[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 159 (Tuesday, December 11, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1902-E1904]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
INTRODUCTION OF GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS ACT OF 2012
______
HON. HOWARD L. BERMAN
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce the Global
Partnerships Act of 2012, a bill to establish a framework for
effective, transparent, and accountable United States foreign
assistance.
This legislation represents the culmination of nearly five years of
effort, starting in March 2008 when I assumed the chairmanship of the
Committee on Foreign Affairs. In reviewing the vast array of issues and
problems that demanded the Committee's time and attention, I decided
that reform of our antiquated foreign aid system should be high on the
agenda.
At a time when our headlines are dominated by urgent crises and new
openings abroad--whether it's the rebellion in Syria, the humanitarian
catastrophe in Congo or the transition in Burma--some have questioned
why I would choose to focus on foreign aid reform. The answer is really
quite simple: because our foreign assistance laws have a significant
impact on our ability to respond to all of those events.
Regrettably, over the past few years we have witnessed an
increasingly destructive and divisive assault on our foreign assistance
program and on U.S. international engagement more broadly. It is easy
to find fault with the current system, but rather than taking cheap
shots and mindlessly slashing programs, I believe it is incumbent upon
us to find a responsible way to fix them.
It makes no sense that, under the current system, it is almost
impossible to give small grants directly to local groups that are
leading the way towards peaceful, democratic change. Our diplomats and
development professionals shouldn't have to sit at their desks writing
reports that duplicate information that is easily available on the
Internet. There ought not to be situations where two agencies are doing
the same thing in the same place and aren't even aware of it--or worse
yet, undermining each other's efforts.
[[Page E1903]]
I recognize that there have been many attempts over the years to
correct the problems with U.S. foreign assistance, which include
bureaucratic fragmentation, program incoherence, and obsolete,
inconsistent and rigid laws. I regret that this process has taken much
longer, and proven much more complicated, than I originally
anticipated. The easy road would be to leave foreign aid reform to the
Administration, and wash our hands of any responsibility to update and
repair the laws under which these programs are carried out. But such
inaction is neither wise nor consistent with our obligations as
lawmakers.
The bill I submit today lays the foundation for real progress. It
sets forth a comprehensive framework for advancing American interests
by working in cooperation with other countries to make our world a
better, safer place.
The Global Partnerships Act of 2012 replaces both the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961, which covers economic and development
assistance, and the Arms Export Control Act, which deals with arms
sales and military aid. Together, these Acts, like this proposed
rewrite, cover the full spectrum of foreign assistance programs, from
development and democracy to peace and security. Each type of
assistance has its own title in the bill, which describes the specific
purposes, goals and objectives to be achieved.
This bill is the result of a long and complex process involving
repeated consultations with interested groups, relevant committees,
international partners, and federal agencies. We held hearings and
roundtable discussions, issued concept notes and discussion papers,
solicited written feedback, visited programs in the field, and read the
academic research. Last September, we posted a draft bill on the
Committee website and received detailed comments from hundreds of
organizations, both individually and as coalitions. This bill
encapsulates not only the direct feedback we've received in those
forums, but also many of the recommendations of the Presidential Policy
Directive on Global Development and the Quadrennial Diplomacy and
Development Review, or QDDR.
The most fundamental change that this bill would make is to
transform the donor-recipient relationship to one of equal partners
working toward mutually agreed and mutually beneficial goals. Instead
of dictating what needs to be done from Washington, we will listen to
what our local partners and our own development professionals are
saying, and we will hold both sides accountable for achieving results.
Instead of doing things ``for'' another country, we will build their
capacity for self-reliance. Sometimes our partners will be national
governments; other times we will join up with non-governmental
organizations, businesses or local communities. But our aid is unlikely
to have a long-lasting impact unless the people most directly affected
feel they have a stake in its success. That's what we call ``country
ownership'', and that's why we're calling this the ``Global
Partnerships Act''.
Second, this proposal would convert assistance from an input-
oriented process, where the primary issue is how much we spend, into an
outcome-oriented process, where the focus is on what we achieve. Two
programs that were initiated by the Bush Administration--the HIV/AIDS
effort known as PEPFAR, and the Millennium Challenge Corporation or
MCC--have successfully pioneered this approach. Congress would be
consulted from the outset, to build consensus over goals and priorities
and establish agreement on what would constitute success.
To make this transformation, this bill brings more facts and
evidence into the foreign aid process. Whether the purpose of our aid
is to promote economic growth, stabilize a fragile peace, or ensure
that a long-time ally is able to defend itself, our funding decisions
should be based on reliable information about impact and performance
rather than on hunches and intuition. Without solid empirical data
about what works, it is impossible to ensure that our money is being
effectively spent and achieving the desired results. And without
evidence that our programs are having a significant, positive impact,
we will lose the support and confidence of the American people.
There is a danger, of course, that the desire for tangible results
could be misconstrued as a preference for short-term gains that can be
quantitatively measured. This would be a grave mistake. Development is
a long-term process, and no amount of goal-setting, indicator-
selection, or measurement will give us a quick win. Objectives like
promoting democracy are notoriously difficult to measure, and
impossible to impose from without. We must always remember that
monitoring and evaluation are tools to an end, not substitutes for good
policy.
The bill also aims to make aid more strategic, in the sense of
having a clear goal and a plan and timetable for pursuing it. We still
need to preserve flexibility to respond quickly to changing situations
on the ground. But for the most part, our aid suffers from a lack of
clarity on what constitutes success and how we will know when we
achieve it.
We also need to provide much greater transparency about what we are
doing--not only for the American public, who deserve to know how their
taxpayer money is being spent, but also for the intended beneficiaries,
who can tell us whether the aid is reaching them and meeting the agreed
objectives.
Let me say a few words about what is not included in this
legislation. The first thing is spending levels. The bill contains no
authorizations of funds, no mandatory spending, no entitlements, no
recommended levels of appropriations. It is designed to change the way
we provide assistance, rather than to dictate how much or to whom. It
would not supersede the regular authorization and appropriations
process.
Second, for the most part we did not include country-specific or
region-specific provisions, which would distract from the main purpose
of creating a new structure for assistance. Except for a few key
sections, most of which were part of the old Foreign Assistance Act and
required continuation, we have tried to write a generic framework that
can withstand the test of time.
It is true that some of the reforms I have mentioned are already
being implemented by the Administration. USAID has reinstituted a
process for developing 5-year country strategies, with clearly defined
goals and indicators. The Millennium Challenge Corporation has just
released its first set of rigorous, independent impact evaluations,
which provide important lessons for the broader development community.
And under the policy guidance of the National Security Staff, the
Department of State and USAID created the Foreign Assistance Dashboard,
a website that enables users to examine, research, and track aid
investments in a standard and easy-to-understand format.
But each of these initiatives needs to be codified, accelerated and
expanded. Without legislation, these improvements could be terminated
or rolled back at any time. And none of them contain any requirement or
standards for congressional consultation.
Through legislation, we engage in a process of give-and-take,
consensus and compromise that is absent when the Administration charts
its own course. Proceeding without congressional buy-in only increases
the chances that each initiative will be second-guessed, blocked or
reversed. And it risks triggering the same vicious cycle that created
this vast web of convoluted rules and tortuous procedures, leading to
waste, inefficiency, and increasing paralysis.
To overcome the fear and inertia that have made progress on reform
so elusive, we must begin by building public awareness and clearing up
misperceptions about foreign assistance. Many Americans think that
foreign assistance accounts for 15 to 20 percent of the federal budget,
when in truth it's just 1 percent, and less than half of that goes for
humanitarian and development programs. People who don't understand what
foreign assistance does or how it helps them, or who have no confidence
that it works, are unlikely to support it, particularly in this
economic environment. The failure to communicate the importance of
foreign assistance only leads to calls for more cuts while ignoring the
real solutions.
In this period of belt-tightening and economic uncertainty, some
seem to think that foreign assistance is a luxury we can no longer
afford. However, with one out of five American jobs tied to
international trade, and our fastest growing markets--accounting for
roughly half of U.S. exports--located in developing countries, America
can't afford a course of isolation and retreat. Our economic fate is
interconnected with the rest of the world, and the collapse of
developing economies will unavoidably mean our own decline.
For all these reasons, it's time to overhaul not just the
legislation, but also the terms of the debate on foreign assistance. We
must recognize the historic achievements that have occurred with the
help of our foreign aid programs--the eradication of smallpox from the
face of the earth, the Asian miracle that began with the Green
Revolution, the millions of lives that have been saved and the human
rights that have been won. Of course, aid alone cannot solve all the
world's problems, but it is one of the best, safest and least expensive
tools at our disposal.
Today, more than ever, our health, security, and prosperity depend
on a world in which basic human needs are met, fundamental rights and
freedoms are respected, conflicts are resolved peacefully, and the
world's resources are used wisely. There is no escaping our obligations
to help foster this environment. Not only are we morally bound to do
so, but our economic and political interests demand that we address
widespread poverty and chaos in the world.
Our creditors and competitors understand this. China is aggressively
investing in the very countries that steep budget cuts may force us to
abandon. We will soon come to regret it if we fail to share our
knowledge and
[[Page E1904]]
promote our values in the very places where they are in greatest
demand.
I have said it before but it bears repeating: aid is not a gift. The
United States provides foreign assistance because it serves our
interests. Helping countries become more democratic, more stable, more
capable of defending themselves and better at pulling themselves out of
poverty is just as important for us as it is for them. Our task
therefore, is to make sure that we provide this assistance in the most
efficient and effective way.
The Global Partnerships Act of 2012 is the first comprehensive
proposal to adapt our laws to reflect the lessons we've learned over
the past 50 years. Previous reform efforts in the early 1990s sought to
revise and streamline our statutes and repeal Cold War barnacles, but
they did not fundamentally alter the way that we plan, manage, and
carry out assistance programs. I recognize that there is not enough
time to consider and pass this legislation in what remains of the 112th
Congress. However, I believe this legislation offers a valid and
constructive starting point for the future, and that is why I am so
pleased that my distinguished colleague and good friend from Virginia,
Mr. Connolly, is joining me in introducing the bill today. He is well-
acquainted with the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and acutely aware of
the need for reform, and I am confident that he will take a leadership
role in moving this process forward in the next Congress.
____________________