[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 149 (Thursday, October 6, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6324-S6325]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          FOREIGN AID FUNDING

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as chairman of the Appropriations 
Subcommittee on the Department of State and Foreign Operations, I have 
strongly supported funding to protect U.S. interests around the world.
  I am also fortunate to have Senator Lindsey Graham as a ranking 
member, who, like Senators Judd Gregg and Mitch McConnell before him, 
is a strong supporter of these programs. We recognize, as does the 
Pentagon, that military power alone is not sufficient to protect our 
security. In fact, sending Americans into harm's way should be an 
absolute last resort. We also need to invest in international diplomacy 
and development.
  Foreign aid today is an oft-maligned term that is widely 
misunderstood. It is viewed by many as a form of charity or a luxury we 
can do without, or as a sizable part of the Federal budget. It is none 
of those things.
  This is not a Democrat or Republican issue. It is about whether the 
United States is going to remain the global leader it has been since 
World War Two. Three weeks ago, President George W. Bush said:


[[Page S6325]]


       One of the lessons of September 11th . . . is that what 
     happens overseas matters here at home We face an enemy that 
     can only recruit when they find hopeless people, and there is 
     nothing more hopeless to a child who loses a mom or dad to 
     AIDS to watch the wealthy nations of the world sit back and 
     do nothing.

  Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was equally blunt about 
the stakes involved. She said:

       We don't have an option to retire, to take a sabbatical 
     from leadership in the international community and the world. 
     If we do, one of 2 things will happen. There will be chaos, 
     because without leadership there will be chaos in the 
     international community, and that is dangerous. But it's 
     quite possible, that if we don't lead, somebody else will. 
     And perhaps it will be someone who does not share our values 
     of compassion, the rights of the individual, of liberty, and 
     freedom.

  I could not agree more, and I hope other Senators appreciate what is 
at stake. Just as past generations rallied to meet the formidable 
challenges of the Great Depression, the Nazis, and the Cold War, we 
will bear responsibility if we fail to meet the challenges of today.
  The budget for diplomacy and development includes funding for our 
embassies and consulates that assist the millions of Americans who 
travel, study, work and serve overseas.
  It pays our contributions to U.N. peacekeeping missions that do not 
require the costly deployment of U.S. troops, UNICEF, the World Health 
Organization, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the operations of 
our NATO security pact, aid for refugees who have fled wars or natural 
disasters, and to prevent the spread of AIDS, the Asian Flu, and other 
contagious diseases that threaten Americans and people everywhere.
  There are many other programs that promote U.S. exports, support 
democratic elections, combat poverty, and help build alliances with 
countries whose support we need in countering terrorism, thwart drug 
trafficking, protect the environment, and stop cross-border crime.
  We do this and a lot more with less than 1 percent of the Federal 
budget, yet it is a crucial investment in our national security.
  It also is no wonder that other countries--our allies and our 
competitors--are spending more each year to project their influence 
around the world, and to compete in the global marketplace. Great 
Britain's conservative government is on a path to increase its 
international development assistance to .7 percent of its national 
budget, compared to .2 percent for the United States. Yet the 
Republican majority in the House of Representatives proposes to slash 
funding for these programs to pre-2008 levels.
  Our leadership is being challenged unlike at any time since the Cold 
War. In Latin America, which is a larger market for U.S. exports than 
any other region except the European Union, our market share is 
shrinking while China's is growing. It is the same story everywhere.
  There is simply no substitute for U.S. global leadership. The world 
is changing, and we cannot afford to retrench or to succumb to 
isolationism. Funding that enables us to engage with our allies, 
competitors, and adversaries, while an easy political target, helps us 
to meet growing threats to our struggling economy and our national 
security.
  I strongly support this budget and have fought to protect it for 
years. I also know there are competing needs and that we have to 
eliminate waste.
  We need to support what works, and stop funding what does not. Too 
often, government bureaucracies continue funding programs that fail, 
and that needs to stop. Billions of dollars provided to high priced 
contractors and consultants for poorly conceived, wildly extravagant, 
unsustainable efforts to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan have been wasted 
or stolen. This has further damaged the public's opinion of foreign 
aid.
  The bill that I and Senator Graham recommended to the Appropriations 
Committee on September 21 and that was reported by a bipartisan vote of 
28-2 is $6 billion below the President's budget request. It scales back 
most Department of State and U.S. Agency for International Development 
operations and programs and will force them to significantly curtail 
planned expenditures.
  But the House bill cuts far deeper, and these are the cuts that 
President Bush and Secretary Rice warned about. There are unmistakable 
signs that our global influence is already eroding. It is not 
preordained that the United States will remain the world's dominant 
power. As former Secretary Rice said, ``if we don't lead, somebody else 
will.''
  I doubt there is a single Member of Congress who, if asked, would say 
they don't care if the United States becomes a second or third rate 
power. They expect the United States to lead, to build alliances, to 
help American companies compete successfully, and to protect the 
interests and security of its citizens.
  You can't have it both ways. You can't expect others to follow if you 
can't lead, and you can't lead if you don't pay your way. This budget 
is a fraction of the Federal budget, yet it is a far cry from what this 
country should be investing.
  We need to wake up, to stop acting like these investments don't 
matter, that the State Department isn't important, that the United 
Nations isn't important, that what happens in Brazil, Russia, the 
Philippines, Somalia, or other countries doesn't matter, and that 
global threats to the environment, public health and safety will 
somehow be solved by others.
  Our budget for foreign operations already has gone through deep 
budget cuts, with more to come. But the American people deserve to be 
told that slashing, disproportionate cuts to these programs would have 
no appreciable impact on the deficit, and it would end up costing our 
country far more in the future.

                          ____________________