[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 51 (Thursday, March 26, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2030-S2031]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DIPLOMACY, DEVELOPMENT, AND NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Appropriations Subcommittee on the
Department of State and Foreign Operations has a long history of
bipartisanship. Over the years, I have served as either chairman or
ranking member, and I am pleased that cooperation between Republicans
and Democrats is as strong today as it has ever been.
I want to commend Senator Graham, the chairman of the subcommittee,
who has been a passionate defender of the budget for international
affairs as a key component of our national security strategy. He
understands that the use of military power is often an insufficient--
indeed inappropriate--way to solve problems or protect our security.
There are times when the use of military force is necessary, but
diplomacy and development can be a cost-effective investment to avoid
the far more costly and dangerous deployment of U.S. troops.
Earlier today, the subcommittee heard testimony from five outstanding
private sector witnesses on this very subject--Bill Gates, co-founder
of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; Ben Affleck, co-founder of
the Eastern Congo Initiative; ADM James Stavridis, former Supreme
Allied Commander, Europe, former Commander of U.S. Southern Command,
and current dean of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts
University; Scott Ford, founder of Westrock Coffee Company and the
Rwanda Trading Company; and John Megrue, chairman of Apax Partners
U.S., chairman of Born Free, chairman of the Business Leadership
Council for a Generation Born HIV Free, and a director of Millennium
Promise and of Grameen America.
Each of these witnesses made a compelling case for increased funding
for the international affairs budget. They gave inspiring examples of
how partnerships between the U.S. Agency for International Development
and civil society organizations in poor countries have brought dramatic
improvements to the lives of local people, and more open and stable
societies.
In a world that is perhaps more dangerous and unpredictable as any
time since World War II, we have a chance to help promote economic
growth and political stability, and in doing so build sustainable
foreign partners. It is therefore ironic that today we were presented
with an amendment, offered by the junior Senator from Kentucky, to
slash the international affairs budget by nearly 50 percent for the
purpose of bolstering defense spending, even though the Pentagon is
among the strongest supporters of diplomacy and development.
Fortunately that amendment was resoundingly defeated by a vote of 96 to
4.
At just 1 percent of total Federal spending, this account cannot and
should not serve as a bill payer for other priorities. Nor will
reducing foreign assistance benefit our military. In fact, the opposite
is true, and I commend Senator Graham for calling today's hearing in
order to explain why.
I ask unanimous consent that an October 21, 2014 op-ed by retired
Gen. Anthony Zinni and retired ADM James Stavridis, entitled Fighting
Extremism Requires Foreign Aid, Too be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[Oct. 21, 2014]
Fighting Extremism Requires Foreign Aid, Too
(By Gen. Anthony Zinni and Adm. James Stavridis)
The American people are justifiably alarmed at the rise of
ISIS and their unspeakable atrocities that are further
destabilizing parts of the Middle East. The threats to our
allies in the region like Israel and Jordan are real, as is
the potential for terrors attacks here on American soil.
But the hard truth is that these terror threats staring us
square in the eye cannot be resolved by military power
alone--nor can it end the cycle of other security-related
challenges occurring in Ukraine, the South China Sea and in
parts of Central America, just to name a few.
The important lessons we learned in our military careers is
that countering the threats to our nation require
comprehensive responses that utilize all our elements of
national power--military and non-military. An indispensable
part of the non-military toolkit is foreign aid--one of the
least appreciated and yet vital means for advancing America's
interests around the world.
Today's battles require melding our military power with
civilian efforts to provide humanitarian assistance and
support the creation of well-functioning governance systems
and civil society, build infrastructure, coalesce diverse
nations around common goals, and promote economic
development. In short, everything that is necessary to
improve the long-term prospects of a nation and keep
extremists from exploiting misery and desperation.
These lessons were made clear after World War II. Through
the Marshall Plan and the creation of Bretton Woods
institutions, the United States helped to rebuild the
economies of our former enemies on the battlefield, Germany
and Japan, who are now strong and valuable contributors to
the global economy and security. The same holds true for
South Korea. None of this came cheap or easy, but we've
reaped the rewards through decades of peace and stability in
these regions. More recently, American-led initiatives in
Colombia and the Balkans have made significant progress in
bringing stability and economic growth after years of
conflict.
The recent status of forces agreement between the United
States and Afghanistan is a good first step toward creating
stability and prosperity in Afghanistan, which is in our
vital national interest. Our efforts will be led by the State
Department in diplomacy and USAID and other civilian agencies
in helping to strengthen governance, rebuild the economy and
educational systems, and move farmers away from growing
poppies. These are roles our diplomatic services and
development agencies, with the support of our military, are
best equipped to play.
For all these reasons, our nation, at long last, needs to
reject misguided narratives that question the value of
foreign aid. The opinion polls consistently showing the
American people favor cutting and even eliminating foreign
aid are deeply troubling--and are often based on wildly
inflated estimates of what we spend in the first place: one
percent of the federal budget.
Make no mistake, the money spent on these programs can save
countless dollars and lives by averting more costly military
involvement and humanitarian crises. That's why we see these
programs as the difference between preventative care and
trauma care. As former Defense Secretary Robert Gates
memorably said, ``Development is a lot cheaper than sending
soldiers.''
The world has changed dramatically since the Cold War when
we began our military
[[Page S2031]]
service, and so have the threats confronting our nation.
That's why we must employ all the means of American influence
and power, including strong and effective foreign aid. We're
confident the return on that investment is an essential
contribution to our national security.
General Anthony Zinni, USMC (Ret.) is the former Commander
in Chief of U.S. Central Command. Admiral James Stavridis,
USN (Ret.) is former NATO Supreme Allied Commander for Europe
and Dean of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts
University. Both are co-chairs of the National Security
Advisory Council of the US Global Leadership Coalition, a
broad-based coalition of more than 400 businesses and NGOs
that supports a smart power foreign policy.
____________________