. These governments need money, liquidity, to try to steady their ships.
So they have gone to the president and his family to ask for help. That help comes in the form of our tax dollars. You see, mister chairman, in my district, in Harlem and in Washington, Hice, and in the Bronx, in every corner of the city of New York, people are also hurting. I think the American people also need some liquidity, not another bill. They do not want to cut the check for a Gulf billionaire bailout or another bombing campaign.
Americans are connecting the dots. They do not want to support aimless wars. This chaos or their money being spent on Gulf billionaire bailouts. So this amendment, mister chair, attempts to get to the bottom of this currency swap that is happening far too often with countries that are wealthy and wanna bail out from the American people. The American people need help, not the billionaires in another part of the world.
So, I wanna thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Chairman. I will be withdrawing my amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 2
Mister Gentleman, again, the gentleman we're trying as a member. I wanna, yeah. He's a good friend of mine, and I wanna work with him, continue to work with him on this and everything else. And so he's a person that, again, I have a great relationship with. I have a lot of respect for, and we'll continue to work together on this issue and other issues.
I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you. The gentlelady from Florida is recognized if she cares to make any remarks on this topic.
Speaker 3
Thank you, Noah. I think I said enough. But, thank you for this very good amendment.
Speaker 1
Okay. If there's no further debate, the gentleman is recognized for one minute to close, if he chooses to.
Speaker 15
Yeah. As I said earlier, this is troubling. It began with Argentina, and now it's spreading to countries in The Middle East that are hurting with the impact of the war, but these are countries that also have wealthy communities, and they deserve, our neighborhoods deserve to get the same kind of help that a currency swap would grant to billionaires across the globe, during a difficult time, across the planet. But, let's focus on America, let's help our communities, and let's end these senseless wars. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman for his remarks, and the gentleman is recognized for the purpose of another amendment. Thank you.
Speaker 15
Again. Chairman? I rise to offer a revised amendment. This revised amendment reaffirms our nation's long-standing bipartisan support for the people and government of Guyana.
Speaker 1
reading. Objection. The reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman's recognized for remarks on his amendment.
Speaker 15
Thank you. Yes. This amendment reaffirms our nation's laws standing bipartisan support for the people and government of Guyana. And this amendment underlies also our support for Guyana's sovereignty and territorial integrity, including over the Essequibo region along the border with Venezuela. Allegations have surfaced that Venezuelan government officials have attempted to organize elections, appoint governors, and extend administrative authority over this swath of Guyana's territory.
Similarly, there are often armed skirmishes in the region. In fact, last week, two separate attacks on Guyanese defense forces near the Cuyeno River emerged. And we were really concerned about that, and the armed groups from Venezuela in that region. This amendment is consistent with international law, the bipartisan and long-standing position of The United States, and also directs the secretary of state to submit a report on the security of and the situation of the region. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
As you may all know, the region has also a wealth of oil reserves that have been recently discovered. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman for his remarks. The gentleman from Florida, Mister Diaz Guard, is recognized to respond to the amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I actually rise in strong support of my friend's amendment. As he mentioned, Guyana is a strong strategic partner of The United States. And I too have been concerned about those efforts by Venezuela to assert its authority over territory that is, from Guyana, and it's unacceptable. The sponsor of the amendment mentioned the Eskiba region.
I'm glad he did. Again, I commend the secretary of state, secretary review for backing that commitment, The United States commitment, with not only sustained engagement, including, by the way, direct calls with the president, travel to their capital, and public warnings against the potential Venezuelan aggression. And equally as important, a signed US Guyana Security Cooperation MOU. So, again, I strongly support this amendment. And I would just let folks know that that's why it's great to kind of submit amendments with time.
It gives us the opportunity to look at them. Just a little hint. But, anyways, with that, miss, mister, mister chairman, I strongly support this amendment. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Florida is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 3
Oh, thank you, Mr. Chair. I love when we all get along. I also rise in support of the amendment. To maintain regional stability, it's important that we don't ignore conflicts and disagreements over borders. The United States should support a peaceful and just resolution to Guyana's pursuit of a final and mutually acceptable agreement on its borders, and we should affirm continual support for our bilateral partners in the region.
I wanna thank Mister Espiat and urge everyone to support his amendment.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentlelady for her comments. Are there others wishing to comment on the amendment? Seeing none, the gentleman is recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 15
Chairman, and thank you to the gentleman from Florida and the gentlewoman from Florida for their bipartisan support of this amendment. I guess this is a testament that even before midnight, we couldn't get along and get something done. So I'll yield back.
Speaker 1
I thank the gentleman for his comments. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no.
The ayes have it. Amendment is adopted. General lady from Pennsylvania, Miss Dean, is recognized for the purposes of an amendment.
Speaker 19
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have an amendment at the desk, and I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of it.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the general lady is recognized for remarks on her amendment.
Speaker 19
Thank you, chairman. I rise in support of my amendment, which strikes, if you take a look at page 244, it strikes section 7067 of the bill, which limits the use of funds for certain operations and assistance. Specifically, just to give you the flavor for it, section 767, which I seek to strike, limits flags that can be flown over embassies in a clear attempt to ban pride flags, prohibits any programming related to critical race theory. It would implement executive order 14154 ending racial and wasteful government DEI programs and preferencing. That's the title of the executive order.
Those are not my words. It would implement executive order 14187, banning gender affirming care. It prevents any masks or vaccine mandates, and it would implement the rules published in the Federal Register on 01/27/2026 entitled, quote, combating gender ideology and foreign assistance, end quote, and, quote, combating discriminatory equity ideology and foreign assistance, end quote. The last point is a new addition in this section, and extremely harmful. These rules expand the global gag rule to comply with this administration's extremist agenda, against diversity and inclusion, and LGBTQ plus issues.
Weren't we all so impressed today with the king who spoke about the beauty of diversity in his own country and in ours? So my amendment proposes replacing the language of section 7067 to make it clear that no funds should be used to implement this expanded gag rule. How maybe we could add to this list that there shall be no more massive presidential face banners on government buildings. As you know, previous iterations of the global gag rule only focused on abortion-related restrictions, which were already extremely harmful to women's health and women's rights around the world. I'm deeply concerned about the far reaching consequences of this expanded and narrowed, even more narrowed version.
I urge my colleagues to support, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the general lady for her remarks. The gentleman from Florida, Mister Diaz-Balart, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 2
Mister chairman, thank you so much. I rise in opposition to this amendment. Again, this amendment, as you heard, would strike what I believe are common sense language that prevents funds from being used for what I believe are counterproductive and at least controversial purposes, but contra... Contraproductive as well. If that wasn't enough, this amendment also proposes to insert language that would prevent the administration from implementing, administering, and enforcing rules that prevent radical ideologies from being inserted into United States foreign assistance, which is what we're dealing with.
As we all know, the Biden administration repeatedly funded programs abroad that contained, ex, what I would consider to be extreme agendas. Not only did these programs undermine the United States' national security interests, but Americans overwhelmingly opposed these controversial programs. And so I would then urge a no vote on this amendment. And, mister chairman, with that, I yield back.
Speaker 1
I thank the gentleman. General lady from Florida, Miss Frankel, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 3
I rise tomorrow. I rise in support of this fabulous amendment, and I thank you for it. The, this is the amendment to strike the section that expands the global gag rule and imposes other ideological riders. The Trump administration has already weaponized foreign assistance to prevent US global health partners from providing basic reproductive health care services. This bill takes it a step further, slapping sweeping restrictions across nearly all military aid and forcing partners to comply with the administration's view on diversity and so-called gender ideology.
It tells partners that if they want to maintain their funding, they must stay silent and halt programs that address basic issues of inequality and dignity. And we're already seeing what that means in practice. Lifesaving HIV prevention programs supported by PEPFAR are being scaled back because the administration doesn't care about reaching the LGBTQ community, undermining new efforts to stop the spread of disease. Shelters serving survivors of gender-based violence have been penalized for reaching vulnerable populations most at risk, like women, obviously, or LGBTQ people. And education and workforce programs that once focus on lifting up women and girls are being stripped of that focus, making them less effective, and leaving those most in need behind.
This is not accountability. That this is, I the ideology overriding results. And, worse, these intersections just don't apply to our funding. They attempt to control what partners do with their money. That's overreach.
That's un-American. For decades, our foreign assistance has been grounded in evidence, expertise, and a commitment to human rights. This replaces that with a one-size federal mandate that ignores reality on the ground. We cannot promote stability if we refuse to recognize who is most at risk, and we cannot claim we stand for human rights while punishing those who protect them. This policy, the Trump policy, turns light, yes.
This policy turns life-saving aid into ideological loyalty tests. It's short-sighted. It's harmful. It's wrong. I urge my colleagues to sweat this very fabulous amendment, Representative Dean, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the general lady for the remarks. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the general lady from Pennsylvania is recognized to close.
Speaker 19
Thank you. And just in sum, I think about the arguments that we hear from the majority party that we are so deeply in debt. That's why we have to massively cut foreign assistance, at the cost, the expense of children's lives, women's lives, and families' lives. Hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people have died around the world because we stepped away from our humanity and, more importantly, our leadership. I do not understand it.
I don't know why we don't think the exact opposite. And remember when you talk about the deficit, we made a choice, at least the majority party made a choice, massive permanent tax cuts for the wealthiest among us that took us trillions of dollars into debt. Deeper into debt, and you claim to care about that. Whereas USAID foreign assistance dollars are a drop in the bucket, costing hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lives. All the while, in this attempt, in this language, to be more bigoted, to be negative.
Do you not know anybody who is LGBTQ? Do you tell your family members don't fly a pride flag? Do you tell your family members you should not seek gender-affirming care? Why in God's name would we put this kind of language in this bill? I urge adoption.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from Pennsylvania. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed, say no.
No. Opinion of the chair, the noes have it. Roll call is requested. Yep. Sufficient support is demonstrated.
Clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 22
Mister Aderholt? Mister Aderholt? No. Mister Aguilar? Mister Aguilar?
I. Mr. Alford? Mr. Alford? No. Mister Amaday?
Mister Amaday? No. Mr. Spice? Mr Bishop? Mister Bishop, aye.
Mister Calvert? Mister Calvert? No. Mr. Carter? Mr. Carter?
No. Mister Case? Mister Case? I. Mister Siscamani?
Mister Siscamani, no. Mister Klein? Mister Klein? No. Mister Cloud?
Mister Cloud? No. Mister Clyburn? Mister Clyburn, aye. Mister Clyde?
Mister Clyde? No. Mister Cole? No. Mister Cole, no.
Mister Cuéar, Mistine. Aye. Mistine, aye. Mister Loro. Aye.
Mister Loro, aye. Mister Diaz-Ballart? No. Mister Diaz-Ballart, no. Mister Edwards, miss Frankel, aye.
Mister Franklin, no. Mister Guest, no. Mister Harter, aye. Mister Harter, Doctor Harris, no. Missus Henson, Mr. Hoyer.
Mister Hoyer. Mr Ivy. I. Mister Ivy, I. Mr. Joyce.
Mister Joyce, no. Miss Captor, I. Mister Lolota, Mister Lolota? No. Miss Lee?
Speaker 22
I. Miss Letlow? No. Miss Letlow? No.
Mister Levin? Mister Levin? I. Miss Malloy? Miss Malloy?
No. Miss McCollum? Miss McCollum, aye. Miss Ming? Aye.
Miss Ming, aye. Mister Molinar? Mister Molinar? No. Mr Moore?
Mister Moore? No. Mister Morelli? Aye. Mister Morelli?
Aye. Mister Mervann? Mr. Newhouse. Mister Newhouse, no. Miss Perez, Miss Pingree.
Miss Pingree, aye. Mister Pokan, aye. Mister Quigley, aye. Mister Russenthaler. Mister Russienthaler, no.
Mister Rogers, no. Mister Rutherford, no. Mister Shreev, no. Mister Simpson, no. Mister Strong, no.
Missus Torres? Aye. Missus Torres, aye. Miss Underwood? Aye.
Miss Underwood? Aye. Mister Valadayo? Mister Valadayo? No.
Miss Wasserman Schultz? Miss Wasserman Schultz, aye. Miss Watson Coleman? Missus Watson Coleman, I'm Mr. Womack. Mister Womack, no.
Mister Zinke. Mister Zinke, no.
Speaker 1
Are there any members wishing to cast their vote or change their vote? Seeing none, Corporal Tally. Oh, my general lady from Oklahoma.
Speaker 1
On this vote, the ayes are 25, the noes are 34. The amendment is not adopted. Gentle lady from Pennsylvania. Miss Dean is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Speaker 19
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk, and I seek unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with. The gentlelady is recognized for remarks on her amendment.
Speaker 19
Thank you, Chairman Cole. I rise in support of my amendment, which adds report language only, clarifying that it is the sense of Congress that USAID is the lead international humanitarian and development arm of the United States government as codified in statute. A simple statement of fact. This administration's dismantling of USAID is not only illegal and inhumane, but it has also made our foreign aid system less transparent, less effective, less efficient, and more costly in some ways. The vast majority of what has been cut is critical, life-saving aid.
Hundreds of millions for maternal and child health and nutrition. Hundreds of millions for global health. I showed you this at a former markup. I got this when we were in West Africa visiting mothers and children. This little measuring band is put around infants' and babies' arms to see if they are in the red zone of deep malnutrition or if they are improving and beginning to grow and be nourished.
Programs like this that America supported through USAID are now finished. We're not supporting them. Or programs like this for maternal health, vitamins, inexpensive vitamins for maternal health for women around the world. The outcomes are so vastly improved, but we walked away from it. This is already costing lives.
A study published in The Lancet in February estimates that USAID's dismantling will lead to 9.4 million preventable deaths by 2030. That number is incomprehensible. 9.4 million preventable deaths by 2030, and we are the country that believes in life. If the current funding trend continues, 2.5 million of those deaths would be children under five. Think of the hypocrisy, the paradox, the irony.
The Trump administration is gutting the mechanisms and staff expertise that are essential to mitigate waste, fraud, and abuse. They are accomplishing the opposite of what they actually claim to be the goal. I urge my colleagues to stand up to the administration, assert the rightful leadership of this country, of this Congress, and support my amendment. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady, for the remarks. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Diaz-Balart, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition to this amendment. How do I say this? This amendment, Frank, is just not reflecting reality. I wanna be respectful.
I'm not sure how it serves the American people and our partners to continue to dwell in the past. Foreign assistance has been moved into the Department of State, something that, by the way, a lot of folks have been trying and begging to do for many years. I, for one, think I'm gonna be spending my time, and I think we should all be spending our time conducting oversight and ensuring that the foreign assistance that we actually do provide is done effectively and advances our national security. I'm not sure how focusing on a sense of Congress that doesn't reflect the reality anymore really does much to help. And I remind everybody what I said before, the United States has been and will continue to be the most generous country on the planet, the most generous government on the planet.
Not to mention something that the chairman and I were talking about before, which is the American people on their own contribute also, frankly, a vast amount of money, something we should all be proud of. So, again, this is kind of just not reflecting reality. And for those reasons, I would respectfully ask for a no vote, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. The gentlelady from Florida, Miss Frankel, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 3
Thank you very much. And I believe this is gonna be the last amendment of the day. So I just wanna thank everyone for their participation and to say to mister Diaz Velarque that I and our committee, we look forward to forging ahead with a bill that we can all be proud of supporting. In the meantime, on this last amendment, I just want another fabulous amendment by Missus Dean, and I rise to support it. Listen.
We have heard over and over of the devastation caused by the cuts to USAID. I'm not gonna repeat it. I think we understand that. And I wanna just add this. Listen, I'm very grateful for the generosity of this country for our own security over the years.
We're no longer the leader. Actually, Germany is the leader now in foreign assistance. But, okay, that's.
Speaker 3
Big a deal other than, to say this. If the goal of Doge was to weaken American business and give away influence, they succeeded. They succeeded. Because what Doge did to USAID, the way they did it is so dumb, really so dumb. You know, the objection here, listen.
Maybe there was a way to move the USAID efforts to the State Department, but not the way they did it. Five, six thousand, direct USAID hires were fired. 10,000 others around the world. It affected literally hundreds of thousands of other jobs because, USAID or the aid came from our farmers, manufacturers, contractors, NGO. So this sudden crazy cut not only has harmed people in the world, but it's also harmed us economically.
And the fact of the matter is, folks, they left a mess. It is a mess in the State Department because too much happened too quickly, and they're running around. I don't know. I'm hoping that they're gonna get their act together, but that means we have a lot of work to do here. And I wanna thank Missus Dean for ending us on this low note, unfortunately.
But I'll give her some inspiration to work together so that we can be the leader in the world that we want to be, and we do it in a way that will make all of us proud. And I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady, for your remarks. Are there other members wishing to address the amendment? Gentlemen from Maryland's recognized.
Speaker 7
I rise in support of the amendment, but I rise to again make the point, which I think needs to be made. Will the general lady yield? Sure. How many hearings did you have in your committee that elicited any information on the results of Doge's actions?
Speaker 3
You're saying one? What was it? I don't know. Maybe one, but I'm not really sure.
Speaker 7
No. No. No. You, I'm not on the subcommittee, but thank you. I am on the subcommittee that oversees Doge, and I'm the ranking member that oversees the White House.
It's that oversees so many facets of what Doge did. Not a single hearing. Not one. I would ask generally of any other subcommittee chair if they've had a single hearing on the results of those actions.
Speaker 7
Ladies and gentlemen, there is no doubt that Doge had a very substantial impact. And for this committee not to try to find out what impact it had, what steps need to be taken in response, pro or con, is the point I make too often, and you're tired of hearing it. We are the authors of our own impotence. Because if you don't have them come before you and say, this is what we did or this is what we want to do, they're not gonna care. And they're gonna continue to do whatever the hell they want because they're not gonna think we're gonna hold them responsible.
There'll be no accountability. I happen to think those had a very negative impact and accomplished very little. I mentioned the fact that Secretary Kennedy appeared in front of us, essentially said they've had 12,000 out and 12,000 in. Zero savings, but a lot of loss because that turnover cost us, because they weren't the same people. Maybe they were just political people that they hired.
We ought to know that. I don't know if anybody on the committee cares about that. The chairman has a sign in front of his dais that it is our committee that appropriates money. And if it is our committee that appropriates the money and expects the executive to carry it out, then it is our responsibility to oversee the propriety of the actions that were taken by the executive department. Maybe I'm alone in thinking that.
But when not a single chairman raises their hands or responds to a question, what hearings have we had? Now, frankly, we have pretend hearings. Not every subcommittee, but some of my subcommittee hearings are that they're not mine, but I'm in the committee room, or pretend. They don't really elicit information. It really doesn't hold people responsible, and it doesn't give us an idea of what we ought to do.
Now I wanna congratulate because I've talked to my friend Debbie Wasserman Schultz. And, judge Carter, I wanna congratulate you because I think you may be the exception where Debbie Wasserman Schultz says yes. We held people accountable for what we wanted them to do, and I congratulate you on that, both for doing it and for your courage. And I wish all of us would do that. I thank the gentlelady for her amendment.
Speaker 1
I thank the gentleman. Are there other members wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 19
I thank you, Chairman Cole. I wanted to respond to one of the questions that has been coming up over again. Doge came in to cut waste, fraud, and abuse. And I'm reading from this 09/20/2025 Nick Kristoff article, Trump's Most Lethal Policy About the Cutting of USAID. And in it, he writes, I obtained a June 3 State Department memo headed, quote, sensitive but unclassified, unquote, saying that this is from the Department of State, saying that the shutdown of the US agency, USAID, will cost taxpayers $6,400,000,000 over two years.
$6,400,000,000 wasted. The memo of the subject earlier reported by Bloomberg government said the money is necessary to manage litigation, claims, residual payments, and closeout activities. And the writer writes, that's enough money to save more than 1,000,000 children's lives. Instead, it's being used to shut down programs that save lives. I've met USAID workers around the planet.
There are some people to be proud of, and the disrespect they have felt as a result of their firing, shuttering, shutting, canning them, giving them no notice, having spent careers trying to do this lifesaving work and saving lives. But I do want to end on an up note. I thank you, Chairman Diaz Pollart. I thank you, ranking member, and the full committee. I'm hoping that we will continue the conversation around USAID.
There is common ground to be found, and we used to argue that USAID and foreign aid was only 1% of our budget. So no comparison to the deep deficits that have been passed as a result of the big, beautiful bill. What my argument is, is it should be 2% of our budget. It should be 3% of our budget. It is money wisely spent, saving lives and reducing conflict, famine, migration, and the rest.
I hope and pray that I can work with you, chairman, on this in the future. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from Pennsylvania. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed, say no.
No. And you're the chair of the nodes, have it, and the amendment is not accepted. We are about to ask Mister Rogers for a motion. Before we do, Mission Barbecue is available across the street. I don't know if that's a reward because we got done a lot earlier than I expected, or punishment if you don't like barbecue.
But who doesn't like barbecue? It's got to be a reward. Oh, see, no further amendments. I now recognize Chairman Rogers for a motion.
Speaker 6
Mister chair, I move to favorably report to the house the fiscal year 2027 National Security, Department of State, and related programs appropriations bill.
Speaker 1
The question is now on the motion to favorably report the fiscal year 2027 National Security Department of State and related programs appropriations bill to the house. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed, say no. No.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. Why is that? Roll call has been requested. Sufficient support has been demonstrated. Clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 22
Mister Aderholt, aye. Mister Aguilar? No. Mister Alford? Mister Alford, no?
Mr. Alford votes aye. Mister Amaday? Mister Amaday, aye. Missus Bice? Missus Bice, aye.
Mr Bishop? No. Bishop, no. Mister Calvert? Mister Calvert, aye.
Mr. Carter? Mister Carter, aye. Mister Case? Mr Case? No.
Mister Siscamani? Mister Siskemani, aye. Mister Klein? Mister Klein, aye. Mister Cloud?
Mister Cloud, aye. Mister Clyburn? Mister Clyburn? No. Clyde?
Aye. Mister Clyde, aye. Mister Cole?
Speaker 22
Mister Cole, I. Mister Cuéar. Mister Cuéar, no. Miss Dean. Miss Dean, no.
Mister Lauro. Mister Lauro votes no. Mister Diaz Pollart? Aye. Mister Diaz Pollart, aye.
Mister Edwards? Mister Edwards, aye. Mister Elzy? Mister Elzy, aye. Miss Escobar?
Miss Escobar? No. Mister Espéyat? No. Mister Espéyat?
No. Mister Fleishman? Mister Fleishman? I. Miss Frankel?
Miss Frankel? No. Mister Franklin? Mister Franklin? I.
Mister Guest? Mister Guest? I. Mr. Harter? Mr. Harter?
No. Doctor Harris? Doctor Harris? I. Missus Henson?
Missus Henson? I. Mister Hoyer? Mr. Hoyer. Mister Hoyer, no.
Mr. Ivy. No. Mister Joyce, I. Miss Captor. No.
Mister Lolota. Mister Lolota, aye. Miss Lee? No. Miss Lee, no.
Miss Letlow. Miss Letlow, aye. Mister Levin? Mister Levin? No.
Miss Malloy? Aye. Miss Malloy, aye. Miss McCollum? Miss McCullum?
No. Miss Ming? No. Miss Ming? Mister Molinar?
Mister Molinar? I. Mister Moore? I. Morelli?
No. Mister Morelli? No. Mister Mervann? Mister Newhouse, aye.
Miss Perez, no. Miss Pingry.
Speaker 22
Miss Pingry, no. Mister Pokan. Mister Pokan, no. Mister Quigley. Mister Quigley, no.
Mister Rashenthaler. Mister Rashenthaler, I. Mister Rogers. Mister Rogers, I. Mr. Rutherford.
Mister Rutherford, I. Mister Shreev. Mister Shreev, I. Mr. Simpson. Mister Simpson.
Mister Strong, I. Mister Miss Torres? Mrs. Torres? No. Miss Underwood?
Miss Underwood? No. Mister Valadayo? Mister Valadayo, aye. Miss Wasserman Schultz?
No. Miss Watson Coleman? No. Miss Watson Coleman? No.
Mister Womack? Mister Womack, I. Mister Zinke? Mister Zinke, I.
Speaker 1
Are there any members wishing to record their vote or change their vote? Little confusing with all of you moving around. So if you're following that category, please raise your hand. Anybody wishing to record or change their vote, raise your hand. Seeing none, the clerk will tally.
While the clerks are tallying, as many of you know, in honor of the king, we did not smoke in H216. We turned off the smoking lamp, but the king has left the building. And in honor of the king, the smoking lamp is turned back on. On this vote, the ayes are 35, the noes are 27, and the motion is agreed to. I ask unanimous consent that staff be permitted to make technical and conforming changes to the bill, and the report just approved three days ago.
Speaker 1
Three days. Seeing no objections, so ordered. There being no further business, the committee stands adjourned.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.