[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.

                          ____________________