[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 102 (Wednesday, June 21, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S8829]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                         ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

                                 ______


                        FOREIGN AID HAS ITS USES

 Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, through the years I have found Brent 
Scowcroft to be one of the more rational and thoughtful people, when it 
comes to foreign policy.
  Recently, he had an op-ed piece in the New York Times titled, 
``Foreign Aid Has Its Uses,'' and it makes eminent good sense. I ask 
that it be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  What concerns me is that while U.S. leadership abroad is slipping--
and that should concern all of us--we are accelerating the slippage by 
cutting back on foreign aid.
  In addition, when we cut foreign aid and increase military spending, 
we increase the likelihood of the use of the military option rather 
than other options that could save lives and bring stability.
  The great threat to the world today is instability.
  We should heed the words of Brent Scowcroft.
  The material follows:
                [From the New York Times, June 12, 1995]

                        Foreign Aid Has Its Uses

                          (By Brent Scowcroft)

       Foreign assistance is again undergoing the ``perils of 
     Pauline'' as it wends through the Congressional gauntlet. 
     This happens yearly, but the dangers today seem especially 
     ominous. With the search for budget economies so desperate, 
     using up funds for what detractors call foreign giveaways 
     when programs to assist needy Americans are being slashed 
     seems unconscionable to many.
       Foreign assistance, with us since the Marshall Plan, has 
     been perhaps the most unpopular legislation to come before 
     Congress for some years. The increased peril it faces arises 
     mainly from the loss of the justification the cold war 
     provided.
       The case for foreign assistance is simple, basic--and 
     misunderstood. The core argument is that foreign assistance 
     is a fundamental instrument of foreign policy.
       There are three main ways through which, separately or in 
     combination, we can exert influence abroad. One is 
     traditional diplomacy. Another is economic or military 
     coercion. When diplomacy alone is inadequate and coercion too 
     extreme or inappropriate, we have to turn to foreign 
     assistance--the use of economic incentives.
       Why the difficulty in persuading Congress and the nation of 
     its merits? One reason is that some foreign assistance 
     programs, however meritorious, have become so encrusted with 
     activities and outlays that have so little to do with our 
     direct national interests that the main purpose of the 
     programs has become obscured.
       In the cold war, our aid programs could carry this burden, 
     but now the entire economic assistance edifice is endangered. 
     We must refocus the programs to make them directly relevant 
     to our national interests. For example, we need to emphasize 
     the security requirements of countries of particular 
     concern--Israel and Turkey, for example. We have to 
     strengthen stability in areas of strategic interest: Gaza, 
     Jericho, Poland and Czechoslovakia. We should see the Central 
     American peace process through to its conclusion.
       We need to suitably compensate countries that provide 
     military installations as well as cooperation and support on 
     issues of particular importance to us. For example, we 
     recently offered incentives to Caribbean countries to accept 
     Haitian and Cuban refugees.
       We need to be able to respond quickly to unforeseen 
     circumstances and unusual opportunities. For example, right 
     after the ouster of Gen. Manuel Antonio Noriega, we helped 
     Panama pay off its debts to international financial 
     institutions, thus making other economic aid possible.
       When Fidel Castro leaves the scene, economic assistance to 
     Cuba may be needed immediately to ease the transition. A 
     contingency fund for that purpose would be useful.
       Support for democracy and for sustainable economic 
     development serve our interests, but they are not top 
     priorities. For example, help for the Development Fund for 
     Africa would flow from the American tradition of compassion 
     and altruism. And while our contributions to such 
     international financial institutions clearly benefit us in 
     the long term, we should base such aid on our wish to promote 
     global prosperity rather than to promote specific American 
     interests.
       Like it or not, America has inherited the mantle of world 
     leadership. In searching for budget cuts, we must not destroy 
     foreign aid, a crucial means of exercising that 
     leadership.
     

                          ____________________