[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3451-3452]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS BUDGET

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, we are living through one of the most 
important transformations in the history of the modern world. Some have 
likened the wave of protests sweeping the Middle East to the 
revolutions of 1848, which changed Europe's political landscape 
forever. They certainly call to mind the dramatic events of 1989, when 
the nations of Eastern Europe threw off the yoke of communism to 
embrace free markets and democracy. Like those upheavals, there is no 
doubt that the events of this year will be studied for decades to come.
  The challenges we face are great. We are being called upon to forge 
new relationships in a part of the world that has been and will remain 
vital to our national security. And we have been given the opportunity 
to demonstrate conclusively to the young men and women of the Muslim 
world and beyond that al-Qaida's belief that change requires violence 
and radicalization is wrong.
  But, even as we try to navigate these momentous developments, we are 
contemplating drastic cuts to our international affairs programs. I 
understand that we face a budget crisis in our own country. But we can 
either pay now to help brave people build a better, democratic future 
for themselves, or we will certainly pay later with increased threats 
to our own national security.
  The international affairs budget lays the foundation for our ability 
to fulfill our responsibilities abroad. The approximately $50 billion 
that funds all our diplomats, development professionals, embassies, 
missions, consular services, global health programs, food aid, and 
disaster relief is a tiny investment for the great return we receive. 
Consider that this year we will spend approximately $700 billion on our 
military. By contrast, the international affairs budget is less than 
one-tenth of the Pentagon's. As Secretary Gates once pointed out, if 
you took the entire Foreign Service roster, you could barely crew one 
aircraft carrier.
  And yet our diplomats are serving on the frontlines of multiple 
revolutions and wars. They are making vital contributions in 
Afghanistan, and in Iraq they are planning the transition from a 
military mission to a diplomatic one so that we can cement the 
political progress that has cost hundreds of billions of dollars and 
thousands of American lives.
  In Africa, they are helping to midwife the birth of a new nation in 
South Sudan, to resolve the situation in Darfur, and, as we make 
progress on those fronts, to forge a new relationship with the 
government in Khartoum. They are leading the fight against global 
challenges, like nuclear proliferation and climate change. And in 
countless communities around the world they are providing essential 
humanitarian assistance preventing the spread of cholera in Haiti, 
distributing food to refugees in northern Kenya, and providing shelter 
to flood victims in Pakistan.
  This is not a time for America to pull back from the world. This is a 
time to step forward.
  Yet H.R. 1 imposes draconian cuts that would completely undermine our 
core national security priorities and our humanitarian commitments. The 
bill threatens our ability to stabilize Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq 
by slashing economic support funds by $2.2 billion, or nearly 30 
percent below fiscal year 2011 levels. In Afghanistan, for example, 
these cuts would make it extremely difficult to support high-priority 
infrastructure programs that are critical to our counterinsurgency and 
stabilization efforts. And they would curtail our ability to support 
governance, economic development programs, and basic services to 
districts cleared by the military.
  H.R. 1 would also threaten our efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan by 
zeroing out funding to meet our obligation to take up the U.S. shares 
in the Asian Development Bank, ADB. If we don't provide funding by 
April of this year, we will give up our leadership position at ADB and 
allow Chinese influence at the bank to surpass our own. The impact of 
that loss of influence cannot be overstated. The ADB funds projects 
throughout Pakistan and Afghanistan, supporting U.S. efforts in this 
critical region. GEN David Petraeus himself wrote to Treasury Secretary 
Timothy Geithner to praise the Asian Development Bank for supporting 
U.S. interests, stating that ``strong partnership with the ADB is part 
of our overall United States purpose and goals in these areas of 
critical importance.''
  The House bill also cuts our humanitarian aid by 50 percent, 
decimating our ability to provide food, shelter, and medicine after 
natural disasters and putting hundreds of thousands of lives at risk. 
In Pakistan, USAID would be unable to meet emergency and recovery needs 
in the south, where an estimated 4 million people remain displaced and 
require critical support. In Haiti, over 1 million displaced persons 
living in transitional shelters may lose funding and support. And with 
these cuts, more than 1.6 million internally displaced persons in 
Darfur will not receive critical health care, access to water, or help 
in meeting other basic needs.
  H.R. 1 decreases global health funding by over $1 billion, which 
means that over 400,000 people who would have been able to enroll in 
life-saving treatment programs through PEPFAR will now linger on 
waiting lists as their HIV diagnosis becomes a death sentence. It also 
means that 300,000 orphans and children will not receive care and 
support, and that 100,000 women who would have received medication to 
prevent the transmission of HIV to their newborn children will not, 
resulting in tens of thousands of babies that will be born HIV-
positive.
  H.R. 1 also slashes support for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, 
Tuberculosis, and Malaria. The Global Fund is a public-private 
partnership where every American tax dollar is leveraged twice over by 
the rest of the world. Its programs are also deeply intertwined with 
U.S. efforts: In Haiti, for example, Global Fund grants support the 
purchase of anti-retroviral drugs for AIDS patients, while PEPFAR 
ensures their delivery to patients. Thus, these drastic reductions to 
the Global Fund will affect U.S. efforts as well.
  Our global health programs represent some of our most successful and 
effective international policies. In Pakistan, as I discussed today 
with Bill Gates, working with the government there, we could eliminate 
polio entirely. Our malaria programs have already virtually eliminated 
that killer of children in parts of Africa. The Centers for Disease 
Control are working to reduce the spread of drug-resistant diseases, 
such as tuberculosis, before they come to our own shores. Cutting off 
these programs is poor foreign policy, it is poor public health policy, 
and it stands in sharp contradiction to American values.
  The House bill also cuts nearly two-thirds of the funds devoted to 
promoting clean energy and increasing resilience to climate change in 
the most vulnerable regions of the world. This includes eliminating 
funding for the climate investment funds, which support exports of 
clean energy technology, help developing countries respond to the 
impacts of climate change, and promote increased carbon sequestration 
from forests. H.R. 1 also eliminates government positions needed to 
negotiate international agreements on climate change that are favorable 
to the United States, while ensuring that other nations live up to 
their commitments to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
  H.R. 1 also slashes food and education for the world's poorest 
children by 50 percent. It eliminates feeding programs for 18 million 
of the world's poorest and hungriest people, and approximately 2.5 
million young children benefiting from the McGovern-Dole program would 
lose their daily school meal. Another 15 million people, primarily 
women and children, would lose access to the sustenance provided 
through title II. These cuts are not abstractions. These are people.
  The House bill would even eliminate fiscal year 2011 funding for the 
United States Institute of Peace, USIP. USIP is more than a Washington 
think tank. Created by Congress and President Ronald Reagan, it is a 
working instrument, utilized by the Department of

[[Page 3452]]

Defense as well as the Department of State. Defunding USIP would 
significantly reduce America's ability to find nonviolent solutions to 
conflict, just as we are trying to resolve wars in Afghanistan and 
Iraq. USIP's personnel operate on the ground in dangerous areas where 
America's security is threatened. For example, in 2007 USIP's 
reconciliation efforts between Shia authorities and Sunni sheiks helped 
dramatically reduce U.S. troop deaths in the ``Triangle of Death'' near 
Baghdad. That in turn allowed the U.S. Army to reduce its presence in 
the area by about 2,000 troops and save a significant amount of money. 
In a letter to the Office of Management and Budget, General Petraeus 
called this a ``striking success story.''
  I have long been impressed with USIP's work in Sudan, where the 
Institute's training in electoral violence prevention contributed to 
the relatively peaceful referendum and the low levels of violence in 
its aftermath. USIP is now actively assisting in the development of a 
new constitution for Southern Sudan through its Rule of Law Program. 
Recognizing the volatility of the north/south border areas and the 
potential for an outbreak of contagious violence, USIP has instituted a 
cross-border grazing corridor project and designed a popular 
consultations process in the troubled border states of Blue Nile and 
Southern Kordofan.
  In Pakistan, another area of great concern to me, USIP is developing 
a network of conflict management facilitators to work at the local 
level, training Pakistani parliamentarians and women leaders in 
conflict resolution and developing a curriculum for schools based on 
principles of gender equality, tolerance, pluralism, and peace.
  Under the Senate substitute, USIP's funding would be reduced by 
almost 20 percent. But any greater reduction would threaten this 
Federal institute that has proven it saves American lives and money. 
The drastic action of the House to defund USIP must not stand.
  These sorts of severe cuts, which will reduce our capacity from 
Afghanistan to Sudan, from war zones to earthquake zones, will do 
almost nothing to rein in our budget deficit. But they will costs 
thousands of lives overseas, and they will increase the threats to our 
own country. At a time of great challenge to American interests abroad, 
we must step up at home and provide the vital funds that our diplomats 
need.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                             U.S. Central Command,


                                      Office of the Commander,

                               MacDill AFB, FL, February 11, 2009.
     Mr. Rob Goldberg,
     Director, International Affairs Division, National Security 
         Programs, The Office of Management and Budget, 17th 
         Street, NW., Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Goldberg, I would like to underscore the 
     importance of the U.S. Institute for Peace (USIP) to the 
     missions the United States is currently pursuing in Iraq and 
     Afghanistan. While I have long been an avid reader of USIP's 
     analytical products, which are second to none in tracking the 
     challenges we face in both countries and in outlining policy 
     options, I have more recently been impressed with USIP's on-
     the-ground peacebuilding efforts.
       In Iraq, the Institute stepped up to the plate beginning in 
     August 2007 to assist the 10th Mountain Division in a 
     reconciliation effort in Mahmoudiya, a community on the 
     southern edge of Baghdad that was once known as the 
     ``Triangle of Death.'' Since then, General Odierno and I have 
     often cited Mahmoudiya as a striking success story. USIP's 
     continuing reconciliation efforts at the community level, 
     especially in Diyala and Ninewa, as well as at the national 
     level in Baghdad, hold great promise for the future.
       In Afghanistan, USIP's work on the informal justice system 
     has been invaluable as we work toward improving the rule of 
     law at the provincial level. Their plans for reconciliation 
     efforts at the community level on the Afghanistan/Pakistan 
     border are likewise a potential key to success in the 
     enormous challenges we face.
       USIP's experience working closely with the U.S. military 
     will be a great asset in developing stronger unity of effort 
     between civilian and military elements of government In fact, 
     I hope soon to see U.S. military officers training alongside 
     civilian governmental and nongovernmental counterparts in 
     USIP's headquarters at 23rd and Constitution. Their facility 
     is not just an important symbol of our nation's commitment to 
     peace; it is also home to a wonderful training center that we 
     hope to leverage to increase understanding and unity of 
     effort in today's complex operations.
       We can be proud of what USIP has done in the past, and I 
     look forward with confidence to the contributions the 
     Institute will make in the future.
           Sincerely,

                                            David H. Petraeus,

                                      General, United States Army,
     Commanding.

                          ____________________