[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E885-E886]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

COMMENTS TO INTERACTION ANNUAL FORUM

______

HON. BETTY McCOLLUM

of minnesota

in the house of representatives

Monday, May 12, 2008

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, last week I had the
opportunity to speak at InterAction's Annual Forum in the Washington
area regarding the importance of modernizing U.S. foreign assistance.
With 165 member organizations, InterAction is the largest coalition of
U.S.-based international nongovernmental organizations focused on the
world's poor and vulnerable people. I would like to enter my remarks
from this event into the Congressional Record.

Comments to InterAction Annual Forum

Thank you for the invitation to be here today. I'd like to
thank InterAction's President, Sam Worthington, along with
Todd Shelton and Evan Elliot for being great partners and
extraordinary advocates for your organizations and people in
need around the world.
Like all of you, I strongly believe foreign assistance and
development are part of the essential work of the U.S.
Government and essential to our country's role as a super
power.
I support a back-to-basics approach to development. For me,
investments in child and maternal health, clean water, basic
education, family planning, agriculture and food security are
the foundation of successful long-term development. This is
the work your organizations do everyday.
In my travels to places like Tanzania, Malawi, Afghanistan
and Peru I have seen both real human need and real successes
from U.S. development investments. And it was in these
travels that I met you--smart, committed, passionate people
giving hope and opportunity to people who often have very
little.
Today, I want to talk with you about our present
challenge--doing development better. It's time to modernize
and strengthen U.S. foreign assistance to meet the challenges
and realities of the 21st century. I know modernizing foreign
assistance is a priority for InterAction and your efforts to
inform and educate Congress are important and appreciated.
The 9/11 Commission predicted future threats to America
would be transnational rather than international. We didn't
have to wait long. A new generation of moral and national
security challenges have already reshaped our foreign policy,
including: terrorism, ethnic conflicts, food security, global
health threats, climate change . . . the list goes on.
Confronting this new generation of challenges demands that
we make foreign assistance especially development--central to
our foreign policy.
The Pentagon appears to be convinced. Last November,
Secretary of Defense Gates said, `One of the most important
lessons from our experience in Iraq, Afghanistan, and
elsewhere has been the decisive role reconstruction,
development, and governance plays in any meaningful, long-
term success.'
Our top security officials know that sandals on the ground
today can prevent boots on the ground tomorrow. Development
is the right thing to do and it's a smart investment.
The direct link between development and security is now
national policy. President Bush's 2006 National Security
Strategy states, `Development reinforces diplomacy and
defense, reducing long-term threats to our national security
by helping to build stable, prosperous and peaceful
societies.'
Foreign assistance is more important to America's national
security and foreign policy than ever before. But our Cold-
War mechanisms aren't up to the challenge.
The structure of U.S. foreign assistance needs
modernization. Today, more than 20 executive branch agencies
have responsibility for administering foreign assistance
programs. This means duplication, confusion

[[Page E886]]

and inefficiency. But the problem goes beyond structure.
What is the overarching strategy guiding U.S. foreign
assistance? The 1961 Foreign Assistance Act is still the
basis for policy. Nearly 50 years of amendments have burdened
the Act with conflicting objectives and priorities. Your
organizations feel the impact of this confusion in the field,
as do the families and communities you serve.
We need a new strategy focused on today's global realities.
We need to find agreement on a coherent foreign assistance
strategy and we need to create the necessary structure to
implement it.
We all know there are strains on the current system. Due in
part to a lack of confidence and capacity in civilian
agencies, the U.S. military has become a major player in
development. I want to read you a quote from last week's
Financial Times article entitled: ``US military seeks more
Afghan aid funds.''
`U.S. forces in east Afghanistan are already involved in a
variety of non-military activities, from road-building to
improving farming techniques . . . The Commanders' Emergency
Response Fund allows battalion commanders to spend up to
twenty-five thousand dollars on anyone project without
seeking permission from higher command. Taskforce chiefs can
spend up to two-hundred thousand.'
How many of you have this kind of discretion with U.S.
funds? Our troops are the best in the world, but they aren't
development specialists. Major development projects need to
be implemented by development professionals. If civilian
agencies aren't working we need to fix them, not ignore them.
If there aren't enough civilian personnel, we need to hire
and deploy more of them.
Expanding global security and prosperity in the 21st
century requires a new American commitment to foreign
assistance. That means being smarter about our strategy,
structure and resources. We need comprehensive modernization.
Half-way reforms won't cut it.
Blue-ribbon panels, commissions, think tanks and NGOs have
reached the same conclusion. There's agreement that:
resources should be matched to objectives; results should be
measured; the Government's civilian capacity should be
expanded; the number of agencies responsible for development
should be reduced; and development should be elevated to be
an equal partner with defense and diplomacy.
Today, development isn't an equl partner with defense and
diplomacy--it's not equal strategically or structurally. It's
often, at best, a secondary concern. There are different
ideas about how to elevate development. Some suggest the
solution is an expanded role for development within the State
Department. Others may want to build up USAID to its former
glory.
I strongly believe the U.S. needs a cabinet-level
Department of Development. A cabinet-level Secretary of
Development could advocate directly to the President for
long-term development investments, aid effectiveness, and
coordination across agencies.
The national security policy of the United States is clear:
defense, diplomacy, and development are the essential
components of America's engagement with the world. It's time
to translate that policy into reality by elevating
development as a foreign policy priority.
Some of my colleagues may disagree. I welcome that, because
it means they've joined the debate. Many Members of Congress
haven't. Many Members still don't fully appreciate the
linkages between national security and foreign assistance.
Chairman Berman announced that rewriting the Foreign
Assistance Act will be the top priority for his Committee
next year. Because of his leadership, the debate over
modernization will take place. To be successful in the House,
and the Senate, and the White House with this huge effort,
we'll need a broad, bipartisan consensus that U.S. foreign
assistance is vital to America's national security and too
important not to fix.
And to be successful, a commitment to change and
modernization needs to be a priority for the next
Administration. This means we need to make sure the
Presidential campaigns are engaged. Those of you with
advocacy arms in your organization should be asking the
Presidential candidates three questions: Do you believe
foreign assistance is important to America's future role in
the world? How will you elevate development to realize the
goals of U.S. national security strategy? Will you support
modernizing foreign assistance to meet the needs of the 21st
century?
And we need to be asking candidates for the Senate and the
House the same questions.
Friends, this is an important moment. You cannot be shy or
quiet.
We have a unique opportunity to create a strategy for U.S.
foreign assistance rooted in innovation, coordination, and an
understanding of culture and the complexity of local
conditions. We have the responsibility to make the needs of
the world's poor a strategic U.S. priority.
Together, we can get more for every dollar invested, by
finding ways to better leverage bilateral, multilateral,
private sector and NGO investments.
And together, we can refocus our nation's global
development policy on achieving quality outcomes for families
in the world's poorest countries.
This is our work and I look forward to the challenge ahead.
Thank you.

____________________