[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 1384-1385]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      PROPOSED CUTS TO FOREIGN AID

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Rothman) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROTHMAN of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, some of my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle, the Republican side of the aisle, have 
suggested that America would be better off if we cut out foreign aid.
  In my opinion, there could be nothing further from the truth, Mr. 
Speaker. Cutting foreign aid from the United States to our allies and 
others we want to work with around the world is vital to the U.S.'s 
national security.
  I'll say it again. Our foreign aid that we give out, which, by the 
way, what's the percentage of foreign aid in our budget compared to the 
whole budget? It's 1 percent. It's actually less than 1 percent. Some 
people think it's 20 or 30 percent. It's less than 1 percent of our 
whole budget. And what do we do with that foreign aid? We make 
alliances with trading partners. We make alliances with strategic 
military partners all over the world. I think most Americans understand 
we still live in a very dangerous world and we need allies and friends 
and partners.
  By the way, what does that foreign aid budget include? It includes 
money for embassies and diplomats, interpreters. Now, would we be 
better off in a big complex, interconnected, hostile world if we didn't 
have embassies all over the world? If we didn't have people who 
understood foreign languages? If we didn't have people who had lived in 
these countries, who are Americans who lived in these countries but 
nonetheless understood the cultures and way of thinking and history of 
these other nations whom we are not yet friends with or whom we are 
friends with but want to be better friends with, or countries on the 
fence whom we want to bring over to democracy and to Western values?
  I think we'd be far poorer if we did not have a foreign aid budget. 
And don't just take my word; take the word, for example, of the head of 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, who said to Congress last 
year, the more significant the cuts to foreign aid, the longer military 
operations will take, and the more lives will be at risk. That's the 
head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, not some crazy, wild-eyed, naive 
person, but the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff saying cutting 
diplomacy in the State Department and foreign aid threatens the lives 
of our warfighters, of our men and women in uniform.
  Or how about when Secretary of Defense Gates, then under President 
Bush, said in 2008, referring to cuts, proposed cuts to foreign aid, 
that it has become clear that America's civilian institutions of 
diplomacy and development have been chronically undermanned and 
underfunded for far too long. This is Defense Secretary Gates, under 
former President Bush, relative to what we traditionally spend on the 
military and, more important, relative to the responsibilities and 
challenges our Nation faces around the world.
  My goodness. Tunisia, Egypt, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, North Korea, 
China--to say now is the time to have fewer people understanding 
foreign languages, fewer embassies, fewer diplomats to try to avert war 
and nuclear proliferation when it constitutes less than 1 percent of 
the budget already? That's going to solve our problems? That not only 
won't solve our economic problems, that will create more and more 
danger to U.S. national security.
  That is why, while we need to cut spending, while we need to get rid 
of waste, while we need to find additional sources of revenue, like the 
unnecessary $4 billion that this Congress now gives already to the oil 
and gas and energy industries, to do what--$4 billion to do what? To 
encourage them to look

[[Page 1385]]

for energy. Well, I thought they were making a profit at that already, 
the greatest profits in their histories. Yes, they are. So why give 
them $4 billion in subsidies? Let's use that for other purposes. Cut 
taxes--use that to reduce our deficit. Use that not to cut foreign aid, 
which returns probably 1,000 times per dollar than what we contribute 
in terms of the 1 percent of our budget that goes to diplomats, 
embassies, the State Department, and the meager foreign aid we provide 
to our essential military allies who are helping us protect against al 
Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood, who are helping us protect our vital 
sea lanes and economic lifeblood around the world.
  I look forward to working with my Republican colleagues, but 
priorities are priorities, and we ought to make cuts where they make 
sense, not where they jeopardize U.S. national security.

                          ____________________