Schatz Warns Against Rescinding Foreign Assistance Funding, Ceding Appropriations Authority To Trump Administration

WASHINGTON – Today, during a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on President Trump’s proposed rescission request to Congress, U.S. Senator Brian Schatz (D-Hawai‘i) warned colleagues against rescinding foreign assistance funding for programs that have long had bipartisan support. Schatz, who is a senior member of the committee and ranking member of the State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee which oversees much of the funding being cut in the package, questioned White House Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought about the lack of clarity from the administration about which specific programs will get cut should the package pass.

“We do not have to spend foreign assistance dollars in the same way that we always have been spending foreign assistance dollars. There's plenty of room for reform. But we're being asked to rescind billions of dollars without even knowing which programs are being canceled,” said Senator Schatz.

Senator Schatz added, “What's at stake here is more than the particular provisions of the rescissions package. It is whether we're going to willingly set up a situation where bipartisan negotiations are ripped up whenever there is a trifecta. If that's what you want, I think you should vote yes. But if you want to preserve your prerogative, for yourself, for your home state and for this institution—then this is not a particularly close call. Why be an appropriator and just turn around and surrender your authority?”

The text of Senator Schatz’s testimony, as delivered, is below. Video of the testimony and his exchange with Director Vought is available here.

Thank you, Chair Collins, Vice Chair Murray, members of the Committee. This is the first time I've been on this side of the dais. I have to say that the altitude difference is affecting me a little bit. It really is an honor to be here to argue against this rescissions package on behalf of all of you. On behalf of all of you as appropriators.

Now, I want to be abundantly clear—I like Eric Schmitt a lot, but this is a very important point, and it's actually fatal to the rescissions package—every single program that Senator Schmitt just mentioned has already been canceled. Every single program. And there's a longer list that was on a Fox News chyron and Senator Graham and I have kind of gone over all of this. There are a bunch of different examples of terrible sounding things. They are all done, and they all belong in the previous federal fiscal year.

So, now that it's Marco Rubio's State Department, and Marco Rubio's USAID agency, and now that it is Donald Trump's White House, none of these things are happening. This is a rescission of Trump's CR in the current federal fiscal year. And so, if you have a problem with any of those programs, let Lindsey and I write a bill that prohibits the use of funds for any of those seemingly improper uses of funds. That's the way to do this.

Colleagues are being asked on this Committee to cut programs that I know each one of you have personally prioritized, because we get the letters. Whether you’re the Chair or the Rank[ing Member] of a subcommittee, you get a letter from your colleagues saying, could you please prioritize XYZ program. And many of the programs—I mean I'm talking about right now. In the same time period, we are receiving letters. Please save this. Please save that. Please, plus up that. That's what we're cutting right now in this rescissions package.

We do not have to spend foreign assistance dollars in the same way that we always have been spending foreign assistance dollars. There's plenty of room for reform. You're pushing on an open door. And in fact, the administration has until the end of next year. This is two-year money. There is no rush on this. This is two-year money to align this funding with its new priorities. But we're being asked to rescind billions of dollars without even knowing which programs are being canceled.

Just so you understand how this legislation works; it's big baskets of money. So, you have no idea whether the program that you are prioritizing is going to be cut or not. And they are not providing any clarity about that. You would think that if you're asking the Congress to use this extraordinary authority under statutory law, that you would have a line by line—here's what we're cutting, here's what we're keeping, here's what we're cutting, here's what we're keeping. The answer that we are going to receive is, let me take that under advisement and get back to you. Or—I don't know—that it’s none of your business. Or, I'm not sure what it is. There is no reason not to have specificity other than, the math doesn't add up. The things that you care about are being cut in here, and they don't want to specify it.

And that brings me to what it is definitely in this package:

• $900 million in cuts from global health programs including PEPFAR and efforts to combat diseases like malaria, TB and polio.
• $1.3 billion in cuts to humanitarian assistance, which save lives, provide food, and shelter, and water, and support victims of sexual assault.
• And $4.6 billion in cuts to economic development assistance to key partners. Whether it's Jordan with increasing regional tension, the Philippines as it counters Chinese aggression, the Burmese opposition, or Ukraine.
• And gone is a billion dollars in support for organizations like UNICEF.

Everybody that was opposed to those things that were on that Fox chyron—everybody that found some of the things that Senator Schmitt talked about as objectionable—also hastened to say I don't want to cut UNICEF, I don't want to cut PEPFAR, I don't want to cut the World Food Programme.

Guess what is in this rescissions package? All of those things are being cut, and none of the things that you object to. They've already been eliminated. This is not just a question of policy. This is also a question of what this committee is even for. Being a Senate appropriator is an honor. It means something. It means that the executive branch proposes and the legislative branch disposes. It means that we, as the article one branch, hold the purse strings. That, that is subject to cloture.

So, what's at stake here is more than the particular provisions of the rescissions package. It is whether we're going to willingly set up a situation where bipartisan negotiations are ripped up whenever there is a trifecta. If that's what you want, I think you should vote yes. But if you want to preserve your prerogative, for yourself, for your home state and for this institution—then this is not a particularly close call. Why be an appropriator and just turn around and surrender your authority? Because it is SFOPS today, but it's going to be THUD, it's going to be Ag, it's going to be Labor-H, it's going to be MilCon-VA, it's going to be CJS tomorrow.

So, I encourage all of my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to think hard about the precedent that we would be setting if we voted yes on this package.

###