[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 11512-11513]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           FOREIGN AID REFORM

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as the administration considers ways to 
reform our foreign aid programs, I want to call attention to a recent 
Op Ed piece by a Vermont friend who has over 30 years of experience 
dealing with these issues.
  Dr. George Burrill founded Associates in Rural Development--ARD--in 
Burlington in 1977 and since then he has brought Vermont common sense 
and values to international aid and development work. Since its 
founding, it has implemented some 600 projects around the world 
including extensive work with the U.S. Agency for International 
Development. Today ARD, a for-profit international development firm, 
has $100 million in annual revenue operating out of 43 field offices 
around the world.
  Throughout his career, Dr. Burrill has thought long and hard about 
ways to make foreign aid more effective. In his recent piece in the 
Burlington Free Press, a copy of which I will ask to be printed in the 
Record, Dr. Burrill calls for a ``modernization'' of our thinking about 
foreign aid; the creation of a global development strategy to give U.S. 
foreign aid agencies a way to effectively evaluate past actions and 
determine what reform is needed; and tools for evaluating progress. 
Beyond that, he proposes developing a ``coherent strategy that will 
foster economic opportunity'' in the developing world, enacting 
legislation that ``elevates development as a foreign policy pillar 
equal with diplomacy and military defense,'' and creating an 
independent executive agency bringing together the relevant Federal 
agencies and departments into a single group ``giving the executive 
branch the authority it needs to develop solutions to 21st century 
problems while providing accountability to Congress.''
  Foreign aid reform means many things to different people, but there 
is one thing we all agree on--it is overdue. Dr. Burrill's voice is one 
that should be listened to, and I commend him for speaking out.
  I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

            [From the Burlington Free Press, Apr. 30, 2009]

      My Turn: Investing in Smart Power Is Foreign Aid Well Spent

                          (By George Burrill)

       During his campaign, Barack Obama called for salvaging 
     America's international reputation. Rebuilding international 
     respect and trust, he correctly maintained, is vital to our 
     future security and economic well-being. The president's new 
     budget proposal indicates that he intends to follow through 
     with this promise. Americans should be encouraged and 
     relieved that the budget supports an increased emphasis on 
     nonmilitary responses to our security and foreign policy 
     interests.
       A major component of nonmilitary response is our foreign 
     assistance and development programs. They are critical in the 
     struggle against global poverty, open markets for our 
     products, spread our basic values, and help address global 
     environmental and economic problems. In the 21st century, 
     America needs smart power, as robust a diplomatic and 
     international development capability as it has military 
     strength. Now is the time to modernize our thinking about how 
     to relate to the developing world.
       There are several steps the Obama administration must take 
     in order to achieve the promise of a bold makeover. These 
     steps are consistent with the effort to make government more 
     efficient and to ensure that the American public is getting 
     more services and impact for the dollar. And they won't cost 
     anything.
       First, along with the redesign of our national security and 
     foreign policy, which the president has already vigorously 
     embarked upon, government needs to simultaneously create a 
     global development strategy. We need a coherent strategy that 
     will foster increases in economic opportunity for the bottom 
     billion of Earth's residents and help eliminate the 
     conditions that foster conflict in the developing world. When 
     the United States leads on international development and 
     relief issues, it enhances our international standing and 
     strengthens our relationships with allies. It creates 
     improved possibilities for America's global agenda.
       Second, the White House needs to work with Congress and 
     representatives of the broader development community in 
     crafting new legislation that elevates development as a 
     foreign policy pillar, equal with diplomacy and military 
     defense. We currently have an outdated, inadequate set of 
     legislation; international foreign assistance efforts that 
     are spread across at least 20 different agencies (which has 
     created competing fiefdoms and inefficiency). No single 
     person or authority is clearly in charge that the president 
     and Congress can hold accountable. New legislation would 
     provide the congressional mandate for streamlined 
     organizational structures and coherent policies, and give the 
     executive branch the clear authority it needs to develop 
     solutions to 21st-century challenges while providing 
     accountability to Congress.
       Third, a modernized set of foreign assistance policies and 
     operations must be placed in a single, streamlined, 
     consolidated and empowered U.S. development agency. The ideal 
     option for streamlining and eliminating the current, 
     inefficient, multi-agency situation would be to create a new 
     Cabinet-level department for global development, as is the 
     case in England. Or the White House could work with the 
     Congress and create a new subcabinet, independent executive 
     agency. Either option should merge all international 
     development and humanitarian programs into a single entity. 
     Agencies such as the U.S. Agency for International 
     Development, the Millennium Challenge Corp., the President's 
     Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief and all the international 
     development programs of various agencies including those in 
     the Department of Defense should be merged.
       As a candidate, Obama indicated his support for these 
     actions, but there have been no recent public comments by the 
     administration about any planned reorganization. Efficiency 
     calls for it.
       America cannot afford an uncoordinated, confused or second-
     best approach to our relations with the developing world. Our 
     foreign assistance programs have immense importance in 
     addressing global poverty, eliminating the environments that 
     help create terrorists and fostering the advancement of

[[Page 11513]]

     a sound global economy. The Obama administration and Congress 
     must not miss this opportunity to modernize our foreign 
     assistance infrastructure. Getting the most out of the new 
     budget demands it.

                          ____________________