Originally published on the CGS blog on September 29, 2011.
On Thursday, September 15, 2011 Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) proposed an amendment to cut nearly $7 billion from the State Department and USAID to offset disaster relief funding.
This amendment would have cut nearly $7 billion from the State Department and USAID to offset disaster relief funding. By cutting spending from the State Department, our primary agent in foreign relations and the Department designated for U.S. global engagement, our need for National Security funding would nearly triple. The USAID is responsible for administering civilian foreign aid and is responsible for disaster relief, poverty relief, technical cooperation on global issues, and other global issues. The United States has a responsibility to maintain global engagement as a super power of the world. Paul was quoted saying, “Increasing our national debt at a time when our country is in financial dire straits is irresponsible and a dereliction of our responsibility to the American people. By cutting from the coffers that fund overseas welfare and nation-building and injecting that funding into disaster assistance for Americans, we are able to continue disaster assistance commitments to communities without borrowing on the backs of our children and grandchildren.” His Republican colleague Senator Graham (R-SC) vehemently opposed saying, “I want to try to get our fiscal house in order, but we have to defend this country. The foreign operations account is national security in another form.”
YES, in-country disaster relief has been an issue in the past, with Hurricane Katrina victims still needing help as well as an increasing poverty rate. However, the appropriate funding has been made available to deliver solutions for these issues. Much of the backing for our (US) funding comes from our trade relations that we have with the global community. Severing ties with our global partners means severing resources that would otherwise prove necessary in the case of a major disaster. Like all things there is room for improvement but not at such a drastic level.
Similar to Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, proposed the H.R. 2829, an extreme bill that would hold U.N. funding as well as U.S. leadership, prestige, and influence at the U.N. hostage, unless Ros-Lehtinen’s outrageous demands are met. Like Paul, Ros-Lehtinen would sacrifice the benefits of U.S. leadership at the U.N. at a time when the U.S. is successfully promoting its national security and foreign policy priorities on the world stage. Just like this proposal, Paul’s amendment would have had devastating consequences for America’s engagement in the world.
In a follow-up statement to the press, U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., denounced his colleagues who voted against his amendment to offset federal funding disaster relief through cuts to foreign aid. By rejecting the proposal, Senator Paul says it is another example of reckless government spending. Democratic Senate member Senator John Kerry (D-MA) said that “such a cut would be “absolutely devastating” and reminded Senators that “foreign assistance is an investment in our national security, it is not a gift.”
Thankfully, the amendment was not agreed to, with a strong bipartisan final vote of 78-20.
