Debbie Wasserman Schultz: “I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in opposition to this grossly irresponsible amendment. This amendment would…”

“I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in opposition to this grossly irresponsible amendment. This amendment would take a huge cut, $73 million, from the NATO Security Investment Program during a time when increased funding is essential for long-deferred projects. Cutting funding for the NATO Security Investment Program is not only shortsighted from a national security perspective, but it isn't even sound long-term fiscal policy. These investments ensure a robust American and NATO presence to deter hostile nations and prevent even greater costs to American taxpayers down the road. One only has to look at the news to understand that we have hostile nations that wish to do us and our allies harm. A $73 million cut from the NATO Security Investment Program would put us in more jeopardy alongside our allies. The Russian invasion of Ukraine shows that international cooperation and strong alliances are as essential as ever. These projects are not America paying other countries' bills. In fact, America pays a proportionally small amount to the program compared to the size of our economy in relation to the rest of NATO. {time} 1530 Regardless of your stance on overall defense spending levels of various NATO countries, it is simply not true that the United States is paying more than its share of this direct contribution program. These projects are agreed-upon NATO requirements and oftentimes have a direct benefit to supplement existing U.S. requirements.…”