Hillary Clinton Promotes FY11 International Affairs Budget in Congressional Testimony Marathon
3/2/10
Leave a comment
Full Hearing Webcast Coverage:
- Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations (webcast)
- Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing (CSPAN)
- House Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations (webcast)
- House Foreign Affairs Committee (webcast)
Secretary Clinton’s opening remarks and video:
- Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations
- Senate Foreign Relations Committee
- House Foreign Affairs Committee
- House Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operation
Written opening remarks:
- Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations (not yet available, see webcast)
- Senate Foreign Relations Committee (Kerry, Lugar)
- House Foreign Affairs Committee (Berman, Ros-Lehtinen not yet available)
- House Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations (Lowey, Granger not yet available)
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified last week before four separate congressional committees on the FY11 president’s budget request for the State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development. While the hearings covered a vast array of issues, Secretary Clinton and Democrats and Republicans on the committees signaled the importance of U.S. development and diplomacy as they tried to strike a delicate balance between support for U.S. international affairs programs — still a small portion of the federal budget — and the growing need to justify any spending increases during a time of domestic economic stress.
Secretary Clinton’s testimony before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, House Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations and the House Foreign Affairs Committee emphasized the administration’s continued efforts to elevate diplomacy and development as core pillars of U.S. foreign policy. Clinton told the committees:
I know that this is a time of great economic strain for our fellow Americans. And as a former member of Congress, I know what this means for the people you each represent. For every dollar we spend, we have to show results. That’s why this budget must support programs vital to our national security, our national interests and out leadership in the world, while guarding against waste, duplication, and irrelevancy. And I believe it achieves those objectives.
Clinton highlighted three areas where the budget request makes significant new investments:
- Frontline states. Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan receive the bulk of the FY11 budget increases.
- Investing in development. The budget makes targeted investments in fragile societies, which Clinton argued “bear heavily on our own security and prosperity.” The administration also requests increases for the Global health Initiative, food security, climate change, investments in women and girls, and humanitarian assistance.
- Recruit, train and empower the right people for the job. The budget allows for expanding the Foreign Service, staffing the standby element of the Civilian Reserve Corps, ending reliance on contractors, and expanding oversight.
All of these investments, Clinton said, are “designed to enhance American security, help people in need and give the American people a strong return on their investments.” She said, “one thing should be very clear from this budget: The State Department and USAID are taking a lead in carrying out the United States’ foreign policy and national security agenda.” She added that the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, set to come out this summer, will help match resources to priorities and ensure the programs are effective and accountable.
Members of Congress asked Secretary Clinton about a panoply of issues from geopolitics to gefilte fish (literally) and everything in between: Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Cuba, Israel, Somalia, Sudan, Liberia, Armenia, Tonga, Samoa, Guantanamo, terrorism, abortion, drug policies, export controls, and free trade agreements, just to name a few. (It was about midway through this list that my colleague suggested we send Secretary Clinton a sweatband and some Gatorade to help her get through the two days of testimony.) Despite the broad array of topics and countries that are increasingly important to U.S. national interests, security and prosperity, there were a handful of common themes:
1. Development and diplomacy are in our national security interest. Senator Kerry said the resources in the international affairs budget are “vitally needed for our national security” and citing Defense Secretary Robert Gates, argued that failing to invest in places like Afghanistan means the U.S. will likely “pay a higher price in the end.” Rep. Berman argued that “over the long run, these civilian efforts are much more cost-effective than putting our brave soldiers in harm’s way.” Senator Lugar made the case that our international affairs budget must deal with immediate problems and address negative trends that could ultimately “undermine domestic recovery and solvency.” He argued that global economic stress is closely linked to international political, economic and security instability and can undercut our own economy’s ability to recover, putting further pressure on the national budget.
Because the international affairs budget is considered part of the national security budget, it is not subject to the domestic discretionary spending freeze. Most members of Congress embraced the international affairs portfolio as part of U.S. national security spending; Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen was one of the few who suggested that “in light of our fiscal situation, the international affairs budget should also be subject to selective freezes of slower rates of spending.”
2. Foreign affairs spending comprises a tiny portion of the budget. Though many members of Congress hit the same message that the international affairs budget is just a “fraction of a fraction” and “just 1.4 percent of the overall budget,” Senator Leahy summed it up best: “For the remainder of the world, the increase is about the rate of inflation. And as the president has pointed out, the total request for foreign operations is about 1 percent of the entire federal budget. If we cut all these programs, it wouldn’t make a dent in our deficit, but it would cause many other problems around the world, especially as it affects America’s leadership position. These funds are all we have besides U.S. military to protect the security and other interests of the American people in an increasingly dangerous and divisive world.”
3. Tough economic times call for transparency and accountability to the American people. Again, several members echoed the need for increased transparency and accountability and to show the American people what they are getting for their U.S. development investments. Rep. Granger said we must “ensure that our tax dollars are used efficiently and in a transparent method,” and Rep. Lowey said “if we are to increase our assistance in this time of economic insecurity at home, we must ensure that every dollar is well spent.” Senator Lugar said strong implementation, monitoring and review mechanisms must be in place and that the Foreign Assistance Revitalization and Accountability Act (S.1524) “has garnered wide support because it strengthens USAID and emphasizes greater evaluation and transparency of our foreign assistance programs to ensure we maximize the dollars that are available.”
4. There is bipartisan support for U.S. foreign affairs engagement and programs. Senator Leahy said “As we listen to the complaints about broken government or paralysis in Washington, this is a bill that over the past number of years has had overwhelming bipartisan support.” Senator Lugar also spoke of the bipartisan support for the Foreign Assistance Revitalization and Accountability Act (S.1524), now supported by 24 Democrats and Republicans, 11 of whom are members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Senator Lugar said “this level of backing for a bill related to foreign assistance is extremely rare…I’m hopeful the executive branch will recognize that a bill cosponsored by a majority of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and nearly a quarter of the full Senate should be given substantial weight.”
5. There is interest and concern for the broader reviews of U.S. development and diplomacy policies, including around the MCC, trade and technology. Senator Menendez asked Secretary Clinton about the process, timeline and expected outcomes of the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR) to which he was told the QDDR would be completed this summer and that they will coordinate with Congress on the reforms they believe should be undertaken. Senator Lugar also said he was eager to review the QDDR and the Presidential Study Directive on U.S. Global Development Policy.
Senator Bennett asked whether the administration, as part of the review processes, might take steps to curb the independence of the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC). Bennett said he was impressed with his meeting with new MCC CEO Daniel Yohannes and that one of the MCC’s values has been that it is an independent agency with strong guidance from a board of directors. He also noted, with concern, that the MCC budget request was the lowest since it began. Secretary Clinton reassured Senator Bennett that “there have been no conversations that I have been part of or that I’m aware of about curbing the independence of the MCC.” She mentioned some of the small, legislative fixes the MCC is seeking and made clear that she does “want it to be seen as part of our overall efforts.” Secretary Clinton also stated that they are increasing the MCC budget over 2010. In this case, Senator Bennett and Secretary Clinton are both right: the FY11 request for the MCC is $1.28 billion which is 16 percent more than the FY10 enacted levels of $1.105 billion (point for Clinton), but is in fact lower than the FY10 request level which as my colleague Casey Dunning points out was $1.425 in FY10 and is also the lowest request level to date as the first MCC request in 2004 was $1.3 billion (two points for Senator Bennett).
Reps. Ros-Lehtinen and Mack both raised questions around U.S. free trade agreements, specifically with Colombia and Panama. Rep. Mack said he was “excited to hear in the State of the Union that this is something we can work on in a bipartisan fashion” and that he will be introducing legislation to push Congress to move on free trade issues. And Senator Gregg raised the question about whether we have “the best technology and best capability so that the support is there for the people…in the field.” It’s great that both of these issues were raised and they deserve more attention as the Congress and executive branch work together on U.S. development policy.
All in all, the hearings were the first steps in the long budgetary process and development policy reform efforts underway. They serve as a first opportunity for Congress and others to get more detail on the numbers and the policies and priorities behind them. I’m glad that in the mish-mash of topics, we still heard resounding support for investments in international affairs and many of the steps we all know we need to take—from more impact evaluation to better coordination across the U.S. government—to make sure we are getting the biggest bang for our buck. Let’s hope the hearings last week are the start of longer conversations and a joint process between the executive branch and Congress to reach the “grand bargain” many are hoping for on the mission, mandate and management of U.S. development, and foreign assistance, policy.
Next up: Raj Shah, USAID administrator, will testify before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Wednesday morning, March 3 and before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations on Thursday, March 4. What would you ask him if you were a member of Congress? And stay tuned, because MCC CEO Daniel Yohannes and U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator Eric Goosby will head to the Hill later this month to defend their agency budget requests.
Authors:
