SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
foreign assistance
Historic Number of Democratic Reps Vote Against Unconditional Aid to Israel
"Most Americans do not want our government to write a blank check to further Prime Minister Netanyahu's war in Gaza," a group of nearly 20 of the 37 no-voting lawmakers said.
Apr 20, 2024
Nearly 40 House Democrats voted against a measure to send around $26 billion more to Israel as it continues its war on Gaza that human rights experts have deemed a genocide.
While the Israel Security Supplemental Appropriations Act passed the Republican-led House by a vote of 366-58, party insiders said it was significant that such a large number of Democrats had opposed it, with more centrist lawmakers joining progressives who have called for a cease-fire since October.
"Despite the weapons aid package passing, this is the largest number of Democratic lawmakers to vote against unrestricted weapons aid for Israel in recent memory," senior Democratic strategist Waleed Shahid observed on social media.
"If Congress votes to continue to supply offensive military aid, we make ourselves complicit in this tragedy."
Human rights lawyer, lobbyist, and former Democratic National Committee committeewoman Yasmine Taeb posted that it was "incredibly significant that 37 Democrats voted NO and rejected AIPAC's role and influence in the party."
Senior Democrats who opposed the funding included Reps. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), and Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-N.J.)
The bill earmarks around $4 billion for Israel's missile defense systems and more than $9 billion for humanitarian aid to Gaza, according toThe Associated Press. However, while lawmakers approved of individual expenditures, they balked at giving more unconditional military aid to the far-right government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
"U.S. law demands that we withhold weapons to anyone who frustrates the delivery of U.S. humanitarian aid, and President Biden's own recent National Security Memorandum requires countries that use U.S.-provided weapons to adhere to U.S. and international law regarding the protection of civilians," McGovern said in a statement explaining his vote. "To date, Netanyahu has failed to comply. It's time for President Biden to use our leverage to demand change."
Nearly 20 Democratic representatives released a joint statement explaining their vote. They were McGovern, Doggett, Watson Coleman, Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), Nydia Velázquez (D-N.Y.), Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Becca Balint (D-Vt.), Greg Casar (D-Texas), Mark Takano (D-Calif.), Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), Judy Chu (D-Calif.), Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), André Carson (D-Ind.), Jesús "Chuy" García (D-Ill.), Jonathan Jackson (D-Ill.), and Jill Tokuda (D-Hawaii).
"This is a moment of great consequence—the world is watching," the lawmakers wrote. "Today is, in many ways, Congress' first official vote where we can weigh in on the direction of this war. If Congress votes to continue to supply offensive military aid, we make ourselves complicit in this tragedy."
The lawmakers clarified that their no votes were specifically "votes against supplying more offensive weapons that could result in more killings of civilians in Rafah and elsewhere."
While they acknowledged that Israel had a right to defend itself, they argued that its greatest security would come from a cease-fire that enabled the release of hostages, humanitarian aid to enter Gaza, and peace negotiations to begin in earnest.
"Most Americans do not want our government to write a blank check to further Prime Minister Netanyahu's war in Gaza," they concluded. "The United States needs to help Israel find a path to win the peace."
Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), who also voted no, said that he "could not in good conscience vote for more offensive weapons to be given to Israel to be used in Gaza without any conditions attached."
Pocan further called the "devastation inflicted upon innocent civilians in Gaza" "unjustifiable" and argued that "further arming Netanyahu and his extreme coalition could only lead us to a wider conflict in the Middle East."
In a speech on the House floor, Lee also criticized the bill for failing to restore funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, which provides the bulk of aid to the Gaza Strip. The U.S. paused funds for the agency following Israeli allegations that 12 of its employees participated in Hamas' October 7 attack, but other nations have since restored funding as the veracity of these allegations has been called into question.
"This is a grave abdication of U.S. humanitarian obligations," Lee said. "It is simply nonsensical to provide badly needed humanitarian assistance while simultaneously funding weapons that will be used to make the humanitarian crisis in Gaza worse."
She added, "The United States taxpayers should not be funding unconditional military weapons to a conflict that has created a catastrophic humanitarian disaster."
The bill sending funds to Israel was only one of several measures passed on Saturday as part of a $95 billion foreign spending package that will also provide a long-delayed approximately $61 billion for Ukraine in its war with Russia and around $8 billion to counter China in the Indian and Pacific oceans. Among the bills passed Saturday was one banning popular social media app TikTok in the U.S. if the Chinese company that owns it refuses to sell, theAP reported further.
The package will now go to the U.S. Senate, which could pass it as early as Tuesday. President Joe Biden has promised to sign the measures as soon as he receives them.
Keep ReadingShow Less
$95 Billion More for War, But No to $1 Billion to Feed 2 Million Families?
"In the view of the administration and a majority of members of Congress, some emergencies count more than others," wrote one policy analyst.
Feb 15, 2024
Following the passage of a $95 billion foreign aid package that includes funding for Israel's relentless assault on Gaza, economists and policy experts this week are expressing alarm over the failure of the U.S. Congress to ensure a federal program for low-income parents and their babies is fully funded—a gap that could leave 2 million children and parents without sufficient food.
The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) has never turned away eligible families in its 50-year history, but analysts say that with Congress deadlocked over whether to fully fund the program, states may soon be forced to place up to 2 million families on waiting lists—"jeopardizing access to this highly effective program during an important window for child development," the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said in December.
The program, which has been linked to a decrease in infant and maternal mortality in the past five decades, is currently being funded by a short-term continuing resolution (CR) that Congress passed in January to keep the government running until early March.
While lawmakers have not agreed on funding for WIC, which is estimated to cost $6.3 billion in 2024 and faces a $1 billion shortfall, the Senate on Tuesday did pass the $95 billion foreign aid package, including $14.1 billion for Israel.
Israel's bombardment of Gaza has killed more than 28,000 people since October, including more than 12,000 children.
The Senate's 70-29 bipartisan vote in favor of the package, wrote defense analyst William Hartung of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, "lays bare the skewed priorities of the federal government."
"Despite deep divisions, it is possible to get bipartisan support for a package that mostly involves funding weapons exports," Hartung wrote at Forbes on Wednesday. "Don't expect any such emergency measure to address record levels of homelessness, or aid the 1 in 6 American children living in poverty, or accelerate investments in curbing the climate crisis. In the view of the administration and a majority of members of Congress, some emergencies count more than others."
At the Institute for Policy Studies, National Priorities Project director Lindsay Koshgarian pointed to WIC as a prime example of the kind of program the federal government should be prioritizing over military aid for Israel, which has garnered growing condemnation from U.S. allies for its indiscriminate attacks on civilians.
"There's huge discrepancies in where the resources are going," Koshgarian toldAl Jazeera on Wednesday. "It's an incredibly important program, there are many families that have depended on it. $1 billion to make up the shortfall would be easy to come up with."
Last week, Democrats on the U.S. House Education and Workforce Committee warned congressional leaders that they must ensure full funding for WIC, which "currently serves over half of all infants born in the country and continues to be a lifesaving nutrition intervention program that minimizes avoidable health and developmental issues for low-income, nutritionally at-risk women, infants, and children."
"To prevent any disruption to a program that is crucial to supporting new parents and young children, it is vital that WIC is fully funded and continues to align with projected participation and food costs," wrote the lawmakers.
The 19threported last month that state WIC agencies are currently spending money "assuming the needed funds will eventually be appropriated."
"By early March," wrote journalist Amanda Becker, "the fiscal year will already be half over, so there will be a shorter window of time to make up any budget shortfall, potentially leading to more people being waitlisted en masse than if the shortfall was spread across a full fiscal year."
At Forbes, Hartung called on the federal government to "put less emphasis on war planning and military buildups and more on reassurance and dialogue designed to set clear rules of the road and avoid a conflict."
"If peace in the Middle East is truly a goal of this administration," he wrote, "a radical shift in priorities is urgently needed."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Cuts to Foreign Assistance Put Lives at Risk
The US has a moral responsibility to keep its foreign assistance strong and stand in solidarity with those suffering. Now is not the time for global powers to cut their aid.
Jun 16, 2023
While many countries around the world face a deadly convergence of extreme poverty, food insecurity, and violent conflict, large economies are cutting foreign assistance funding.
Millions of people around the world rely on life-saving aid. According to the World Food Programme, in 2023, more than 345 million people face extreme food insecurity—twice as many compared to 2020.
Unfortunately, this trend is on course to continue. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development’s 2022 States of Fragility Report identified 60 fragile countries, which is the highest number ever in the report. Fragility is a driver of violent conflict, which is the primary driver of extreme food insecurity.
"The US cannot turn its back on the international community, regardless of other nations’ actions."
For the world’s most vulnerable, widespread efforts to cut foreign assistance spending represent a matter of life and death. Now, current Congressional debates threaten to exacerbate this concerning trend.
In 2022, the U.K. cut its aid budget by over $2 billion, leading to a devastating reduction in aid to South Sudan and Pakistan. Other large aid donors including Swedenand Germany have followed suit.
Impacts of the U.K.’s aid cuts have already materialized. Nick Hepworth, of Water Witness International, asserted that aid cuts to a Malawi-based sanitation program contributed to the country’s failure to mitigate a cholera outbreak that killed over 1,000 people this year.
In the US, Congress is currently contemplating a bipartisan budget agreement negotiated by President Biden and Speaker McCarthy that would keep non-defense spending at FY23 levels in FY24 and increase funding by 1% in FY25. While this agreement avoids a devastating debt default, it limits programs aimed at meeting human needs, while continuing to expand the Pentagon’s sky-high budget. Still, some Republicans maintain that this agreement doesn’t do enough to cut non-defense spending and are disappointed that major tenets of the House-passed Republican budget legislation, which proposed cutting non-defense discretionary spending by 22%, have been left out.
The Republican-proposed cuts would deliver a significant blow to the relatively miniscule amount of funding that currently goes towards foreign assistance, which makes up less than 1% of the budget. However, with the US alone providing over 27% of all development assistance in 2022, cutting these funds would have a devastating impact on communities struggling to survive.
USAID Administrator Samantha Power discussed the human impact of these proposed funding cuts in a recent congressional hearing. She warnedlawmakers that if 22% is cut from USAID’s budget, 80 million fewer people will receive assistance globally. Power estimated that a reduction of this magnitude would lead to 19,000 maternal and newborn deaths, and 13,000 fewer children receiving vaccinations.
The US has a moral responsibility to keep its foreign assistance strong and stand in solidarity with those suffering. Now is not the time for global powers to cut their aid. Rather, it is critical to protect and invest in foreign assistance.
Protecting foreign assistance is ultimately in the interest our national security and strategic investments. In the long run, investing in foreign assistance is cost-effective, saving $16 on the cost of conflict for every $1 invested in prevention. Additionally, strong foreign assistance bolsters American trade and diplomatic partnerships. As the leading donor of foreign assistance globally, the US must uphold its commitments to our partners in need and lead with our values in the face worsening global crises.
International aid and civil society organizations are fiercely pushing back on this global trend. The Friends Committee on National Legislation, along with the Interfaith Working Group on Foreign Assistance, are some of the many organizations leading advocacy efforts to deter cuts to foreign assistance.
As President Biden has said many times, “Show me your budget and I’ll tell you what you value.” The US cannot turn its back on the international community, regardless of other nations’ actions. We must uphold our shared values of respect for human rights and the promotion of peace.Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular