[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 34 (Tuesday, March 8, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1396-S1398]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS BUDGET
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, we are living through one of the most
important transformations in the history of the modern world. Some have
likened the wave of protests sweeping the Middle East to the
revolutions of 1848, which changed Europe's political landscape
forever. They certainly call to mind the dramatic events of 1989, when
[[Page S1397]]
the nations of Eastern Europe threw off the yoke of communism to
embrace free markets and democracy. Like those upheavals, there is no
doubt that the events of this year will be studied for decades to come.
The challenges we face are great. We are being called upon to forge
new relationships in a part of the world that has been and will remain
vital to our national security. And we have been given the opportunity
to demonstrate conclusively to the young men and women of the Muslim
world and beyond that al-Qaida's belief that change requires violence
and radicalization is wrong.
But, even as we try to navigate these momentous developments, we are
contemplating drastic cuts to our international affairs programs. I
understand that we face a budget crisis in our own country. But we can
either pay now to help brave people build a better, democratic future
for themselves, or we will certainly pay later with increased threats
to our own national security.
The international affairs budget lays the foundation for our ability
to fulfill our responsibilities abroad. The approximately $50 billion
that funds all our diplomats, development professionals, embassies,
missions, consular services, global health programs, food aid, and
disaster relief is a tiny investment for the great return we receive.
Consider that this year we will spend approximately $700 billion on our
military. By contrast, the international affairs budget is less than
one-tenth of the Pentagon's. As Secretary Gates once pointed out, if
you took the entire Foreign Service roster, you could barely crew one
aircraft carrier.
And yet our diplomats are serving on the frontlines of multiple
revolutions and wars. They are making vital contributions in
Afghanistan, and in Iraq they are planning the transition from a
military mission to a diplomatic one so that we can cement the
political progress that has cost hundreds of billions of dollars and
thousands of American lives.
In Africa, they are helping to midwife the birth of a new nation in
South Sudan, to resolve the situation in Darfur, and, as we make
progress on those fronts, to forge a new relationship with the
government in Khartoum. They are leading the fight against global
challenges, like nuclear proliferation and climate change. And in
countless communities around the world they are providing essential
humanitarian assistance preventing the spread of cholera in Haiti,
distributing food to refugees in northern Kenya, and providing shelter
to flood victims in Pakistan.
This is not a time for America to pull back from the world. This is a
time to step forward.
Yet H.R. 1 imposes draconian cuts that would completely undermine our
core national security priorities and our humanitarian commitments. The
bill threatens our ability to stabilize Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq
by slashing economic support funds by $2.2 billion, or nearly 30
percent below fiscal year 2011 levels. In Afghanistan, for example,
these cuts would make it extremely difficult to support high-priority
infrastructure programs that are critical to our counterinsurgency and
stabilization efforts. And they would curtail our ability to support
governance, economic development programs, and basic services to
districts cleared by the military.
H.R. 1 would also threaten our efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan by
zeroing out funding to meet our obligation to take up the U.S. shares
in the Asian Development Bank, ADB. If we don't provide funding by
April of this year, we will give up our leadership position at ADB and
allow Chinese influence at the bank to surpass our own. The impact of
that loss of influence cannot be overstated. The ADB funds projects
throughout Pakistan and Afghanistan, supporting U.S. efforts in this
critical region. GEN David Petraeus himself wrote to Treasury Secretary
Timothy Geithner to praise the Asian Development Bank for supporting
U.S. interests, stating that ``strong partnership with the ADB is part
of our overall United States purpose and goals in these areas of
critical importance.''
The House bill also cuts our humanitarian aid by 50 percent,
decimating our ability to provide food, shelter, and medicine after
natural disasters and putting hundreds of thousands of lives at risk.
In Pakistan, USAID would be unable to meet emergency and recovery needs
in the south, where an estimated 4 million people remain displaced and
require critical support. In Haiti, over 1 million displaced persons
living in transitional shelters may lose funding and support. And with
these cuts, more than 1.6 million internally displaced persons in
Darfur will not receive critical health care, access to water, or help
in meeting other basic needs.
H.R. 1 decreases global health funding by over $1 billion, which
means that over 400,000 people who would have been able to enroll in
life-saving treatment programs through PEPFAR will now linger on
waiting lists as their HIV diagnosis becomes a death sentence. It also
means that 300,000 orphans and children will not receive care and
support, and that 100,000 women who would have received medication to
prevent the transmission of HIV to their newborn children will not,
resulting in tens of thousands of babies that will be born HIV-
positive.
H.R. 1 also slashes support for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS,
Tuberculosis, and Malaria. The Global Fund is a public-private
partnership where every American tax dollar is leveraged twice over by
the rest of the world. Its programs are also deeply intertwined with
U.S. efforts: In Haiti, for example, Global Fund grants support the
purchase of anti-retroviral drugs for AIDS patients, while PEPFAR
ensures their delivery to patients. Thus, these drastic reductions to
the Global Fund will affect U.S. efforts as well.
Our global health programs represent some of our most successful and
effective international policies. In Pakistan, as I discussed today
with Bill Gates, working with the government there, we could eliminate
polio entirely. Our malaria programs have already virtually eliminated
that killer of children in parts of Africa. The Centers for Disease
Control are working to reduce the spread of drug-resistant diseases,
such as tuberculosis, before they come to our own shores. Cutting off
these programs is poor foreign policy, it is poor public health policy,
and it stands in sharp contradiction to American values.
The House bill also cuts nearly two-thirds of the funds devoted to
promoting clean energy and increasing resilience to climate change in
the most vulnerable regions of the world. This includes eliminating
funding for the climate investment funds, which support exports of
clean energy technology, help developing countries respond to the
impacts of climate change, and promote increased carbon sequestration
from forests. H.R. 1 also eliminates government positions needed to
negotiate international agreements on climate change that are favorable
to the United States, while ensuring that other nations live up to
their commitments to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
H.R. 1 also slashes food and education for the world's poorest
children by 50 percent. It eliminates feeding programs for 18 million
of the world's poorest and hungriest people, and approximately 2.5
million young children benefiting from the McGovern-Dole program would
lose their daily school meal. Another 15 million people, primarily
women and children, would lose access to the sustenance provided
through title II. These cuts are not abstractions. These are people.
The House bill would even eliminate fiscal year 2011 funding for the
United States Institute of Peace, USIP. USIP is more than a Washington
think tank. Created by Congress and President Ronald Reagan, it is a
working instrument, utilized by the Department of Defense as well as
the Department of State. Defunding USIP would significantly reduce
America's ability to find nonviolent solutions to conflict, just as we
are trying to resolve wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. USIP's personnel
operate on the ground in dangerous areas where America's security is
threatened. For example, in 2007 USIP's reconciliation efforts between
Shia authorities and Sunni sheiks helped dramatically reduce U.S. troop
deaths in the ``Triangle of Death'' near Baghdad. That in turn allowed
the U.S. Army to reduce its presence in the area by about 2,000 troops
and save a significant amount of money. In a letter to the Office of
Management and Budget, General Petraeus called this a ``striking
success story.''
[[Page S1398]]
I have long been impressed with USIP's work in Sudan, where the
Institute's training in electoral violence prevention contributed to
the relatively peaceful referendum and the low levels of violence in
its aftermath. USIP is now actively assisting in the development of a
new constitution for Southern Sudan through its Rule of Law Program.
Recognizing the volatility of the north/south border areas and the
potential for an outbreak of contagious violence, USIP has instituted a
cross-border grazing corridor project and designed a popular
consultations process in the troubled border states of Blue Nile and
Southern Kordofan.
In Pakistan, another area of great concern to me, USIP is developing
a network of conflict management facilitators to work at the local
level, training Pakistani parliamentarians and women leaders in
conflict resolution and developing a curriculum for schools based on
principles of gender equality, tolerance, pluralism, and peace.
Under the Senate substitute, USIP's funding would be reduced by
almost 20 percent. But any greater reduction would threaten this
Federal institute that has proven it saves American lives and money.
The drastic action of the House to defund USIP must not stand.
These sorts of severe cuts, which will reduce our capacity from
Afghanistan to Sudan, from war zones to earthquake zones, will do
almost nothing to rein in our budget deficit. But they will costs
thousands of lives overseas, and they will increase the threats to our
own country. At a time of great challenge to American interests abroad,
we must step up at home and provide the vital funds that our diplomats
need.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Central Command,
Office of the Commander,
MacDill AFB, FL, February 11, 2009.
Mr. Rob Goldberg,
Director, International Affairs Division, National Security
Programs, The Office of Management and Budget, 17th
Street, NW., Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Goldberg, I would like to underscore the
importance of the U.S. Institute for Peace (USIP) to the
missions the United States is currently pursuing in Iraq and
Afghanistan. While I have long been an avid reader of USIP's
analytical products, which are second to none in tracking the
challenges we face in both countries and in outlining policy
options, I have more recently been impressed with USIP's on-
the-ground peacebuilding efforts.
In Iraq, the Institute stepped up to the plate beginning in
August 2007 to assist the 10th Mountain Division in a
reconciliation effort in Mahmoudiya, a community on the
southern edge of Baghdad that was once known as the
``Triangle of Death.'' Since then, General Odierno and I have
often cited Mahmoudiya as a striking success story. USIP's
continuing reconciliation efforts at the community level,
especially in Diyala and Ninewa, as well as at the national
level in Baghdad, hold great promise for the future.
In Afghanistan, USIP's work on the informal justice system
has been invaluable as we work toward improving the rule of
law at the provincial level. Their plans for reconciliation
efforts at the community level on the Afghanistan/Pakistan
border are likewise a potential key to success in the
enormous challenges we face.
USIP's experience working closely with the U.S. military
will be a great asset in developing stronger unity of effort
between civilian and military elements of government In fact,
I hope soon to see U.S. military officers training alongside
civilian governmental and nongovernmental counterparts in
USIP's headquarters at 23rd and Constitution. Their facility
is not just an important symbol of our nation's commitment to
peace; it is also home to a wonderful training center that we
hope to leverage to increase understanding and unity of
effort in today's complex operations.
We can be proud of what USIP has done in the past, and I
look forward with confidence to the contributions the
Institute will make in the future.
Sincerely,
David H. Petraeus,
General, United States Army,
Commanding.
____________________