Create a circle of protection around funding for vital poverty-focused
foreign assistance programg.that magsRaghe root causes of poverty.
This year, those of us concerned about the level of funding for poverty focused development
assistance will need to focus our advocacy on Congress’ upcoming budget talks this fall and their
work next spring around the overall level of discretionary funding.
ASK: Support the Senate’s FY13 funding levels for relief and development programs in
current and future budget negotiations.
Over the next few months, Congress will be making decisions that could impact the entire
federal budget. The pressure is on to find a compromise, and Congress must act soon in
order to avoid across-the-board cuts that are scheduled to begin in January of 2013. While
these across-the-board cuts would be devastating to hungry and poor people overseas, the
deal Congress could make to avoid these cuts could produce even more deadly
consequences for poverty-focused foreign assistance programs. The Senate Appropriations
Committee recently provided strong funding for these accounts, but these levels must be
supported throughout this fall’s budget negotiations.
ASK: Sustain the Senate’s FY13 overall discretionary funding level throughout the entire
FY13 appropriations process.
This fall is not the only dangerous time for poverty-focused foreign assistance. Congress
recently compromised on a spending deal to keep the government funded through March of
2013. This compromise is called a Continuing Resolution and Congress plans to vote on this
matter in September. Part of the compromise on the Continuing Resolution was to include
the Senate’s levels for discretionary funding. Discretionary funding - as opposed to
mandatory funding -- is spending that must be approved by Congress every year. Poverty-
focused foreign assistance makes up a small part of total discretionary funding. The
Senate’s overall discretionary funding level is stringent, but it is large enough to allow the
Senate Appropriations committee to provide strong funding for poverty-focused foreign
assistance.
Next spring, when this Continuing Resolution expires, there will be a debate around keeping
the Senate’s level of discretionary funding. In the current deficit cutting atmosphere, there is
extreme pressure to cut discretionary funding. Unfortunately, if the overall level of
discretionary funding gets smaller, the 0.6% of the federal budget that goes towards these
important programs will also shrink. The fight next spring over the overall discretionary
funding levels could lead to cuts to poverty-focused foreign assistance and result in lives lost
and increased hunger and poverty around the world.
No matter what budget negotiations are before Congress this fall and next spring, the
only way to protect PFDA is to support the Senate FY13 funding levels for these
programs as well as the Senate’s overall FY13 discretionary funding level.
TALKING POINTS:
Support the Senate’s FY13 funding levels for relief and development programs in
current and future budget negotiations.
«The Senate’s FY13 funding levels for the International Affairs budget allows for humanitarian and
poverty-focused programs to save millions of lives, fight systemic poverty, and provide a
chance for people to thrive.
Under the Senate’s strong funding levels for humanitarian and poverty-focused programs:
¢ 3.35 million additional malnourished young children could receive a package of simple,
low cost measures that are proven to prevent damage caused by malnutrition
(micronutrient powders, therapeutic zinc, vitamin A supplements, and deworming
medication, as well as adequate iron and folic-acid for pregnant women).
« Feed the Future implementation will assure sustained U.S. support for agricultural
growth and scale up the gains made over the past three years in priority countries.
These investments stimulate rural economic growth, increase farm incomes and reduce
food insecurity.
¢ 4.4 million additional people would be protected by insecticide-treated bed nets that
help to prevent malaria infection.
* 1.7 million additional people could receive cleaner, safer water and sanitation services.
* 146,647 additional people could receive life-saving tuberculosis treatment, resulting in
17,597 fewer deaths
We believe the moral measure of any budget debate is how the most poor and
vulnerable people fare. In all future budget negotiations, oppose any cuts to the
Senate’s FY13 level for humanitarian and poverty-focused development programs.
¢ Humanitarian and poverty-focused assistance comprise a small fraction of the federal budget:
only 0.6%. Seemingly small cuts have huge impacts. For example, for every 5% cut in global
health funding, 41,000 more HIV/AIDS-related deaths will occur.
¢ In 2011, International Affairs Budget was cut by 11%. These cuts were disproportionate,
representing nearly 20% of the total government-wide spending cuts (even though the
international affairs budget is only 1% of the budget).
Lives are at stake - for every 8.4% cut to these programs:
* 273,000 people will not receive treatment for HIV/AIDS, potentially leading to 62,000
more AIDS-related deaths;
* 111,000 fewer HIV-positive pregnant women will not receive treatment, resulting in
21,000 more infants will be infected with HIV;
* 2.2 million few insecticide-treated nets will be procured, leading to nearly 6,000 deaths
due to malaria;
¢ 1.2 million fewer vaccines will be delivered to children, resulting in 13,000 more deaths
from diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, Hib, and hepatitis B;
Sustain the Senate’s FY13 overall discretionary funding level throughout the entire
FY13 appropriations process.
¢ The Senate’s level of discretionary funding supports effective international anti-hunger
programs that impact millions of lives, fight systemic poverty, and provide a chance for
people to thrive.
¢ The Senate level of discretionary funding was established in order to promote fiscal
responsibility. This level already reflects a cut to overall federal spending. Cutting any
further could place the Senate’s funding levels for lifesaving international programs in
danger.
With help of current Poverty-Focused Foreign Assistance funding:
«Last year, 3.9 million HIV-positive people with antiretroviral treatment and allowed
200,000 babies to be HIV-free by treating their mothers.
« Arecent U.S.-funded project in Honduras successfully raised participating farmers’
purchasing power by 87 percent, compared to an 11 percent increase for non-
participating farmers.
« International Food Aid programs reached more than 66 million people, including 5.2
million school children, in 2011.
* More than 1 million lives can be saved each year by funding programs that focus on
adequate nutrition during the 1,000-day window from pregnancy to age 2.
Cuts to poverty-focused foreign assistance would threaten our national security and
endanger our economic future.
Poverty-focused foreign assistance saves lives and helps build stability around the world.
Research shows that for every 5% drop in income growth in a developing country, the
likelihood of violent conflict or war within the next year increases by 10 percent. Poverty-
focused foreign assistance supports economic growth, protects vulnerable people, and
helps curtail desperation that may lead to violence.
These programs expand our future trade capacity: Fifty percent of U.S. exports go to
emerging markets, and one in five U.S. jobs are tied to trade.
By enabling the most vulnerable people around the world to get out of poverty, we are
ensuring future markets for U.S. goods and services and a brighter economic future for
the American people.
As religious leaders, we believe that our nation has a moral responsibility to respond to
suffering and poverty in the world.
Our churches are engaged in extensive relief and development efforts, and we know the
need and the suffering first hand. We are doing our part, but we can’t do it all. We need our
country to do its part and continue to invest in poverty-focused development assistance.
We believe that responding to hunger and poverty is not a partisan issue - it is not a
Republican or Democratic issue, nor is it a conservative or liberal issues - it is a moral issue
that people of faith, across the political spectrum, agree upon.
We have been pleased that under both President Bush’s leadership and President Obama’s,
the U.S. has taken a leadership role in responding to human need around the world, and we
know that millions hungry people and people impacted by debilitating diseases have been
able to live productive lives because of that aid.
Cutting poverty-focused foreign assistance will sacrifice the gains we have made against
global hunger and poverty.
Poverty-focused development assistance is a small fraction of the federal budget: 0.6%.
