House panel approves $47.2 billion in foreign aid

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

WASHINGTON (AP) — A House panel on Wednesday approved legislation that would make deep cuts in State Department money and foreign assistance, a reflection of lawmakers’ debt-driven demands for austerity but a blow to assistance programs for famine-stricken parts of Africa.

The Republican-crafted bill would provide $47.2 billion for the next budget, $8.6 billion less than the current amount. Included in the overall amount is close to $8 billion for the Global War on Terror Fund, which covers the cost of security and counterterrorism operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The House Appropriations subcommittee on foreign operations approved the bill by voice vote.

Democrats opposed to the measure decided to wait until the next step in the legislative process — action in the full Appropriations Committee later this year — to try to change the bill.

As Congress and the administration struggle to resolve the fight over spending, the panel approved $11.9 billion for the State Department and operations such as diplomatic and consular offices, embassy security and contributions to international organizations and international broadcasting. The amount is a cut of $3.9 billion from current levels and $3.1 billion below President Barack Obama’s request.

“We are facing a global recession unlike anything in recent memory,” said Rep. Kay Granger, R-Texas, chairwoman of the subcommittee. “Our debt is well over $14 trillion. Today, every dollar counts. This bill reflects these new realities.”

Among the many reductions are cuts to programs that could aid the millions in Africa. The United Nations has said two regions of Somalia are suffering from famine and 11 million people are in need of aid. As of Aug. 1, the U.N. is preparing to declare all of southern Somalia a famine zone.

Among the cuts are an 11 percent reduction in the funds for the Migration and Refugee Assistance program to $190 million, and a 12 percent cut in the Disaster Assistance program to $105 million. The Emergency Migration and Refugee Assistance program would be reduced by 36 percent, to $18 million.

The bill would bar aid to Pakistan unless the U.S. secretary of state can certify to Congress that Islamabad is pursuing terrorists and helping investigate how al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden managed to hide for years inside Pakistan.

The measure presses the Obama administration for evidence of cooperation in the terror war by Egypt, Lebanon, Yemen and the Palestinian Authority before providing U.S. dollars.

More like this story

muleman 1 year, 10 months ago

How much foreign aid do they send us?

John 1 year, 10 months ago

To those who have much, much will be expected. We have food we throw away, we have medical aid.

Gabrielle 1 year, 10 months ago

Lets talk about the food that we throw away. What exactly is it? Why don't we send it to Africa instead of throwing it away?

Gabrielle 1 year, 10 months ago

what are you asking?

Gabrielle 1 year, 10 months ago

I appreciate you answering my question. AMAZED2 can speak for him/herself. When I read AMAZED2's statement - I saw it as a play on words. I suppose it could be considered awful and insensitive given the seriousness of a famine. A play on words is 'okay' by me. I do not know of the comments about African-Americans in Jefferson City that you refer to. Where shall I go to read these comments?

Gabrielle 1 year, 10 months ago

hkchas: do you have something against or despise Mid-Missouri caucasions?

Gabrielle 1 year, 10 months ago

I patiently await your response, hkchs.

Gabrielle 1 year, 10 months ago

just an add-on - as much food as I ate for the 'starving children in Africa' when I was a child, I'd think things would be alright now.

John 1 year, 10 months ago

Huh? Not sure I understand your pos? A humorous aside?

Frankenstein27 1 year, 10 months ago

I'm sure there will be plenty of people to comment who know the numbers, but my understanding is that much of US foreign aid is in the form of agricultural products. Giving food to people who are hungry is more of a byproduct than a goal; the goal is to prop up and levelize demand for US produced agricultural commodities.

I go back and forth on whether I think this is a good idea or a bad idea - it does keep commodity prices more stable, it encourages broader comodities production so if somthing bad happens in one region we still have farmers producting that commodity, and it does get food to people who would probably die without it.

On the other hand, it is a subsidy (or an expansive series of intertwined subsidies) whereby the government picks economic winners and losers. It also has results in or exascerbates the political problems in the countires receiving the aid, as well as undermining the local agricultural economies in those countries.

It's also a big benefit to US shipping interests, as it gives them something to bring with them on the backhaul, which reduces the overall price of importing goods from other countires.

Anyone have numbers handy on how much of this money would end up in the hands of US ag and shipping interests?

Gabrielle 1 year, 10 months ago

No to your question, Frankenstein27. This is an interesting aspect to what is going on. I have often thought there is plenty of food in the world and there is absolutely no reason for people to die of starvation - except for the governments in the countries that stop 'the flow' of food to the people who have a need for it.

Also - maybe you spoke to this and I didn't hear it - when we teach our agricultural skills to people in Africa - includes our products - are we helping them or hurting them more? Africa is not the U.S. considering land, soil, climate conditions.

Frankenstein27 1 year, 10 months ago

I didn't address teaching agricultural techniques because I don't know much about it. From what I've heard from friends who have gone on mission trips, the interest is in teaching general techniques like crop rotation, the dangers of overgrazing, and basic irrigation.

Where the problem gets even wierder is that by making relatively cheap agricultural products from abroad available in a given country, you undermine that country's ability to have a successful agricultural economy. In other words, you've got foreign subsistance farmers who won't benefit from mechanization, because there's no market in their country for grain. Since there's no money to be made from mechanization, they don't mechanize (assumming capital is available). But, since that country on the whole doesn't have adequate agricultural resources to feed its population because there's no mechanization, people are starving - so we send them food. Because people have food, there's no money for mechanization...

It's a very tough problem. I, for one, can't come up with a solution that doesn't involve a couple generations of people starving to death, and I don't think that's a particularly good solution!

muleman 1 year, 10 months ago

Katrina was a natural disaster, as was the tornado in Joplin Mo. What countries send us aid for that? I am all for helping those in need but ................. one hand washes the other. This country is flat broke, busted, and in no financial condition to be sending aid or money anywhere except right here in the good old USA. The powers that be in DC threaten to put a hold on my social security in the same breath say they will send 47.2 billion dollars overseas. There is something really wroing with that picture

JCLifer 1 year, 10 months ago

Charity begins at home. Sending $47.2 billion of our tax dollars to countries that hate us, especially in this economy seems pretty stupid to me.

Oh well, more Change we can believe in.

Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting

Or login with:

OpenID

News Tribune