U.S. Appropriations FY2025: The Power of the Purse Unhinged - Early Days

Amendments Analysis - Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2025 - Continued, Part 2.

We also have a Lawler (R-NY) amendment that moves $20M around to bring Peace Corps funding back up to FY24.

Lee's opposition is limited to saying that where the money is coming from sucks, because the overall spending for the Peace Corps should be more by default.

---

Next up, a pair of Mace (R-SC) products. The first (no funding for the UN High Commissioner for Refugees) fails by a decent bipartisan margin. The second (moving money from immigrant/refugee assistance to Narcotics Control / LE) passes on party lines. for pretty obvious reasons.

During the debate, Mace pounds an anti-immigration rhetoric the whole time. Lee points out that the UNHCR has been around since World War 2 and has been part of helping people who lost their homes and advocating for the rights of refugees since it's inception. Lee also argues that that the Migration and Refugee Assistance fund is designed to do the same thing - help those forcibly displaced. This has mixed results.

---

Moskowitz (D-FL) wants to make sure that the State Department doesn't use statistics from the Gaza Health Ministry. The amendment passes with a large contingent of Democrats crossing the aisle.

From the debate, this is primarily Democrats arguing amongst each other for rather charged reasons that belong in another thread entirely. You want to discuss this as policy? Take it there.

---

Next we have a slew of amendments from Ogles (R-TN).

Commentary: Oh, how I DETEST this man.

Anyway, he has three amendments that all pass. The first (China and the Majors List) is redundant - China is ON the Majors List, and doesn't look like it's going to come off anytime soon. The second is pure Republican targeted vindictiveness (this time it's Blinken), and to "none of these funds" a particular National Security Memorandum. NSM-20 is highly relevant to another thread, please take policy discussions of it there. I'll have links below to the Majors List and the NSM.

In debate, Ogles yells about China and Biden for his first amendment. Lee points out that hey, China is already on the list. And if Congress wants to make the list? They should pass a law stating that Congress is going to do it - otherwise, let the administration do its job. Ogles then does a deliberate hit job on Secretary Blinken, with Lee coming to his defense. As to the final amendment? Ogles says it's punishing a notional ally, and Lee counters with points that civilian deaths are bad, mmkay. AND THAT IS ALL THAT WAS SAID IN THIS THREAD.

---

The follow clump of amendments all failed. We're going to rapid fire them.

---

Steube (R-FL) puts up a pair of amendments. The first fails, and is trying to prevent funds from going to the Lebanese Armed Forces. This feeds back into the Israel discussion - take it to THAT thread. The second passes, and it prevents funds from going to the government of Iraq.

In debate? The first is Steube ranting about Hezbollah and their influence in Lebanon. Multiple GOP members come out against the amendment. In the second, Steube and Lee argue.

COMMENTARY: Please note, I have EXTREMELY strong feelings about this (the funds going to Iraq). I have a great deal of history there. I CAN NOT be objective about this. I just can't.

On a personal opinion, I side with Lee on this one.

Congresswoman Lee, from the live.house.gov transcript:

IT'S IN THE SECURITY INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES TO CONTINUE SUPPORTING IRAQ, AS WELL AS REALLY OUR MORAL RESPONSIBILITY, NOT TO ABANDON OUR PARTNERSHIP AND TO HELP REPAIR SOME OF THE DAMAGE OF THE PAST.

Click to expand...

---

We're almost there....

Amendments Analysis - Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2025 - Continued, Part 2... Part 2.

---

Tenney (R-NY) offered up a pair of amendments that both passed. The first (AGAIN ) is an anti-voting rights amendment. The second was prohibiting funds from going towards retaining, rehiring, or doing anything with Robert Malley, the former Special Envoy to Iran.

In debate, Tenney (AGAIN) launches on her crusade against the government encouraging people to vote. Lee calls her on it. As you can see, the Republicans eat it up. As for the second? Tenney goes after Malley, and Lee's defense amounts to 'it's an internal matter for State, butt out'. It's not very convincing, if I'm honest.

Commentary: I don't know very much about the Malley case, so I can't really comment on it - what I've learned is in the wiki.

---

Tiffany (R-WI) also put forward a pair of amendments, one about interactions with Taiwan that passed, and another that failed and (for the third time this bill) tries to prevent funding for the United Nations.

Note: I can't find a copy of this State Dept. memo:

"Memorandum for All Department and Agency Executive Secretaries" entitled "Revised Guidelines on Interaction with Taiwan" dated June 29, 2021.

Click to expand...

In debate, Tiffany first wants to address the way the State Department interfaces Taiwan. Lee's argument is that this isn't an appropriations issue - it should be a separate bill that goes through the Foreign Affairs Committee. For the second, well, Tiffany tries to put HIS spin on why the United States should (edit: shouldn’t)send money to the UN. Any of it. Lee honestly makes him look like an unhinged troll.

---

And the last two - they both pass.

Waltz (R-FL) wants to not use State money to fund the Gaza Pier. His amendment passes on party lines.

In debate, Waltz goes off against the Pier and the Biden administration. Lee states that no money in the SFOPS bill goes to the pier, only a minor portion to USAID to help manage distribution once the aid is in Gaza. Waltz misconstrues her words, and Lee restates them. I haven't watch the footage, but her exasperation by this point has got to be at an all time high.


Wilson(R-SC) has our last amendment, and it's adding clarifying language to the bill regarding funds that should not be going to the Assad regime.
0hat language in question is:

Amendment #75 text said:

Page 180, line 10, after ‘‘used’’ insert ‘‘directly or indirectly’’.

Click to expand...

From here: https://amendments-rules.house.gov/amendments/WILSSC_110_xml240617151634991.pdf

This removes any ambiguity, which comes out in debate. Wilson points out that taxpayer money has found it's way to the Assad regime, and that's BAD. Lee counters with nuance is required in foreign relations, and this amendment may have a negative impact on aid to Syrians who desperately need it.

Commentary: I am pretty conflicted about this one. They are both right.

I was incredibly conflicted about analyzing State and Foreign Ops. There were parts of these amendments that made me extremely happy to see them, especially some of those in the En Bloc. This was also the first bill that made me stand up from my computer and walk the fuck away for a solid forty five minutes. I was SO pissed.

I still need to tweak the formula for this. From start to end? Analysis and posting took about 7 hours with a break to have dinner in there. This is almost a full day's work to dissect this damn thing. And this is just the additions. To a bill that is probably going nowhere. It takes a lot out of me, if I'm honest. But I feel that there is so much going on in here that gets lost in the big headline items that 100% SHOULD have a light shined on them.

I'm going to take a brake for a few days (at least) before looking at the rest of the bills - everything is out of the Subcommittees now, and is ready for markup by the full Appropriations Committee. AND the Senate is poised to get started on their versions in the next few weeks after the break. Which will give us the opportunity to compare this general lunacy the GOP is approving with something that I HOPE will be more reasonable.

But that's it. I'm out for a bit. Unless you want me to dig something specific.