[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 68 (Wednesday, May 15, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5047-S5048]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the concurrent 
resolution.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield whatever time is needed off of our 
time to the Senator from Maryland.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I appreciate the courtesy of the 
chairman of the committee and of the ranking member of the committee. I 
just want to say at the outset what an outstanding job I think the 
distinguished Senator from Nebraska, Senator Exon, has done with 
respect to the budget that we are now considering. I was privileged to 
be very supportive of his position in the committee, and continue to be 
so. I want to thank him for the leadership that he provided on our side 
of the aisle.

  Mr. President, I want to take just a moment or two to sound what may 
be an alarm bell in the night and take what is perceived as not the 
most popular position. But I want to talk a little bit about the 150 
account--that is the international affairs account in this budget--and 
to simply sound a warning that I think we have been reducing that 150 
account in successive years in such a way that we are now impeding upon 
our ability to perform as a great power in the world.
  The budget that is before us and that has been brought out of 
committee would cut the international affairs portion of the budget by 
more than $1 billion from the President's request. The President 
requested $19.2 billion, and the bill reported from the committee cuts 
it to $18.1 billion.
  The actual international affairs spending in this particular account 
in the budget, which covers all of our responsibilities abroad other 
than the military, was $20.8 billion in fiscal year 1994, and $20.1 
billion in fiscal year 1995. It is estimated at $18.5 billion for 
fiscal year 1996. So we are making a very significant cut from 
historical levels.
  In other words, international affairs spending has been brought down 
from $20.8 billion in fiscal year 1994 to $18.1 billion in fiscal year 
1997, which is a cut of almost $3 billion just in that short period of 
time. That represents a cut of about 15 percent in the budget that we 
have to carry out our responsibilities internationally.
  In fact, our international affairs budget has been reduced by 50 
percent in real terms over the last decade. In other words, if you 
adjust for inflation and take a 10-year period, we, in effect, are 
cutting by 50 percent our ability to carry out programs in the 
international arena. We are in the process now of asking the 
international affairs budget to do more and are providing less with 
which it can be done.
  During the 1980's, we did not have democratic, market-oriented 
regimes in Eastern Europe. At that time we were building nuclear 
weapons instead of trying to help the Russians destroy and dismantle 
them. We had one Embassy to cover a country, the Soviet Union, where we 
now have 15 separate countries. At that time neither Jordan nor the 
Palestinians recognized Israel's right to exist, so we had no stake in 
their economic vitality. We had economic sanctions against South 
Africa; now we are trying to help South Africa rebuild. All of these 
are new responsibilities and opportunities over the last few years.
  So, in fact, our responsibilities increased rather than diminished, 
and particularly if the arena of competition or concern shifts from the 
military into the political and economic arena.
  Only about 1 percent of the Federal budget is spent on foreign aid, 
and less than half of that goes to humanitarian and development 
programs. In fact, the United States ranks dead last among 21 
industrialized members of the OECD in the percentage of GNP that we 
spend on development assistance. All of these other countries have made 
the judgment that they have an important interest in helping the rest 
of the world to develop; so much so that they are prepared to commit a 
larger percentage of their GNP than we are to development assistance.
  I know these are not popular facts to bring before the country, but I 
think it is important for those of us who carry the responsibility 
which comes with being Members of the U.S. Senate to stop and consider 
it because we have to square the rhetoric about being the world's 
leader with the reality of how that is accomplished.
  In fact, there is, apparently, a great deal of misconception across 
the country. A nationwide poll done last January by the University of 
Maryland found that a majority of Americans, when asked what percentage 
of the budget they think is spent on foreign assistance said 15 percent 
or higher. The majority said 15 percent or higher. When they were asked 
how much they thought should be spent, they said on average about 5 
percent. In fact, we spend about 1 percent. There is a tremendous 
disparity in perception. The majority think we spend more than 15 
percent of our budget for this purpose when we in fact spend about 1 
percent.

  I am very frank to say to my colleagues that if the United States is 
going to continue to be a great power, we have to commit the resources 
to carry out our responsibilities as a great power. This is 
particularly true in the post-cold-war era, when a range of complex 
problems faces us. That means coming up with adequate funding for the 
conduct of our foreign affairs. In my view, we have already cut well 
below the minimum level that is necessary to sustain American 
leadership in the world.
  I really want to sound that warning. I am persuaded that over time, 
if this trend continues, it will become obvious to everyone what we 
have done to ourselves. But I think we need to apply some analysis and 
attention now in order to ascertain that situation, and I am frank to 
say I think we have crossed the danger point and are now in the zone 
where our leadership ability is being eroded and undermined.
  The various cuts have very detrimental effects on our ability to 
conduct an effective foreign policy. It would be one thing if people 
were saying we want a little America, something with which I do not 
agree. But if they say we are going to have a little America and we are 
going to shrink back from the responsibilities and, therefore, we are 
going to shrink resources, that at least would be a consistent 
position.
  But to articulate a rhetorical position in terms of America being the 
world leader and playing the first and foremost role in exercising 
international responsibilities, and then have a huge gap between that 
statement and the resources with which to carry out those 
responsibilities, is illogical and inconsistent.
  The United States now is the largest debtor at the United Nations. As 
the Washington Post put it in a recent editorial, we are the ``global 
deadbeat.'' We are so far behind in paying our assessments to some of 
the international financial institutions that our arrearages exceed our 
scheduled annual payments. We are, indeed, exasperating and 
disappointing our friends and allies who desire and support American 
leadership. They desire and support American leadership. But we 
continually dictate ever longer lists of demands and provide ever 
shorter resources with which to carry them out.
  Aid to the poorest countries has been reduced by nearly 30 percent 
from last

[[Page S5048]]

year, jeopardizing the progress we have made in reversing environmental 
degradation, slowing population growth, preventing the spread of deadly 
disease, building economic self-sufficiency, promoting democracy, 
resolving conflicts peacefully, stemming the flow of illegal drugs and 
countering the threat of nuclear proliferation. All of these are very 
important objectives.
  Consulates have been closed and embassy staffs reduced all over the 
world, making it impossible to provide the services that Americans 
abroad expect and deserve. We have closed 30 posts abroad since 1993, 
and 13 more are slated for closure this year.
  Some of this scrubdown of posts needed to be done. But once again, I 
think we have gone beyond the point of diminishing returns and we now 
are really eroding our capacity to carry out an effective foreign 
policy.
  While some question the importance of ambassadors and embassies in an 
era of CNN, supersonic travel, and instant global communication, I 
think this skepticism is misplaced. We need to have our ambassadors and 
their embassy teams on the ground, around the globe promoting human 
rights, conflict resolution, antiterrorism and counter- narcotics 
cooperation, U.S. economic interests and U.S. exports, for example. 
Many of the embassies have significantly improved their performance by 
working with the American business community in a very significant and 
substantial way.
  We need consular officers to assist U.S. visitors and business 
people, to issue visas, replace lost passports and cut through redtape 
when Americans run into difficulties abroad. We need them to spread 
good will, to exemplify American values and to deal with sensitive 
situations before they become full-blown emergencies. This experienced 
corps of professionals is the face of our Nation around the world.
  Yet our diplomatic service is forced to rely on computer software, 
office equipment, buildings and services that are outmoded, unreliable, 
inefficient, and sometimes even unsafe. Diplomacy in the 1990's is 
being carried out on the technology of the 1960's and 1970's, and no 
relief is in sight.
  These cuts are particularly troubling when juxtaposed to very large, 
unrequested increases in defense spending. The budget adds almost as 
much for defense, over and above the amount the Pentagon asked for, 
than is spent on the entire foreign aid budget for a year. In other 
words, we are cutting substantially the 150 account, our diplomacy 
account, our political and economic interest account, at the same time 
that we are increasing the military account over and above what the 
Pentagon sought.
  It seems to me a matter of common sense that by investing a little 
bit in preventive diplomacy you may be able to address situations while 
they are amenable to economic and political solutions rather than wait 
until they become full-blown crises and require the presence of our 
military. By sacrificing investment in preventive political and 
economic measures, we will only be postponing and probably escalating 
the ultimate costs.
  Of course, effective diplomacy is enhanced by a strong military and 
the readiness to apply it, but our military strength ought not to 
become our prime recourse for influencing situations in the 
international arena. In fact, I think the task of the next century will 
be to hone our diplomatic, economic, and political skills so that we 
can protect our interests without having to put our troops in harm's 
way.
  It is increasingly clear that in the 21st century American interests 
in the world will be heavily economic and political. We need to ensure 
open markets and fair trade to promote American prosperity. We need to 
avert conflicts that will cause human suffering, refugee flows, 
environmental destruction, and economic dislocation. We must combat 
international terrorism and prevent the proliferation of weapons of 
mass destruction.
  None of these goals can be achieved on a unilateral basis. None of 
them can be undertaken by military action alone. And none of them can 
be achieved without sufficient resources. The 150 account is important 
to meeting our responsibilities as a world leader. By not allocating 
adequate resources, we may indeed encounter disastrous consequences. 
Further cuts are not just ill-conceived; they are downright dangerous 
to our national security and to achieving American objectives around 
the world.
  I urge my colleagues, although I know it runs against a perception of 
popular sentiment, to examine carefully what we are doing to our 
ability as a nation to carry out our responsibilities as a world 
leader. It cannot be done if we do not commit the resources with which 
to do it. And we now have reached the point where I think we have so 
drastically reduced our commitment in this area that we are markedly 
affecting our ability to act as a world leader.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I thank the distinguished 
ranking member for yielding me time.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Did the Senator want to speak at this point?
  Mr. EXON. No. I was just going to try and get embodied in an 
agreement what we had arranged for. The Senator from Delaware would 
like 3 or 4 minutes on another subject. I would like time likewise. 
Then we had general agreement that we would go to Senator Grassley with 
his amendment. We have all agreed to that, and I would just like to 
suggest it.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator from Delaware wanted to 2 minutes.
  Mr. EXON. OK. I will follow the Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I will yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Delaware.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized for 2 
minutes.

                          ____________________