Aid Trade-off D.A. ........................................................................................................................................................5
Top Shelf ..................................................................................................................................................................6
1NC Aid Trade-off 1.0 (Reform) .........................................................................................................................7
1NC Aid Trade-off 2.0 (Trade-off) .................................................................................................................... 10
2NC Impact Overview (Trade-off) .................................................................................................................... 14
Turns Leadership................................................................................................................................................ 16
**Reforms Version** .................................................................................................................................................. 18
**Uniqueness** ...................................................................................................................................................... 19
D 2nc – uniqueness wall (reform) ...................................................................................................................... 20
D 2nc – at: cuts already happened (reforms) ...................................................................................................... 22
Uniq: Yes Reform .............................................................................................................................................. 23
Uniq: Reforms Now ........................................................................................................................................... 24
Uniq: No Reform ............................................................................................................................................... 26
Uniq: More Reforms Key................................................................................................................................... 28
Info/Internal Stuff ........................................................................................................................................................ 29
What is Foreign Aid/Assistance? ....................................................................................................................... 30
EE= Bilateral Develop. Assistance .................................................................................................................... 31
Who delivers it ................................................................................................................................................... 32
Other Agencies Do Aid ...................................................................................................................................... 33
What is Aid? ...................................................................................................................................................... 34
Aid Budget FYI’s ............................................................................................................................................... 35
Uniq/FYI: Mexico budget .................................................................................................................................. 38
Links/FYI: Generic Mexico ............................................................................................................................... 40
Uniq/FYI: Latin America budget ....................................................................................................................... 42
Uniqueness/FYI General foreign aid budget ...................................................................................................... 44
Internals: State Dept Controls Food Aid ............................................................................................................ 46
**Uniqueness** ...................................................................................................................................................... 47
Uniqueness: Cuts Now ....................................................................................................................................... 48
Uniq: 2014 Budget Set ....................................................................................................................................... 49
AT: Sequestration Guts USAID ......................................................................................................................... 51
D 2nc – at: cuts already happened (tradeoff) ..................................................................................................... 52
Uniq: Cuts to Latin America Now ..................................................................................................................... 54
Uniq: Latin Aid Low Now ................................................................................................................................. 55
Uniq: No Aid Now ............................................................................................................................................. 56
Uniq: USAID Broke ........................................................................................................................................... 57
Uniq/Internals: USAID ripe for Trade-offs ........................................................................................................ 58
Internals: Top Chopping Block (2NC Wall) ...................................................................................................... 59
Uniq: Aid on Chopping Block ........................................................................................................................... 61
**Links** ............................................................................................................................................................... 62
2NC Link Wall (Trade-off) ................................................................................................................................ 63
2NC Link Wall (Reform) ................................................................................................................................... 67
Internals: at risk now (Good for Reforms Version)............................................................................................ 68
AT: No Link – Not USAID ................................................................................................................................ 69
D 2nc – at: n/l – no spending ............................................................................................................................. 70
AT: No Trade-off ............................................................................................................................................... 71
D 2nc – at: l/t – saves money ............................................................................................................................. 72
Links: Earmarks ................................................................................................................................................. 73
Links: Military Funding Trades-off ................................................................................................................... 75
Links: Aid Forces T/Off ..................................................................................................................................... 77
Links: Latin Am. T/Off ...................................................................................................................................... 78
Links: Food Aid T/Off ....................................................................................................................................... 79
Links: Country Aid T/Off .................................................................................................................................. 80
Links: Foreign Aid T/Off ................................................................................................................................... 82
Links/Internals: Plan Forces T/Off ..................................................................................................................... 83
Links: Mexico Border Security .......................................................................................................................... 84
Links: Border Security ....................................................................................................................................... 85
**Internals** .......................................................................................................................................................... 86
Internals: Trades-off with MENA ...................................................................................................................... 87
Links: USAID trades-off with other areas ......................................................................................................... 88
**Impacts** ............................................................................................................................................................ 89
Impact Internals: Various ................................................................................................................................... 90
Neg Impact Card ................................................................................................................................................ 91
Impacts: Laundry List ........................................................................................................................................ 92
Impacts: USAID k Innovation/Growth .............................................................................................................. 93
Impacts: Jobs/Exports ........................................................................................................................................ 94
Impacts: Stability/Conflict ................................................................................................................................. 96
Impacts: Climate ................................................................................................................................................ 97
Impacts: USAID k Climate ................................................................................................................................ 98
Impacts: Climate ................................................................................................................................................ 99
Internals: Reforms Solve Food Aid .................................................................................................................. 100
Impacts: National Security ............................................................................................................................... 101
Impacts: National Security ............................................................................................................................... 103
Impacts: Aid k Security .................................................................................................................................... 104
Impacts: MCC .................................................................................................................................................. 105
Impacts: Aid k U.S. Cred ................................................................................................................................. 106
Impacts: Foreign Affairs Good ........................................................................................................................ 107
Impacts: Aid k Stop Terror .............................................................................................................................. 108
Impacts: Health/Disease ................................................................................................................................... 109
Impacts: Israeli Aid .......................................................................................................................................... 110
Impacts: Food For Peace k Famine .................................................................................................................. 112
Impacts: Food for Peace ................................................................................................................................... 113
Impact defense: Assistance Fails...................................................................................................................... 119
Internals: USAID Effective .............................................................................................................................. 121
*****Feed the Future***** ...................................................................................................................................... 122
FTF on Chopping Block................................................................................................................................... 123
Impacts: Escalates (Food Wars) ....................................................................................................................... 124
Impacts: Biotech/Food Security ....................................................................................................................... 125
Turns Case: Leadership, Misc .......................................................................................................................... 126
Impacts: FTF k Biotech .................................................................................................................................... 128
Impacts: FTF k Moral Ob ................................................................................................................................ 129
Impacts: FTF solves Food Security .................................................................................................................. 130
Impacts: FTF k Famine .................................................................................................................................... 131
Impacts: Food Diplomacy ................................................................................................................................ 132
Impacts: Food Turns Trade .............................................................................................................................. 133
Impacts: Food Security .................................................................................................................................... 134
Cards to Tag ....................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
*****USAID Bad***** ............................................................................................................................................ 135
1NC Frontline .................................................................................................................................................. 136
*****Aff Answers***** ........................................................................................................................................... 143
Uniq: Overstretch Now .................................................................................................................................... 144
Uniq: Mexican Aid Increasing ......................................................................................................................... 146
New aid is coming............................................................................................................................................ 147
Aid is ineffective .............................................................................................................................................. 150
Energy Aid Increasing (Aff) ............................................................................................................................ 157
AT PEPFAR..................................................................................................................................................... 158
Reform Fails ..................................................................................................................................................... 159
Reform Bad ...................................................................................................................................................... 162
Misc ................................................................................................................................................................. 163
Uniq: Border Security Now ............................................................................................................................. 166
Misc ................................................................................................................................................................. 167
Thumpers ................................................................................................................................................................... 169
Thumper – General .......................................................................................................................................... 170
Thumper – Haiti ............................................................................................................................................... 171
Thumper – Pakistan ......................................................................................................................................... 172
Aid Trade-off D.A.
Top Shelf
1NC Aid Trade-off 1.0 (Reform)
A. USAID has trimmed it’s budget – reforms are underway but reduced Latin Aid is key
Morales 4/25
(“USAID chief defends budget in Congress,” pg online @ https://www.devex.com/en/news/usaid-chiefdefends-budget-in-congress/80790 //um-ef)
Why will 45 percent of food aid budget be spent to buy locally-produced food in crisis areas? Will cuts in HIV/AIDS funding erode progress in the fight against the desease?
Why is the U.S.
reducing its aid budget for Latin America and Caribbean? How far the USAID Forward reform truly moving forward? These were
USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah faced Congress on Wednesday to defend
President Barack Obama’s budget proposal for the agency in fiscal 2014. Appearing before the House appropriations and Senate
foreign relations committees, Shah churned out hard data and narrated anecdotes to defend the proposed 6 percent cut in the United
States foreign aid budget for next year. “The FY 2014 request for USAID managed or partially managed accounts is $20.4 billion, six percent below the total enacted funding
for FY 2012,” Shah said at one point. “ In this tough budget environment, USAID is committed to
maximizing the value of every dollar. We have made tough choices so that we are
working where we will have greatest impact, and shifting personnel and funding
resources towards programs that will achieve the most meaningful results. ” Food aid reform
a few of the hardline questions American lawmakers posed to
Perhaps the most talked-about reform during the budget hearings is how the United States is moving towards buying locally-produced food instead of purchasing American commodities and shipping these on
board U.S.-flagged vessels to crisis areas. Republican Sen. Bob Corker was concerned about what pushed the administration to rethink U.S. food aid policy: “What made you and the administration [decide] that
55 percent of the food aid is going to be spent in U.S.? How did you decide?” Over the past years, about 85 percent of food aid was tied to the purchase and shipping of American commodities. And that, Shah
noted, “gives us a little bit of flexibility about 15 percent.” But precisely that “little flexibility” is almost totally being absorbed in the escalating humanitarian crisis in Syria. Shah said: “As a result, there are a
number of other countries – the Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia, Pakistan – where we actually have to take children off of the nutrition support because we’re reverting from a more efficient locallyprocured food program to the more traditional U.S.-based program.” About 155,000 kids in Somalia will not receive nutritious food if United States sticks to its traditional food assistance, the USAID chief noted.
Besides, he explained, food aid costs too much not because more food is delivered to crisis areas, but because shipping costs have more than tripled. “We also want to have a renewed partnership with American
agriculture, a partnership that prioritizes high nutrition food products that America ought to have the scientific and technical lead in producing,” Shah said. Congressmen noted the shipping industry in particular
might be hurt by food aid reform. USAID shipping partners, Shah assured lawmakers, will not feel the shock. He said the government provides under the fiscal 2014 budget a transition support for the agency’s
the reform can be put into legislation if USAID is willing.
partners. Corker suggested
He asked Shah: “Do you plan to work
with this committee to get the reforms you’re putting in place and to code? Or you’re just gonna do the easy route?” “Absolutely, we would be eager to work with this committee to have as much structure and
longevity this renewed vision,” the USAID administrator replied. PEPFAR Floor conversations over the the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief focus on decreasing funding. Obama asked for $1.65
billion under PEPFAR for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. Over the past years, funding for PEPFAR has waned, Republican Senator Marco Rubio noted. “We also understand the
impact of the sequester. But the cuts continue to the point now that people are concerned about us retreating on this front,” Rubio said. Shah however seemed confident that less these projects will not make a dent
on the enormous gains achieved in the past in the fight against HIV/AIDS. That’s because local governments are, in part, throwing in their own money to support the cause, he stressed. “Absolutely not! In fact, I
Budget for
Western Hemisphere Concerns over the reduced funding support for the Americas,
Latin America and Caribbean were also raised. Democrat Senator Robert Menendez, for one, cannot understand why the U.S. has
to cut budget for the region . “It doesn’t make a lot of sense in terms of the national security of the United States,” Menendez told Shah. “If we want
governments to stop international crime and narcotics trafficking, you have to give poor growers alternative crops.” For Shah, the issue is just money. “We too believe the
region is critical and important,” Shah said. “ We have to present a budget that conforms to an overall 6 percent
reduction, which has forced a lot of difficult trade offs in a time when the
actual number of humanitarian disasters around the world is doubling .” USAID Forward At the end
of the day, lawmakers acknowledge that the U.S. development agency can carry out
its various missions if it has the wherewithal, ability and personnel. For Menendez, chair of Senate foreign
am confident that our approach of bringing together our global health investment around the world and bring other partners to do more will actually accelerate impact,” Shah said.
relations committee, discussions boil down to whether USAID Forward is receiving enough funds. “How would you assess your agency’s progress in restoring in its capacities under the USAID Forward?” the
senator asked. During the hearing, Shah insisted that
the agency is transforming the way it does business due to its
reform agenda We’re on our way to accomplishing that,
.“
” Shah told lawmakers. “Our focus on public-private
partnerships has been unique and extraordinarily effective. We have been able to rebuild our budgeting authority, our policy organization. We’ve hired 1,100 new staff because of the Development Initiative.”
B. Foreign Policy Budget is Zero-Sum – Each Dollar trades-off with other efforts
Sessions 2k6
(Myra, Center for Global Development program coordinator, “The PMI Turns One - How Will We Measure
Success?,” pg online @ http://www.cgdev.org/blog/pmi-turns-one-how-will-we-measure-success)
Thanks for the comment and question, Michael. I have not done the analysis of the data to see if the PMI is having a negative impact on the funding levels of other health initiatives-- and given all of the other
Kolbe talked at
length about the future challenges in maintaining foreign assistance funding levels in
changes in the US foreign assistance budget I am not sure it would ever be possible to isolate the impact of the PMI. However, during a recent CGD event, Congressman
light of increasing domestic federal expenditures. Mark Lippert, the Director of Foreign Policy for Senator Barak Obama also touched on this key issue at an April CGD
event about the future of MCA. The message from each of these speakers was that funding levels for any particular
initiative or priority should be looked at in the broader context-- and that the
appropriations process is essentially a zero-sum game full of trade-offs . In today's
tight budget climate, I think that there is no doubt that funding for the PMI and other new intiatives will
detract from real or potential funding for other areas of the foreign aid budget-- and that
that reality should be a part of the conversation about the successes and opportunities of the initiatives.
C. And, Earmarks for SPECIFIC countries hamstring the budget – forces prioritization
and collapses effective programs
Norris et al 2k12
(John Norris, Executive Director of the Sustainable Security and Peacebuilding Initiative at the Center for American Progress. He has
served in a number of senior roles in government, international institutions, and nonprofits. John previously served as the Executive
Director of the Enough Project at American Progress. John was the chief of political affairs for the U.N. Mission in Nepal as that country
tried to emerge from a decade-long war. Previously, John served as the Washington chief of staff for the International Crisis Group,
conducting extensive field work and senior-level advocacy for resolving conflicts in South Asia, Africa, and the Balkans. Earlier in his
career, John served as the director of communications for U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott. He also worked as a
speechwriter and field disaster expert at the U.S. Agency for International Development.and Connie Veillette, “Engagement Amid
Austerity,” pg online @ http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2012/05/pdf/foreign_aid.pdf //um-ef)
Congress and the White House often differ on foreign policy and spending
priorities, and these differences are regularly reflected in the annual appropriations bill for the State Department, Foreign Operations, and Related Agencies. As Congress
increasingly has been unable to pass foreign policy authorizing legislation, it has
come to rely almost exclusively on its critical role in the appropriations process to
assert congressional preferences and to influence policy. A casual review of any recent State-Foreign Operations bill shows
that the bills now include more policy directives than spending . A 2011 study calculated that Congress
included specific country and sector directives for 66.5 percent of total bilateral
economic assistance in the 2010 bill. Just 3 percent of the Economic Support Fund was left to the discretion of the secretary of state. When
Congress includes directives at the country and sector level , it makes it
more difficult for any administration to respond flexibly and to adjust its
approach to changes in conditions on the ground . The Arab Spring is only one recent example where increased flexibility could have
improved the U.S. response. USAID missions are often forced to engage in extended contortions to
make their country programs match up with congressional directives dictated
from thousands of miles away. And sector earmarks—whether for programs in
water, agriculture, microfinance, or other issues—run counter to the concept of
designing development approaches in shared partnership with the host country
and holding the host country accountable for results . Congress moved in 2011 to reduce the number of earmarks and change
requirements to recommendations, using “soft” earmarks rather than “hard” ones. Soft earmarks are statements of preferred policy and approaches rather than directives. Yet some appropriators quickly expressed
Congress still needs to move further away from
micro-managing the foreign assistance accounts. At the same time, administrations need to do a better job of communicating with the
frustration that the administration did not treat all of their requests as directives. In short,
Hill and engaging Congress in a genuine dialogue on policy approaches.
D. That Ensures a Foreign Policy Nightmare – Collapses U.S. Leadership and results in
multiple scenarios for conflict
Kolbe 2k11
(Jim Kolbe, a former Republican Member of Congress from Arizona’s 8th District, is a Senior Transatlantic
Fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United States and a Senior Advisor to McLarty Associates.
Connie Morella, a former Congresswoman from Maryland’s 8th District and former U.S. Ambassador to the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, is Ambassador in Residence at American
University. “Why Congress Shouldn’t Slash Foreign Aid - The Daily Caller,” pg online @
http://www.partnership-africa.org/content/why-congress-shouldn%E2%80%99t-slash-foreign-aid-dailycaller //um-ef)
With a Congressional budget showdown all but inevitable, U.S. foreign assistance is
once again on the chopping block. As two long-serving Republican former members of Congress, we believe the fiscal situation in this country demands bold
action. However, we are deeply concerned about the House Committee on Foreign Affairs’ recent proposal to make sweeping
cuts to the budgets of the State Department and at the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)... The last few
months of global turmoil have sparked new calls for U.S. leadership in uncertain times.
Slashing the 1% of the federal budget allocated to international affairs will do little or nothing to tame the deficit,
but it will seriously hamper our ability to conduct an effective foreign policy . General David Petraeus
noted in recent Congressional testimony that, “Inadequate resourcing of our civilian partners could , in fact, jeopardize
accomplishment of the overall mission” in Afghanistan. The same can be said for
other security hotspots and the broad swath of the developing world where we are standing for human
dignity and competing for influence against other nations that do not share our values. A robust international affairs budget, coupled with
reform of our foreign assistance system, will help us strengthen our global
leadership and navigate fast-moving challenges across the globe. Nowhere is this more
evident than in the Middle East. Were we to scale back our diplomacy and
development efforts — as some lawmakers have proposed — we would be turning our backs on the
democratic movements in the Middle East at the very moment we have a historic
opportunity to reorient our relationship with the region. Our development and democracy-building assistance will provide crucial
resources to help create inclusive political systems, build strong civilian institutions, and catalyze investments in small and medium enterprises. If stability and democratic
growth are what we want over the long term, we need to talk about improving the
civilian tools of our foreign policy, not abandoning them. But our diplomacy and
development programs do more than help emerging democratic movements in the
Middle East. They also help open new markets to U.S. goods and services, protect
human rights, and save lives from deadly diseases. Foreign assistance has empowered 43 countries to cut the incidence of malaria in
half, and enabled 42 million African children to attend school. Our long-term development goal remains graduating countries to self-reliance. Korea serves as an important model for this goal. It is easy to forget
that only fifty years ago Korea had life expectancy and per capita GDP on par with most sub-Saharan Africa countries. Today, Korea is a foreign assistance donor with a formidable modern economy. We are
helping female leaders in the Middle East and elsewhere reduce the gender gap and maintain the momentum for women’s increased access to healthcare, credit, land, education, and employment. Studies have
shown that when 10% more girls go to school, a country’s GDP increases by an average of 3%. The proposed budget by the House Foreign Affairs Committee will cripple these programs just when they have the
We don’t pretend that our foreign assistance programs are perfectly
designed or implemented. What is needed is real reform of our diplomacy and
development system so that we get better results out of the 1% of our federal
budget that goes to international affairs. Considerable progress has been made on
this front already. The president, with support from Congress, has worked to change our development model by creating programs like the Global Health Initiative and crafting the first
best chance to make a difference.
U.S. development policy, which focuses on economic growth, accountability, and selectivity, in order to create the conditions where foreign assistance is no longer needed. These advances in U.S. foreign
assistance were built on the legacy of former President George W. Bush’s creation of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief and the Millennium Challenge Corporation. In the last Congress, bipartisan
USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah announced earlier
this year that the agency is moving to save money and increase accountability
across the globe . We can’t afford to take a step back on these efforts, not at a time
of unprecedented global instability that requires the strongest and most effective
foreign policy we can muster. Our ability to take advantage of opportunities hinges on
our willingness to invest in diplomacy and development and take steps to make these
civilian tools of U.S. foreign policy more effective and accountable.
members supported foreign assistance reform legislation in both the House and Senate.
1NC Aid Trade-off 2.0 (Trade-off)
A. USAID has trimmed it’s budget – reforms are underway but reduced Latin Aid is key
Morales 4/25
(“USAID chief defends budget in Congress,” pg online @ https://www.devex.com/en/news/usaid-chiefdefends-budget-in-congress/80790 //um-ef)
Why is the U.S.
reducing its aid budget for Latin America and Caribbean? How far the USAID Forward reform truly moving forward? These were a
Why will 45 percent of food aid budget be spent to buy locally-produced food in crisis areas? Will cuts in HIV/AIDS funding erode progress in the fight against the desease?
USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah faced Congress on Wednesday to defend
President Barack Obama’s budget proposal for the agency in fiscal 2014. Appearing before the House appropriations and Senate
foreign relations committees, Shah churned out hard data and narrated anecdotes to defend the proposed 6 percent cut in the United
States foreign aid budget for next year. “The FY 2014 request for USAID managed or partially managed accounts is $20.4 billion, six percent below the total enacted funding
for FY 2012,” Shah said at one point. “ In this tough budget environment, USAID is committed to
maximizing the value of every dollar. We have made tough choices so that we are
working where we will have greatest impact, and shifting personnel and funding
resources towards programs that will achieve the most meaningful results. ” Food aid reform
few of the hardline questions American lawmakers posed to
Perhaps the most talked-about reform during the budget hearings is how the United States is moving towards buying locally-produced food instead of purchasing American commodities and shipping these on
board U.S.-flagged vessels to crisis areas. Republican Sen. Bob Corker was concerned about what pushed the administration to rethink U.S. food aid policy: “What made you and the administration [decide] that
55 percent of the food aid is going to be spent in U.S.? How did you decide?” Over the past years, about 85 percent of food aid was tied to the purchase and shipping of American commodities. And that, Shah
noted, “gives us a little bit of flexibility about 15 percent.” But precisely that “little flexibility” is almost totally being absorbed in the escalating humanitarian crisis in Syria. Shah said: “As a result, there are a
number of other countries – the Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia, Pakistan – where we actually have to take children off of the nutrition support because we’re reverting from a more efficient locallyprocured food program to the more traditional U.S.-based program.” About 155,000 kids in Somalia will not receive nutritious food if United States sticks to its traditional food assistance, the USAID chief noted.
Besides, he explained, food aid costs too much not because more food is delivered to crisis areas, but because shipping costs have more than tripled. “We also want to have a renewed partnership with American
agriculture, a partnership that prioritizes high nutrition food products that America ought to have the scientific and technical lead in producing,” Shah said. Congressmen noted the shipping industry in particular
might be hurt by food aid reform. USAID shipping partners, Shah assured lawmakers, will not feel the shock. He said the government provides under the fiscal 2014 budget a transition support for the agency’s
the reform can be put into legislation if USAID is willing.
partners. Corker suggested
He asked Shah: “Do you plan to work
with this committee to get the reforms you’re putting in place and to code? Or you’re just gonna do the easy route?” “Absolutely, we would be eager to work with this committee to have as much structure and
longevity this renewed vision,” the USAID administrator replied. PEPFAR Floor conversations over the the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief focus on decreasing funding. Obama asked for $1.65
billion under PEPFAR for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. Over the past years, funding for PEPFAR has waned, Republican Senator Marco Rubio noted. “We also understand the
impact of the sequester. But the cuts continue to the point now that people are concerned about us retreating on this front,” Rubio said. Shah however seemed confident that less these projects will not make a dent
on the enormous gains achieved in the past in the fight against HIV/AIDS. That’s because local governments are, in part, throwing in their own money to support the cause, he stressed. “Absolutely not! In fact, I
Budget for
Western Hemisphere Concerns over the reduced funding support for the Americas,
Latin America and Caribbean were also raised. Democrat Senator Robert Menendez, for one, cannot understand why the U.S. has
to cut budget for the region . “It doesn’t make a lot of sense in terms of the national security of the United States,” Menendez told Shah. “If we want
governments to stop international crime and narcotics trafficking, you have to give poor growers alternative crops.” For Shah, the issue is just money. “We too believe the
region is critical and important,” Shah said. “ We have to present a budget that conforms to an overall 6
percent reduction, which has forced a lot of difficult trade offs in a time
when the actual number of humanitarian disasters around the world is doubling .”
USAID Forward At the end of the day, lawmakers acknowledge that the U.S. development
agency can carry out its various missions if it has the wherewithal, ability and
personnel. For Menendez, chair of Senate foreign relations committee, discussions boil down to whether USAID Forward is receiving enough funds. “How would you assess your agency’s
progress in restoring in its capacities under the USAID Forward?” the senator asked. During the hearing, Shah insisted that the agency is transforming the way
am confident that our approach of bringing together our global health investment around the world and bring other partners to do more will actually accelerate impact,” Shah said.
it does business due to its reform agenda . “We’re on our way to accomplishing
that,” Shah told lawmakers. “Our focus on public-private partnerships has been unique and extraordinarily effective. We have been able to rebuild our budgeting authority, our policy organization. We’ve
hired 1,100 new staff because of the Development Initiative.”
B. Foreign Policy Budget is Zero-Sum – Each Dollar trades-off with other efforts
Sessions 2k6
(Myra, Center for Global Development program coordinator, “The PMI Turns One - How Will We Measure
Success?,” pg online @ http://www.cgdev.org/blog/pmi-turns-one-how-will-we-measure-success)
Thanks for the comment and question, Michael. I have not done the analysis of the data to see if the PMI is having a negative impact on the funding levels of other health initiatives-- and given all of the other
Kolbe talked at
length about the future challenges in maintaining foreign assistance funding levels in
light of increasing domestic federal expenditures. Mark Lippert, the Director of Foreign Policy for Senator Barak Obama also touched on this key issue at an April CGD
event about the future of MCA. The message from each of these speakers was that funding levels for any particular
initiative or priority should be looked at in the broader context-- and that the
appropriations process is essentially a zero-sum game full of trade-offs . In today's
tight budget climate, I think that there is no doubt that funding for the PMI and other new intiatives will
detract from real or potential funding for other areas of the foreign aid budget-- and that
changes in the US foreign assistance budget I am not sure it would ever be possible to isolate the impact of the PMI. However, during a recent CGD event, Congressman
that reality should be a part of the conversation about the successes and opportunities of the initiatives.
C. Feed the Future is on the Chopping Block but will be protected now – containing the aid
budget is key
Murphy 3-19
[Tom, Humanosphere, “Feed the Future Survives for Another Day” March 19, 2013,
http://www.humanosphere.org/2013/03/feed-the-future-survives-for-another-day/]
Feed the Future is the Obama Administration’s answer to cyclical global hunger crises. Rather than provide food in response to
Feed the Future represent’s a commitment to working with
governments. While the program took a few years to get off the ground, and is probably not all that well known to the public,
it is a favorite of USAID Administrator Raj Shah – and also a go-to program budget hawks now want to cut back. Agriculture
programs have been losing federal funding over the past few years already. The House
Budget Committee recommended to cut F eed t he F uture entirely last year. Budget
droughts or work around governments,
negotiations come for Fiscal Year 2014 (FY14) come in the wake of sequestration. The House Budget Committee’s proposal
involves a 7% cut to the International Affairs budget. Yet Feed the Future has managed to survive. So, while the Republican
controlled house tries to rectify a budget with the Democrat controlled Senate that wants to add 9% more to the International Affairs
Feed the Future appears to have won a second life. But the uncertainty that looms
over the budget cut discussion may cause harm. “When we aren’t clear about our intentions, it creates
uncertainty,” explained Gregory Adams, Director of Aid Effectiveness for Oxfam America to Humanosphere. “ If you are
delaying your annoucement of plans, you leave farmers in the lurch. Many will miss a
planting season because they do not know when aid will arrive.” The House budget committee, led by
budget,
policy superstar Paul Ryan, called for the complete elimination of Feed the Future in its FY13 budget recommendations. While
addressing the issues of poverty and malnutrition around the globe is important, the U.S. Government’s fiscal condition does not
permit the expansion of U.S. foreign assistance initiatives, especially ones that overlap with existing programs. They point to Food
for Peace and the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program as the two existing food aid
programs within USAID. Connie Veillette of the think tank the Center for Global Development called the recommendation “the
the two
programs identified by the committee’s recommendation are both focused on food relief and
have shown to be inefficient. It also boggles the mind that the Budget Committee would emphasize programs that are
oddest and most counter productive recommendation’ of a series of proposals that are ‘ill-advised.’ She points out that
widely recognized as having serious efficiency problems. As John Norris and I have previously written, our food aid programs are
some of the most inefficient in government. Because U.S. law requires that food be purchased in the United States and shipped on
U.S.-flagged vessels, the transaction costs eat away at roughly one-third of the funding. These laws also apply to assistance that is
F eed t he F uture tackles the problem of food security through
investments in improving agricultural productivity. That makes it a cost effective
program, argues Veillette. She was not alone in her criticism of the decision.“The world’s smallholder farmers, ironically, are
monetized. On the other hand,
some of the main recipients of food aid. Because of the neglect of agricultural development efforts over the past three decades, these
farmers struggle mightily to feed their families,” wrote author and Senior Fellow at the Chicago Council, Roger Thurow, in
response to the proposal. Shah described one of the successes of Feed the Future during his testimony to the House Foreign
Relations Committee in March 2012. “In
Kenya, Feed the Future has helped over 90,000 dairy
farmers, more than a third of whom are women, increase their total income by a combined $14 million last year,” he said. Feed
the Future was borne out of the US response to global food price increases during the end of the Bush administration in 2007 and
2008. In July 2009, President Obama made a $3.5 billion pledge at the G8 Summit in L’Aquila, Italy to undertake a new approach
towards food security. That pledge in turn saw the inauguration of Feed the Future in May 2010. The program builds off the
outcome document of the L’Aquila Summit, the Rome Principles, that called for the development of programs that worked with
individual countries to determine their own strategies and investment plans to accomplish food security.
The programs would
help to avoid large scale hunger crises like the one that followed in mid-2011 in the wake of the drought in the
Horn of Africa. 11.5 million people were in need of emergency assistance, but countries that had already implemented food security
programs like Ethiopia managed to deal with the drought relatively well. Southern Somalia failed poorly and a famine was declared
in the middle of July. “The President’s
Feed the Future initiative is designed to partner with
countries like Ethiopia and Kenya to develop their own agricultural industries, helping them
break free of the need for humanitarian food aid. Only through a long-term sustained
investment in their own food security can these countries escape the vicious cycle of famine of food
aid we’ve once again witnessed,” wrote Shah in a blog post at the time. The Administrator began talking about the need to build
resilience in the region so that individuals can handle the stress of drought. In a phone conversation this past fall, Shah singled out
Feed the Future as one of his favorite programs. “The goal is implement programs that reduce the number of people who need
humanitarian aid when bad things happen,” said Shah at the time. He stressed taking action and implementing programs that provide
results oriented development assistance. He spoke proudly of the smaller programs like Feed the Future and the Child Survival Call
to Action saying that they are ‘absolute priorities.’ It is a sentiment that alings with the remarks from Thurow and Veillette. Feed the
Future reached over 6.5 million households through direct programs and supported nearly 9 million children with nutrition
programs in 2011 alone. Early data on 2012 showed that Feed the Future expaned by reaching nearly 13 million households. An
analysis of US global agriclutural development programs carried out by the Chicago Council showed positive results when looking
at the work of US agencies in Ghana, Bangladesh and Ethiopia. All three were determined to be focus countries for Feed the Future.
Taking a whole-of-government approach helped to revitalize US agriculture policy , said the
report. “This substantial revival of U.S. policy represents a dramatic improvement compared to the decades of neglect that prevailed
before 2009.” It
calls for further support of agriculture investment as a way to ward off future
disasters. The elimination of Feed the Future represents a lost opportunity , say its defenders.
“Morally. Eliminating Feed the Future would indicate that the U.S. is abdicating its
leadership role in a great humanitarian challenge, a role it once relished in the times of the Marshall Plan
and the Green Revolution,” argued Thurow. It is alive for now and looks to live for at least one more
year, but will it last?
D. Extinction
Brown 2k9
(Lester Brown, founder of the Worldwatch Institute and the Earth Policy Institute, 2009, Can Food Shortages
Bring Down Civilization?” Scientific American)
The biggest threat to global stability is the potential for food crises in poor countries to cause government
collapse. Those crises are brought on by ever worsening environmental degradation One of the toughest
things for people to do is to anticipate sudden change. Typically we project the future by extrapolating from trends in the past. Much of the time
this approach works well. But sometimes it fails spectacularly, and people are simply blindsided by events such as today's economic crisis. For
most of us, the idea that civilization itself could disintegrate probably seems preposterous. Who would not find it
hard to think seriously about such a complete departure from what we expect of ordinary life? What evidence could make us heed a warning so
dire--and how would we go about responding to it? We are so inured to a long list of highly unlikely catastrophes that we are virtually
programmed to dismiss them all with a wave of the hand: Sure, our civilization might devolve into chaos--and Earth might collide with an
asteroid, too! For many years I have studied global agricultural, population, environmental and economic trends and their interactions. The
combined effects of those trends and the political tensions they generate point to the breakdown of
governments and societies. Yet I, too, have resisted the idea that food shortages could bring down not only individual governments
but also our global civilization. I can no longer ignore that risk. Our continuing failure to deal with the environmental declines
that are undermining the world food economy--most important, falling water tables, eroding soils and
rising temperatures--forces me to conclude that such a collapse is possible . The Problem of Failed States Even a cursory
look at the vital signs of our current world order lends unwelcome support to my conclusion. And those of us in the environmental field are well
into our third decade of charting trends of environmental decline without seeing any significant effort to reverse a single one. In six of the past
nine years world grain production has fallen short of consumption, forcing a steady drawdown in stocks. When the 2008 harvest began, world
carryover stocks of grain (the amount in the bin when the new harvest begins) were at 62 days of consumption, a near record low. In response,
As demand for food rises faster than
supplies are growing, the resulting food-price inflation puts severe stress on the governments of
countries already teetering on the edge of chaos. Unable to buy grain or grow their own, hungry people take to the streets.
world grain prices in the spring and summer of last year climbed to the highest level ever.
Indeed, even before the steep climb in grain prices in 2008, the number of failing states was expanding [see sidebar at left]. Many of their
problem's stem from a failure to slow the growth of their populations. But if
the food situation continues to deteriorate,
entire nations will break down at an ever increasing rate. We have entered a new era in geopolitics. In the 20th
century the main threat to international security was superpower conflict; today it is failing states. It
is not the concentration of power but its absence that puts us at risk. States fail when national governments can no longer provide personal
security, food security and basic social services such as education and health care. They often lose control of part or all of their territory. When
governments lose their monopoly on power, law and order begin to disintegrate. After a point, countries can become so dangerous that food relief
workers are no longer safe and their programs are halted; in Somalia and Afghanistan, deteriorating conditions have already put such programs in
Failing states are of international concern because they are a source of terrorists, drugs,
weapons and refugees, threatening political stability everywhere. Somalia, number one on the 2008 list of failing
jeopardy.
states, has become a base for piracy. Iraq, number five, is a hotbed for terrorist training. Afghanistan, number seven, is the world's leading
supplier of heroin. Following the massive genocide of 1994 in Rwanda, refugees from that troubled state, thousands of armed soldiers among
Our global civilization depends on a
functioning network of politically healthy nation-states to control the spread of infectious disease, to manage the
international monetary system, to control international terrorism and to reach scores of other common goals. If the system for
controlling infectious diseases--such as polio, SARS or avian flu--breaks down, humanity will be in trouble.
Once states fail, no one assumes responsibility for their debt to outside lenders. If enough states disintegrate, their fall will
threaten the stability of global civilization itself .
them, helped to destabilize neighboring Democratic Republic of the Congo (number six).
2NC Impact Overview (Trade-off)
Probability- History proves food shortages are the most likely cause of extinction
Brown ’11
(World on the Edge: How to Prevent Environmental and Economic Collapse, by Lester R. Brown @ 2011 Earth
Policy Institute)
For the Mayans, it was deforestation and soil erosion. As more and more land was cleared for farming to support the expanding empire, soil
erosion undermined the productivity of their tropical soils. A team of scientists from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration has
noted that the extensive land clearing by the Mayans likely also altered the regional climate, reducing rainfall. In effect, the scientists suggest, it
was the convergence of several environmental trends, some reinforcing others, that led to the food shortages that brought down the
Mayan civilization. 26 Although we live in a highly urbanized, technologically advanced society, we are as
dependent on the earth’s natural support systems as the Sumerians and Mayans were. If we continue with business as usual, civilizational
collapse is no longer a matter of whether but when. We now have an economy that is destroying its natural support systems, one that has put us
on a decline and collapse path. We are dangerously close to the edge. Peter Goldmark, former Rockefeller Foundation president, puts it
well: “The death of our civilization is no longer a theory or an academic possibility; it is the road we’re on.” 2 Judging by
the archeological records of earlier civilizations, more often than not food shortages appear to have
precipitated their decline and collapse. Given the advances of modern agriculture, I had long rejected the idea that food could be the
weak link in our twenty-first century civilization. Today I think not only that it could be the weak link but that it is the
weak link.
Magnitude- food shortages mean extinction
Takacs ‘96 (David, The Idea Of Diversity: Philosophies Of Paradise, 1996, p. 200-1.)
So biodiversity keeps the world running. It has value and of itself, as well as for us. Raven, Erwin, and Wilson oblige us to think about the value
of biodiversity for our own lives. The Ehrlichs’ rivet-popper trope makes this same point; by eliminating rivets, we play Russian roulette with
global ecology and human futures: “It is likely that destruction of the rich complex of species in the Amazon basin could trigger rapid changes in
global climate patterns. Agriculture remains heavily dependent on stable climate, and human beings remain heavily dependent on
food. By the end of the century the extinction of perhaps a million species in the Amazon basin could have entrained famines in which a
billion human beings perished. And if our species is very unlucky, the famines could lead to a thermonuclear war, which
could extinguish civilization.” Elsewhere Ehrlich uses different particulars with no less drama: What then will happen if the current
decimation of organic diversity continues? Crop yields will be more difficult to maintain in the face of climatic change, soil erosion , loss of
dependable water supplies, decline of pollinators, and ever more serious assaults by pests. Conversion of productive land to wasteland will
accelerate; deserts will continue their seemingly inexorable expansion. Air pollution will increase, and local climates will become harsher.
Humanity will have to forgo many of the direct economic benefits it might have withdrawn from Earth's wellstocked genetic library. It might, for
example, miss out on a cure for cancer; but that will make little difference. As ecosystem services falter, mortality from respiratory and epidemic
disease, natural disasters, and especially famine will lower life expectancies to the point where cancer (largely a disease of the elderly) will be
unimportant. Humanity will bring upon itself consequences depressingly similar to those expected from a nuclear winter. Barring a nuclear
conflict, it appears that civilization will disappear some time before the end of the next century - not with a bang but a whimper.
End of the world
Heinberg 2k4
(Richard Heinberg, Post-Carbon Institute, “Book Excerpt: Powerdown: Options and Actions for a PostCarbon World,” Energy Bulletin, 9/26/04, pg online @ http://www.energybulletin.net/node/2291)
Last One Standing – The path of competition for remaining resources. If the leadership of the US continues with current policies,
Resource depletion and
are about to catch up with us, and no one is prepared. The political elites, especially in the
US, are incapable of dealing with the situation. Their preferred “solution” is simply to
commandeer other nations’ resources, using military force. The worst-case scenario would
be the general destruction of human civilization and most of the ecological life-support system of
the planet. That is, of course, a breathtakingly alarming prospect. As such, we might prefer not to contemplate it – except for
the next decades will be filled with war, economic crises, and environmental catastrophe.
population pressure
the fact that considerable evidence attests to its likelihood. The notion that resource scarcity often leads to increased competition is
certainly well founded. This is general true among non-human animals, among which competition for diminishing resources
typically leads to aggressive behaviour. Iraq is actually the nexus of several different kinds of conflict – between consuming nations
(e.g., France and the US); between western industrial nations and “terrorist” groups; and – most obviously – between a powerful
consuming nation and a weaker, troublesome, producing nation. Politicians may find it easier to persuade their constituents to fight
a common enemy than to conserve and share. War is always grim, but as resources become more scarce and
valuable, as societies become more centralized and therefore more vulnerable, and as weaponry becomes more sophisticated and
widely dispersed, warfare could become even more destructive that the case during the past century. By far the
greatest concern for the future of warfare must be the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The US is conducting research into new
types of nuclear weapons—bunker busters, small earth-penetrators, etc. Recent US
a policy of nuclear first-strike
administrations have enunciated
Turns Leadership
And, Collapses U.S. Leadership and results in multiple scenarios for conflict
Kolbe 2k11
(Jim Kolbe, a former Republican Member of Congress from Arizona’s 8th District, is a Senior Transatlantic
Fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United States and a Senior Advisor to McLarty Associates.
Connie Morella, a former Congresswoman from Maryland’s 8th District and former U.S. Ambassador to the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, is Ambassador in Residence at American
University. “Why Congress Shouldn’t Slash Foreign Aid - The Daily Caller,” pg online @
http://www.partnership-africa.org/content/why-congress-shouldn%E2%80%99t-slash-foreign-aid-dailycaller //um-ef)
With a Congressional budget showdown all but inevitable, U.S. foreign assistance is
once again on the chopping block. As two long-serving Republican former members of Congress, we believe the fiscal situation in this country demands bold
action. However, we are deeply concerned about the House Committee on Foreign Affairs’ recent proposal to make sweeping cuts to the budgets of the State Department and at the United States Agency for
global turmoil have sparked new calls for U.S. leadership
in uncertain times. Slashing the 1% of the federal budget allocated to international
affairs will do little or nothing to tame the deficit, but it will seriously hamper our ability to conduct an effective
foreign policy . General David Petraeus noted in recent Congressional testimony that, “Inadequate resourcing of our civilian
partners could, in fact, jeopardize accomplishment of the overall mission” in Afghanistan.
The same can be said for other security hotspots and the broad swath of the
developing world where we are standing for human dignity and competing for influence against other nations that do not share our values. A robust
international affairs budget, coupled with reform of our foreign assistance system,
will help us strengthen our global leadership and navigate fast-moving challenges
across the globe. Nowhere is this more evident than in the Middle East. Were we to
scale back our diplomacy and development efforts — as some lawmakers have proposed — we would be
turning our backs on the democratic movements in the Middle East at the very
moment we have a historic opportunity to reorient our relationship with the region. Our
International Development (USAID)... The last few months of
development and democracy-building assistance will provide crucial resources to help create inclusive political systems, build strong civilian institutions, and catalyze investments in small and medium
If stability and democratic growth are what we want over the long term, we need to
talk about improving the civilian tools of our foreign policy, not abandoning them. But our
diplomacy and development programs do more than help emerging democratic
movements in the Middle East. They also help open new markets to U.S. goods and
services, protect human rights, and save lives from deadly diseases. Foreign assistance has empowered 43
enterprises.
countries to cut the incidence of malaria in half, and enabled 42 million African children to attend school. Our long-term development goal remains graduating countries to self-reliance. Korea serves as an
important model for this goal. It is easy to forget that only fifty years ago Korea had life expectancy and per capita GDP on par with most sub-Saharan Africa countries. Today, Korea is a foreign assistance donor
with a formidable modern economy. We are helping female leaders in the Middle East and elsewhere reduce the gender gap and maintain the momentum for women’s increased access to healthcare, credit, land,
education, and employment. Studies have shown that when 10% more girls go to school, a country’s GDP increases by an average of 3%. The proposed budget by the House Foreign Affairs Committee will
We don’t pretend that our foreign assistance programs
are perfectly designed or implemented. What is needed is real reform of our
diplomacy and development system so that we get better results out of the 1% of
our federal budget that goes to international affairs. Considerable progress has
been made on this front already. The president, with support from Congress, has worked to change our development model by creating programs like the Global
cripple these programs just when they have the best chance to make a difference.
Health Initiative and crafting the first U.S. development policy, which focuses on economic growth, accountability, and selectivity, in order to create the conditions where foreign assistance is no longer needed.
These advances in U.S. foreign assistance were built on the legacy of former President George W. Bush’s creation of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief and the Millennium Challenge Corporation.
USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah
announced earlier this year that the agency is moving to save money and increase
accountability across the globe . We can’t afford to take a step back on these
efforts, not at a time of unprecedented global instability that requires the strongest
and most effective foreign policy we can muster. Our ability to take advantage of
opportunities hinges on our willingness to invest in diplomacy and development and
In the last Congress, bipartisan members supported foreign assistance reform legislation in both the House and Senate.
take steps to make these civilian tools of U.S. foreign policy more effective and
accountable.
**Reforms Version**
**Uniqueness**
D 2nc – uniqueness wall (reform)
Reforms now –
A. Obama support
Kenny 13
[Charles Kenny is a fellow at the Center for Global Development and the New America Foundation, “It’s
Time to Reform USAID” March 18 2013, http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-03-18/its-time-toreform-usaid]
So who’s to blame for the poor record of U.S. foreign aid as a tool of development? It’s not the fault of the longsuffering staff of U.S. aid agencies, who can deliver very effective programs if given the chance. A global initiative
backed by the U.S. and other donors supported delivery of 225 million measles vaccine doses in 2011 alone—part of
a campaign that has reduced measles deaths worldwide from 2.6 million in 1980 to 139,000 in 2010. The blame,
instead, lies largely with members of Congress who complain that aid is wasted because it doesn’t lead to
development, and then turn around and ensure hardly any assistance is designed or delivered with development as
the primary goal. There’s pressure for change. USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah is trying to fix at least two
of the problems that prevent aid from working better to promote development. “This agency is no longer
satisfied with writing big checks to big contractors and calling it development,” said Shah in 2011. He has
followed through with reforms designed to ensure more companies in recipient countries can win some
USAID contracts. The Obama administration is also considering overhauling the food aid program so it
delivers cash to hungry people or local food buyers rather than shipping grain halfway around the world.
B. Congressional Perception
[Global Washington is a community of people committed to global development, June 7 2010, “Rajiv
Shah Speaks about USAID Reforms” http://globalwa.org/2010/06/rajiv-shah-speaks-about-usaidreforms/]
On June 2, USAID Administrator Dr. Rajiv Shah spoke to the InterAction Forum about planned reforms at
USAID. You can read the full text of his candid and impassioned speech here. From Dr. Shah’s speech, we get
the sense that change really is in the air at USAID. His key point was that we are in a unique window of
opportunity for change over the next 12-18 months. There is currently an unprecedented political
opportunity for global development policy reform: we have a supportive President, Secretary of State,
Secretary of Defense, and Joint Chiefs of Staffs. Congressional leaders also support reforming foreign
aid. And we are approaching the 50th anniversary of the Foreign Assistance Act, USAID, and the Peace Corps. Dr.
Shah emphasized that USAID is starting to do things differently. Here are some of the changes planned
for USAID: more evidence-based programming improving effectiveness to stretch tax dollars building
institutional capacity in partner governments, and aligning programs with local needs and priorities
creating incentives for good governance working towards greater policy and budget capability at USAID
requesting greater flexibility from Congress implementing procurement reform broadening USAID’s base
of partner organizations prioritizing “true and effective” transparency treating Foreign Service Nationals
better, giving them opportunities and respecting them as professionals reducing the data-collection burden
on USAID missions and partners, while using the collected data more effectively in planning.
C. Momentum
Fossett 13
[Katelyn Fosset, Inter Press Service “U.S.: OBAMA'S BUDGET LAYS OUT TRANSFORMATIVE CHANGE IN
USAID” April 12 2013, lexis]
Civil society groups here are praising parts of President Barack Obama's newly unveiled budget proposal,
saying it appears to build on momentum gathered in recent years toward a robust overhaul of the U.S.
Agency for International Development (USAID), the country's main foreign aid agency. They point particularly
to long-demanded changes to the structuring of the U.S. food aid programme, one of the largest in the world.
Under the president's new proposal, released Wednesday, U.S. food assistance would no longer be sourced from
U.S. farmers and then sent abroad but would be purchased in local markets. Proponents suggest the changes will
save significant money for Washington while simultaneously helping to bolster local markets and economies in
crisis-hit regions. Advocates say the food aid changes are in line with a broader reforms process under way
at USAID. "Oxfam was very critical of what USAID was doing [in 2008] - we questioned its very existence," Paul
O'Brien, vice-president of policy and advocacy at Oxfam America, a humanitarian group, said at a policy discussion
here Thursday. "But we think what we're seeing [now] is a quiet renaissance." Over the past half-decade, a new
government initiative, known as USAID Forward, has worked to strengthen links between the agency and
local institutions and to forge stronger partnerships between the United States and host countries.
Supporters point to the development of Country Development Cooperation Strategies, detailed plans in
which the host country lays out goals and unique needs to chart a path forward. "U.S. policy is changing,"
a new Oxfam report, released Thursday, states, " allowing more U.S. government development officials to
work more closely with leaders in developing countries, in government, civil society, and the private sector."
In a survey of 257 non-U.S. government officials in recipient countries, the report found that 83 percent
saw the United States today as a better donor than it was five years ago. According to the report,
"Respondents reported that their interactions with the US have improved, allowing them more
opportunities to decide how aid is spent and to work together towards mutually-shared results." Taking on
aid inefficiency While USAID Forward began as a direct response to criticisms spurred by the dwindling reputation
and alleged mishandling of USAID programmes during the first decade of the 2000s, President Obama's new
budget proposal - which has not yet been approved by Congress - seems to draw on these successes in moving
towards a more full-scale modernisation of the country's foreign assistance model. The budget request spotlights
sweeping changes to food assistance in particular, allocating 1.6 billion dollars for the Feed the Future initiative to
combat chronic food insecurity and 2.65 billion dollars to the USAID Global Health Programmes. It would also shift
1.8 billion dollars from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to the State Department, using funds currently allocated
for a process known as "monetisation" to instead go toward disaster- and crisis-related food assistance accounts.
Monetisation is the term given to the process by which Washington has traditionally given U.S.-grown grains to
local organisations, which can then sell them for cash. Critics say this process is notably inefficient, a finding
corroborated by a 2011 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the U.S. Congress's main
investigative arm. "The president's 2014 budget includes reforms to food aid that will enable us to feed an estimated
four million more hungry children every year with the same resources," Rajiv Shah, the head of USAID, said in a
major address Wednesday. That optimism has been mirrored by NGOs and aid modernisation advocates.
"We are encouraged by the administration's proposal, and believe that if it is implemented correctly and authorised
by Congress that it could meet the principles that NGOs have called for," Mark Lotwis, senior director of public
policy at InterAction, a coalition of U.S.-based NGOs, told IPS. "[Those calls] include keeping the core focus of
food assistance on those who have acute hunger needs, increasing the number of people who are helped, and
providing the administration with flexibility to meet the needs of people in the field." Some key food assistance
changes in Obama's budget request include the use of cash vouchers that broaden the reach of food assistance in
disaster areas and the end of inefficient "monetisation". This process, known for returning little more than half of
invested funding, has become synonymous in the NGO community with inefficiency. "The truth is that for years our
practice in food assistance has lagged behind our knowledge," Shah said Wednesday. "In the last decade, more than
30 different studies a have revealed the inefficiencies of the current system.”
D 2nc – at: cuts already happened (reforms)
USAID reform coming now – this evidence assumes any cuts
Reichle 12
[Susan Reichle is the Assistant to the Administrator for USAID’s Bureau of Policy, Planning and
Learning, December 7 2012, “USAid reforms aim to strengthen local institutions and systems”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development-professionals-network/2012/dec/07/usaid-developmentlocal-systems]
In 2005, the international development community endorsed the Paris Agenda for Aid Effectiveness. Three years
later in Accra, Ghana, the international community once again put country ownership high on the agenda to move
the needle of development. Just a year ago in Busan, South Korea, the international community recognised that all
development actors, including the private sector and emerging donors, were critical to ensuring resources were
aligned behind host country priorities to achieve development impact. Since taking office, USAid administrator
Rajiv Shah has initiated a series of reforms under USAid Forward to create new approaches to
development by working directly through local systems to improve sustainable results. This transition to
localise aid means that we will be testing a host country's ability to "use their own pipes" – whether that is a
government ministry or civil society. While this approach comes with its own set of challenges, it requires a
change in mindset – from both inside and outside USAid – which includes a willingness to manage and mitigate risk
and to focus on the long term. The challenges notwithstanding, I am optimistic that these reforms to USAid's
development model will succeed. They began three years ago when officers around the globe called on
the to develop a business model that embraced aid effectiveness. We had demand from below as well as
from senior leadership at the top. This occurred at the same time as the international community was
calling for local ownership and country system strengthening. The stars were truly aligned. At the time, the
agency was in the middle of almost doubling the size of its foreign service. This allowed more officers to
engage directly with host country counterparts in government, civil society and the private sector. Given that
the majority of the foreign service officers now have fewer than five years in USAid, we had fresh eyes and
energy to undertake new approaches to development. We developed new diagnostic tools to mitigate risk,
created planning rubrics to ensure that we choose capable and appropriate institutions as partners and
invest in high quality evaluations, which we feed back into project design and implementation. This
emphasis has changed the way we do business. For example, we seek to strengthen a country's health system even as
we work intensively with partners to deliver medicine. Similarly, we engage in policy dialogue to achieve systemic
education reform while constructing schools in conflict zones across the world. In the end, we believe that this new
way of doing business is an opportunity. It gives us tighter focus on local systems as well as a broader
reach to engage more citizens, which, we hope, will result in more sustainable outcomes and proficient use
of taxpayer dollars. Just as you would trust a new driver to take the wheel in order to learn how to drive, we must
trust our host country partners to drive their own results.
Uniq: Yes Reform
USAID reform coming now and will succeed
Reichle 12
[Susan Reichle is the Assistant to the Administrator for USAID’s Bureau of Policy, Planning and
Learning, December 7 2012, “USAid reforms aim to strengthen local institutions and systems”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development-professionals-network/2012/dec/07/usaid-developmentlocal-systems]
In 2005, the international development community endorsed the Paris Agenda for Aid Effectiveness. Three years later in Accra, Ghana, the
international community once again put country ownership high on the agenda to move the needle of development. Just a year ago in Busan,
South Korea, the international community recognised that all development actors, including the private sector and emerging donors, were critical
to ensuring resources were aligned behind host country priorities to achieve development impact. Since taking office, USAid
administrator Rajiv Shah has initiated a series of reforms under USAid Forward to create new approaches
to development by working directly through local systems to improve sustainable results. This transition to
localise aid means that we will be testing a host country's ability to "use their own pipes" – whether that is a
government ministry or civil society. While this approach comes with its own set of challenges, it requires a change in mindset –
from both inside and outside USAid – which includes a willingness to manage and mitigate risk and to focus on the long term. The challenges
notwithstanding, I am optimistic that these reforms to USAid's development model will succeed. They began three
years ago when officers around the globe called on the to develop a business model that embraced aid
effectiveness. We had demand from below as well as from senior leadership at the top. This occurred at
the same time as the international community was calling for local ownership and country system
strengthening. The stars were truly aligned. At the time, the agency was in the middle of almost doubling the size of
its foreign service. This allowed more officers to engage directly with host country counterparts in
government, civil society and the private sector. Given that the majority of the foreign service officers now have fewer than five years in USAid,
we had fresh eyes and energy to undertake new approaches to development. We developed new
diagnostic tools to mitigate risk, created planning rubrics to ensure that we choose capable and
appropriate institutions as partners and invest in high quality evaluations, which we feed back into project
design and implementation. This emphasis has changed the way we do business. For example, we seek to strengthen a country's health
system even as we work intensively with partners to deliver medicine. Similarly, we engage in policy dialogue to achieve systemic education
reform while constructing schools in conflict zones across the world. In the end, we believe that this new way of doing business is
an opportunity. It gives us tighter focus on local systems as well as a broader reach to engage more
citizens, which, we hope, will result in more sustainable outcomes and proficient use of taxpayer dollars. Just
as you would trust a new driver to take the wheel in order to learn how to drive, we must trust our host country partners to drive their own results.
Uniq: Reforms Now
USAID reform now – Shah has Obama’s support
Kenny 13
[Charles Kenny is a fellow at the Center for Global Development and the New America Foundation, “It’s
Time to Reform USAID” March 18 2013, http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-03-18/its-time-toreform-usaid]
So who’s to blame for the poor record of U.S. foreign aid as a tool of development? It’s not the fault of the long-suffering staff of U.S. aid
agencies, who can deliver very effective programs if given the chance. A global initiative backed by the U.S. and other donors supported delivery
of 225 million measles vaccine doses in 2011 alone—part of a campaign that has reduced measles deaths worldwide from 2.6 million in 1980 to
139,000 in 2010. The blame, instead, lies largely with members of Congress who complain that aid is wasted because it doesn’t lead to
development, and then turn around and ensure hardly any assistance is designed or delivered with development as the primary goal. There’s
pressure for change. USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah is trying to fix at least two of the problems that
prevent aid from working better to promote development. “This agency is no longer satisfied with writing
big checks to big contractors and calling it development,” said Shah in 2011. He has followed through with
reforms designed to ensure more companies in recipient countries can win some USAID contracts. The
Obama administration is also considering overhauling the food aid program so it delivers cash to hungry
people or local food buyers rather than shipping grain halfway around the world.
Reforms now – perception that now is key
Global Washington 10
[Global Washington is a community of people committed to global development, June 7 2010, “Rajiv
Shah Speaks about USAID Reforms” http://globalwa.org/2010/06/rajiv-shah-speaks-about-usaidreforms/]
On June 2, USAID Administrator Dr. Rajiv Shah spoke to the InterAction Forum about planned reforms at
USAID. You can read the full text of his candid and impassioned speech here. From Dr. Shah’s speech, we get the sense that
change really is in the air at USAID. His key point was that we are in a unique window of opportunity for
change over the next 12-18 months. There is currently an unprecedented political opportunity for global
development policy reform: we have a supportive President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and
Joint Chiefs of Staffs. Congressional leaders also support reforming foreign aid. And we are approaching the 50th
anniversary of the Foreign Assistance Act, USAID, and the Peace Corps. Dr. Shah emphasized that USAID is starting to do
things differently. Here are some of the changes planned for USAID: more evidence-based programming
improving effectiveness to stretch tax dollars building institutional capacity in partner governments, and
aligning programs with local needs and priorities creating incentives for good governance working
towards greater policy and budget capability at USAID requesting greater flexibility from Congress
implementing procurement reform broadening USAID’s base of partner organizations prioritizing “true
and effective” transparency treating Foreign Service Nationals better, giving them opportunities and
respecting them as professionals reducing the data-collection burden on USAID missions and partners,
while using the collected data more effectively in planning.
Reform now – past success provides momentum
Fossett 13
[Katelyn Fosset, Inter Press Service “U.S.: OBAMA'S BUDGET LAYS OUT TRANSFORMATIVE CHANGE IN USAID” April 12 2013,
lexis]
Civil society groups here are praising parts of President Barack Obama's newly unveiled budget proposal, saying it appears
to
build on momentum gathered in recent years toward a robust overhaul of the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID), the country's main foreign aid agency. They point particularly to long-demanded changes to the
structuring of the U.S. food aid programme, one of the largest in the world. Under the president's new proposal, released
Wednesday, U.S. food assistance would no longer be sourced from U.S. farmers and then sent abroad but would be purchased in local markets.
Proponents suggest the changes will save significant money for Washington while simultaneously helping to bolster local markets and economies
in crisis-hit regions. Advocates say the food aid changes are in line with a broader reforms process under way at
USAID. "Oxfam was very critical of what USAID was doing [in 2008] - we questioned its very existence," Paul O'Brien, vice-president of
policy and advocacy at Oxfam America, a humanitarian group, said at a policy discussion here Thursday. "But we think what we're seeing
[now] is a quiet renaissance." Over the past half-decade, a new government initiative, known as USAID Forward, has
worked to strengthen links between the agency and local institutions and to forge stronger partnerships
between the United States and host countries. Supporters point to the development of Country
Development Cooperation Strategies, detailed plans in which the host country lays out goals and unique
needs to chart a path forward. "U.S. policy is changing," a new Oxfam report, released Thursday, states, "allowing
more U.S. government development officials to work more closely with leaders in developing countries , in
government, civil society, and the private sector." In a survey of 257 non-U.S. government officials in recipient
countries, the report found that 83 percent saw the United States today as a better donor than it was five
years ago. According to the report, "Respondents reported that their interactions with the US have improved,
allowing them more opportunities to decide how aid is spent and to work together towards mutuallyshared results." Taking on aid inefficiency While USAID Forward began as a direct response to criticisms spurred by the dwindling
reputation and alleged mishandling of USAID programmes during the first decade of the 2000s, President Obama's new budget
proposal - which has not yet been approved by Congress - seems to draw on these successes in moving towards a more
full-scale modernisation of the country's foreign assistance model. The budget request spotlights sweeping changes to food assistance in
particular, allocating 1.6 billion dollars for the Feed the Future initiative to combat chronic food insecurity and 2.65 billion dollars to the USAID
Global Health Programmes. It would also shift 1.8 billion dollars from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to the State Department, using funds
currently allocated for a process known as "monetisation" to instead go toward disaster- and crisis-related food assistance accounts. Monetisation
is the term given to the process by which Washington has traditionally given U.S.-grown grains to local organisations, which can then sell them
for cash. Critics say this process is notably inefficient, a finding corroborated by a 2011 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO),
the U.S. Congress's main investigative arm. "The president's 2014 budget includes reforms to food aid that will enable us to feed an estimated
four million more hungry children every year with the same resources," Rajiv Shah, the head of USAID, said in a major address Wednesday. That
optimism has been mirrored by NGOs and aid modernisation advocates. "We are encouraged by the administration's
proposal, and believe that if it is implemented correctly and authorised by Congress that it could meet the principles that NGOs have called for,"
Mark Lotwis, senior director of public policy at InterAction, a coalition of U.S.-based NGOs, told IPS. "[Those calls] include keeping the core
focus of food assistance on those who have acute hunger needs, increasing the number of people who are helped, and providing the
administration with flexibility to meet the needs of people in the field." Some key food assistance changes in Obama's budget request include the
use of cash vouchers that broaden the reach of food assistance in disaster areas and the end of inefficient "monetisation". This process, known for
returning little more than half of invested funding, has become synonymous in the NGO community with inefficiency. "The truth is that for years
our practice in food assistance has lagged behind our knowledge," Shah said Wednesday. "In the last decade, more than 30 different studies a
have revealed the inefficiencies of the current system.”
Uniq: No Reform
Powerful interest groups block reform
Kenny 13
[Charles Kenny is a fellow at the Center for Global Development and the New America Foundation, “It’s
Time to Reform USAID” March 18 2013, http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-03-18/its-time-toreform-usaid]
It’s perhaps unsurprising that aid designed to maximize friends, crop purchases, and U.S. contractors isn’t the
most effective at supporting development. Take food aid: Economics professors Nathan Nunn of Harvard and Nancy Qian of Yale
demonstrated in a 2010 paper that what determines the size of U.S. food aid shipments isn’t recipient need, but the size
of the U.S. crop. And about half the funding is used on shipping. That same money could buy supplies in local markets and help farmers in
developing countries. Many U.S. contractors bring years of technical experience and a real commitment to development. Yet the considerable
majority of U.S. aid doesn’t appear anywhere on recipient country budget plans, suggesting the money is buying what American suppliers want to
sell—not what recipients need to get. So who’s to blame for the poor record of U.S. foreign aid as a tool of
development? It’s not the fault of the long-suffering staff of U.S. aid agencies, who can deliver very effective programs if given the chance.
A global initiative backed by the U.S. and other donors supported delivery of 225 million measles vaccine doses in 2011 alone—part of a
campaign that has reduced measles deaths worldwide from 2.6 million in 1980 to 139,000 in 2010. The blame, instead, lies largely with members
of Congress who complain that aid is wasted because it doesn’t lead to development, and then turn around and ensure hardly any assistance is
designed or delivered with development as the primary goal. There’s pressure for change. USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah is trying to fix at
least two of the problems that prevent aid from working better to promote development. “This agency is no longer satisfied with writing big
checks to big contractors and calling it development,” said Shah in 2011. He has followed through with reforms designed to ensure more
companies in recipient countries can win some USAID contracts. The Obama administration is also considering overhauling the food aid program
so it delivers cash to hungry people or local food buyers rather than shipping grain halfway around the world. USAID’s current
contractors have hired lobbyists from the Podesta Group to combat procurement reform, and an alliance
of domestic agricultural groups, shipping interests, and U.S. nongovernmental organizations that
implement the food aid program are also resisting change. The food aid lobby isn’t shy about defending
the idea that combating malnutrition overseas should benefit American businesses at home: “Growing,
manufacturing, bagging, shipping, and transporting nutritious U.S. food creates jobs and economic activity here at home, provides support for our
U.S. Merchant Marine, essential to our national defense sealift capability, and sustains a robust domestic constituency for these programs not
easily replicated in alternative foreign aid programs,” they note.
No reform – lack of momentum, budget pressure, and merely rhetoric
Veillette 11
[Connie Veillette, Director of the Rethinking U.S. Foreign Assistance Program at the Center for Global
Development and Senior Director of the Lugar Center “The Future of U.S. Aid Reform: Rhetoric, Reality,
and Recommendations: A Report of the Rethinking U.S. Foreign Assistance Program, September 19 2011
http://www.cgdev.org/files/1425457_file_Veillette_Future_Aid_Reform_FINAL.pdf]
After what seemed a promising start, there is now a palpable sense in the aid community that ambitious
plans for U.S. aid reform have stalled. President Obama pledged to elevate development, and his administration moved early to
study aid effectiveness and reform options. But two and a half years into his administration, many are disappointed that
the promise of reform remains unfulfilled. The current budget environment, with its anticipated pressures
on international affairs spending, poses both challenges and opportunities to revive momentum on aid reform, but
requires the willingness of both executive and legislative branches to meaningfully collaborate. Certainly there has been some real
progress made amid a fair amount of rhetoric. USAID has undertaken critical internal reforms that hold the promise of
rebuilding it into a world-class development agency. The administration has also used high-profile special initiatives—Feed the Future, the
Global Health Initiative, and the Global Climate Change Initiative—to signal its focus on these anchors of its development policy. The
administration completed two studies on development and diplomacy that offer guidelines for U.S. global engagement, but long delays
may have undermined momentum for reform. More importantly, implementation is in question as a
consequence of that lost momentum and budget pressures. The President’s Policy Directive on Global Development (PPD)
and the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR) were released in late 2010 to great expectation. Although not all quarters of
the aid community endorsed every principle in the two documents, the expectation has been that the administration would
move decisively to implement its guidelines. Without implementation, these two studies are simply
rhetorical expressions of intent.
Uniq: More Reforms Key
USAID FORWARD has been successful, but more reform is needed
Rusu 13
[Laura Rusu is the Policy and Campaigns Media Manager for Oxfam, which is a global organization working
to right the wrongs of poverty, hunger, and injustice “USAID reforms increase effectiveness of efforts against
poverty” March 20 2013, http://www.oxfamamerica.org/press/pressreleases/usaid-reforms-increaseeffectiveness-of-efforts-against-poverty]
International relief and development organization Oxfam America praised USAID’s FORWARD
Progress Report released today as an honest review of the reforms taken up by the agency to increase the
effectiveness of America’s global poverty-fighting efforts. In reaction, Gregory Adams, Oxfam America’s
director of aid effectiveness made the following statement: “The USAID FORWARD progress report
shows the remarkable progress that USAID has made to improve the impact of America’s efforts to fight
poverty. Oxfam’s own forthcoming research echoes these findings—that USAID’s reform progress has been significant and
measureable, and that local partners are finding the US to be a better development partner. The USAID
FORWARD reforms are working to enlist local leaders and citizens as partners in making sure American
aid dollars deliver the greatest impact to fight poverty. “The progress demonstrated in the report,
especially on promoting sustainable development through high-impact partnerships demonstrates a
commitment to ensuring that people are the leaders of their own development but also that the US is
taking on the challenges of direct partnerships with local leaders in a careful, rational way. Our own
forthcoming report will show that reforms are enabling USAID staff to find ways to work with community leaders
in effective ways, and enabling governments to respond to local needs. “While USAID FORWARD has made
remarkable success, USAID and the United States government as a whole still have much more to do to make
US assistance a better tool for helping fight poverty. The US needs to live up to its commitments to releasing
more information about where and how aid is being spent, and put more USAID personnel and effort
towards building direct relationships with governments, NGOs and entrepreneurs in developing countries.
We hope that USAID will accelerate the pace of USAID FORWARD reforms, to cut out wasteful contracts and put more dollars directly in the
hands of the people driving change in their own countries.”
Info/Internal Stuff
What is Foreign Aid/Assistance?
Assistance is part of the International Affairs Budget
Tarnoff and Knowles 2k4
(Curt Tarnoff Specialist in Foreign Affairs Foreign Affairs and National Defense Larry Nowels Specialist in
Foreign Affairs Foreign Affairs and National Defense “Foreign Aid: An Introductory Overview of U.S.
Programs and Policy,” pg online @ http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/98-916.pdf //um-ef)
Foreign assistance is a fundamental component of the
international affairs budget
and is
viewed by many as an essential instrument of U.S. foreign policy. Since the end of the Cold War, many have proposed significant changes in the size, composition, and purpose of the program, several of which
have been adopted. The focus of U.S. foreign aid policy has also been transformed since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. This report provides an overview of the U.S. foreign aid program, by
addressing a number of the more frequently asked questions regarding the subject.
There are
five major categories of foreign
assistance: bilateral development aid, economic assistance supporting U.S. political and
security goals, humanitarian aid, multilateral economic contributions, and military aid . Due largely to the
bilateral development assistance has
become the largest category of U.S. aid. In 2004, the United States is providing some form of foreign assistance to about 150 countries. Israel and Egypt continue, as
they have since the late 1970s, as the largest recipients, although Iraq, receiving over $20 billion for reconstruction activities since mid-2003, is the biggest recipient in FY2004. The importance
of Latin America counter-narcotics efforts is also evident, with Bolivia, Peru, and more recently,
Colombia, among the top U.S. aid recipients. The impact of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, and the subsequent use of foreign aid to support the war on
recent implementation two new foreign aid initiatives — the Millennium Challenge Corporation and the Global AIDS Initiative —
terrorism is clearly seen in the country-aid allocations for FY2004. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkey, Jordan, and Indonesia are key partners in the war on terrorism. By nearly all measures, the amount of foreign aid
provided by the United States declined for several decades but has grown in the past few years. After hitting an alltime low in the mid1990s, total foreign assistance (but excluding Iraq reconstruction) for
FY2003/2004, in real terms, has been larger than any two-year period since the mid-1980s. The 0.2% of U.S. gross national product represented by foreign aid obligations the past two years, however, is among
the smallest amounts in the last half-century. The United States is the largest international economic aid donor in dollar terms but is the smallest contributor among the major donor governments when calculated
(USAID) manages the bulk of bilateral economic
assistance; the Treasury Department handles most multilateral aid; and the Department of Defense (DOD) and
the State Department administer military and other security-related programs . The Millennium Challenge Corporation is
a new foreign aid agency created in 2004. The House International Relations and Senate Foreign Relations Committees
have primary congressional responsibility for authorizing foreign aid programs while the House
and Senate Appropriations Foreign Operations Subcommittees manage bills appropriating most
foreign assistance funds.
as a percent of gross national income. The U.S. Agency for International Development
EE= Bilateral Develop. Assistance
Tarnoff and Knowles 2k4
(Curt Tarnoff Specialist in Foreign Affairs Foreign Affairs and National Defense Larry Nowels Specialist in
Foreign Affairs Foreign Affairs and National Defense “Foreign Aid: An Introductory Overview of U.S.
Programs and Policy,” pg online @ http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/98-916.pdf //um-ef)
What are the Funding Priorities of Bilateral Economic Assistance? The largest component of U.S.
foreign aid finances bilateral economic assistance programs managed directly by USAID, or in some cases
jointly by USAID and the State Department. This cluster of assistance roughly matches the combined two
categories of bilateral development aid and economic political/security programs illustrated in Figure 1, above, that are managed
by USAID and the Department of State.5 Congress appropriates funds for these activities in seven accounts included in annual
Foreign Operations appropriation measures: Development Assistance (DA), Child Survival and
Health (CSH), the Global AIDS Initiative (GAI), the Economic Support Fund (ESF), Assistance for
Eastern Europe and the Baltic States, Assistance for the Independent States of the former Soviet Union,
and alternative development programs implemented through the Andean Counter-narcotics Initiative
(ACI). Collectively, these programs total $8.1 billion, or roughly 40% of total FY2004 foreign aid appropriations. As noted above, USAID organizes bilateral economic
assistance around three functional “strategic pillars,” allocating resources to each of 14 more specific program sectors within the three pillars. Changes in the
amount of funds distributed to each of these sectors is one means of measuring the relative priority placed by the executive branch on any of these specific bilateral aid activities. Because
Congress closely examines the executive’s sector distribution of bilateral economic resources and in a
number of cases modifies the President’s proposed budget plan, sector funding trends also characterize
congressional aid priorities and areas of special concern.6 Global Health. One of the most striking changes in the distribution of economic
aid resources in recent years has been the sharp growth in funding for Global Health, especially in the area of HIV/AIDS programs. The budget for Global Health has nearly doubled since FY2001, while
HIV/AIDS resources have increased almost five-fold.7 In FY2004, the Bush Administration launched a five-year, $15 billion Global AIDS Initiative, with the goals of 7 million new infections, treating 2 million
HIV-infected individuals, and caring for 10 million infected people and AIDS orphans. Funding for two other health sectors are rising, but far more modestly than HIV/AIDS programs. Child Survival and
Maternal Health projects aim to reduce infant mortality by, among other interventions, decreasing the incidence of acute respiratory infections, diarrheal disease, measles, and other illnesses that occur in the first
28 days of life and combating malnutrition, and to improve the quality of child delivery facilities and raise nutritional levels of mothers. Funding for these activities has grown by 27% in the past four years.
Congress has placed special attention on other infectious disease activities — mainly those addressing malaria and tuberculosis — increasing spending by 43% since FY2001. This rapid rise in Global Health
generally, driven largely by HIV/AIDS funding increases, however, overshadows to some extent reductions for other sectors. Spending on Family Planning and Reproductive Health programs has been relatively
flat during the past four years, with the FY2004 level below that of FY2001. Vulnerable Children programs, meaning those that focus on children affected by war, street children, and children with disabilities,
have also received flat levels of funding, and FY2004 amounts are about 12% less than FY2001. Economic Growth. Within the “pillar” with the largest level of funding — Economic Growth, Agriculture, and
Trade — the patterns have also been mixed. Basic Education programs, which encourage countries to strengthen their educational institutions and policies and reduce barriers for girls to attend school, have
received nearly a three-fold increase in funding since FY2001. Resources for higher education, on the other hand, have declined slightly over the same period. USAID has placed revitalized emphasis in recent
years on Agriculture activities, an area which had been the largest program sector two decades ago. Funding rose by 50% in FY2002/2003 before falling back to a level in FY2004 that is one-third higher than
FY2001. Agriculture programs focus on science and technology advances that reduce poverty and hunger, trade-promotion opportunities for farmers, and sound environmental management practices for
sustainable agriculture. Programs for managing natural resources and protecting the global environment have been the largest area of funding cuts since FY2001. These activities focus on conserving biological
diversity, improving the management of land, water, and forests, promoting environmentally-sound urban development, encouraging clean and efficient energy production and use, and reducing the threat of
Resource trends for Economic
Growth activities are more difficult to assess . This sector funds a wide range of development
activities , focusing on trade capacity building, improving the investment climate, and promoting job
creation, with an overall goal of reducing poverty. Budget support and commodity import programs are
also included in this sector. Funding for Economic Growth programs has been affected by terrorismrelated supplementals, especially large aid packages for Afghan reconstruction. This makes it difficult to identify any
global climate change while strengthening sustainable economic growth. Funding levels are nearly 20% below amounts in FY2001.
specific trend. Much of the increase for FY2003 came from additional assistance for several “front-line” states in the war on terrorism immediately prior to the launch of military operations in Iraq. The reduced
amount for FY2004 (although still large compared with FY2001/2002) includes significant supplemental spending in Afghanistan for road construction and other economic rehabilitation activities.8
Democracy. Overall funding for the Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian “pillar” has risen
by 20%
since FY2001, with most increases coming in the area of Democracy, Governance and Conflict Prevention. Program goals include strengthening the performance and accountability of government institutions,
combating corruption, and addressing the causes and consequences of conflict. Human Rights is a relatively small sector supporting a range of activities such as strengthening women’s legal clinics and combating
trafficking in persons. Funding levels have grown somewhat in recent years. Humanitarian Assistance under this “pillar” has declined in funding by over 10% since FY2001. Most of these programs are centered
in Colombia and former Soviet states, concentrating on addressing the needs of internally displaced persons and conflict-affected communities.9
Who delivers it
Multiple Actors and Agencies in the USFG deliver aid
Tarnoff and Knowles 2k4
(Curt Tarnoff Specialist in Foreign Affairs Foreign Affairs and National Defense Larry Nowels Specialist in
Foreign Affairs Foreign Affairs and National Defense “Foreign Aid: An Introductory Overview of U.S.
Programs and Policy,” pg online @ http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/98-916.pdf //um-ef)
Delivery of Foreign Assistance How and in what form assistance reaches an aid recipient can vary widely, depending on the type of aid program, the objective of the assistance, and
the agency responsible for providing the aid. What executive branch agencies administer foreign aid programs? For over 40
years, the bulk of the U.S. bilateral economic aid program has been administered by the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) Created by an executive branch reorganization in 1961, USAID became an independent agency in 1999, although its Administrator reports to and serves under the
“direct authority and foreign policy guidance” of the Secretary of State. USAID is responsible for most bilateral development assistance,
including economic growth, global health, and democracy programs , Title II of P.L. 480 food assistance, and, in conjunction with the
State Department, ESF, East European, and former Soviet aid programs. In FY2004, USAID manages a foreign aid budget of $12.65
billion, maintaining direct control over $5.7 billion of this amount . USAID’s staff totals 8,132, of which only about 2,035 are U.S. citizens
hired directly by the agency. The largest components of USAID staff are foreign nationals (3,570) working in overseas missions and representational offices who oversee the implementation of hundreds of
In
addition to these programs jointly managed with USAID, the State Department administers several
other aid programs directly. Individual offices at the Department of State oversee activities dealing
with narcotics control and international law enforcement, terrorism, weapons proliferation, nonU.N. peacekeeping operations, refugee relief, and voluntary support for a range of international
organizations such as UNICEF. In order to manage the President’s recent Global AIDS Initiative, the State Department has created a Special Coordinators Office that
projects undertaken by thousands of contractors, consultants, and non- governmental organizations (NGOs) Another 2,652 personal service contractors perform other work for the agency.15
administers in FY2004 $488 million for international HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria programs. These funds are expected to grow significantly in future years: the President has requested $1.45 billion for
FY2005. The funds will be channeled through USAID, the Centers for Disease Control, the National Institutes for Health, and other implementing agencies. FY2004 appropriations for these State Departmentadministered aid programs totals about $2.75 billion. Most military assistance is administered by the Department of Defense (DOD) in conjunction with the Office of Politico-Military Affairs in the State
Department. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency is the primary DOD body responsible for foreign military financing and training programs. The Defense Department manages about $4.7 billion of total
The Treasury Department also administers three foreign aid programs. U.S.
contributions to and participation in the World Bank and other multilateral development
institutions are managed by the Under Secretary for International Affairs. Presidentially appointed
U.S. executive directors at each of the banks represent the United States point of view . Treasury also
deals with foreign debt reduction issues and programs, including U.S. participation in the HIPC initiative.
The Treasury Department further manages a technical assistance program, offering temporary financial
advisors to countries implementing major economic reforms and combating terrorist finance activity. For
FY2004, funding for activities falling under the Treasury Department’s jurisdiction total about $1.5
billion . A new foreign aid agency was created in February 2004 to administer the President’s recently approved Millennium Challenge Account initiative. The Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) is
foreign aid spending in FY2004.
charged with managing this resultsoriented, competitive foreign aid delivery mechanism that will invest resources in countries that adopt pro-growth strategies for meeting political, social, and economic
challenges. The MCC is a U.S. government corporation, headed by a Chief Executive Officer who reports to a Board of Directors chaired by the Secretary of State. The Corporation plans to maintain a relatively
small staff of less than 200, while drawing on support from USAID. The MCC manages a budget of $994 million in FY2004, a total that is projected to grow to $5 billion by FY2006 under the President’s plan.
Other Agencies Do Aid
Tarnoff and Knowles 2k4
(Curt Tarnoff Specialist in Foreign Affairs Foreign Affairs and National Defense Larry Nowels Specialist in
Foreign Affairs Foreign Affairs and National Defense “Foreign Aid: An Introductory Overview of U.S.
Programs and Policy,” pg online @ http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/98-916.pdf //um-ef)
Other government agencies which play a role in implementation of foreign aid programs are the
Peace Corps , the Trade and Development Agency (TDA), and the Overseas Private Investment
Corporation (OPIC). The Peace Corps, an autonomous agency with an FY2004 budget of $323 million, supports
more than 7,800 volunteers in 73 countries. Peace Corps volunteers work in a wide range of educational, health, and
community development projects. TDA finances trade missions and feasibility studies for private sector
projects likely to generate U.S. exports. Its budget in FY2004 is $50 million. OPIC provides political risk
insurance to U.S. companies investing in developing countries and the new democracies and
finances projects through loans and guarantees. It also supports investment missions and provides
other pre-investment information services. Its insurance activities have been self-sustaining, but credit reform
rules require a relatively small appropriation to back up U.S. guarantees. Two independent agencies, the InterAmerican Foundation and the African Development Foundation, also administer U.S. foreign aid.
Both organizations emphasize grassroots development by providing financial support to local private
organizations in developing countries. For FY2004, Congress appropriated $16 million and $18 million to the
Inter-American Foundation and the African Development Foundation, respectively. Departing from the
practice of using traditional U.S. aid agencies, such as USAID and the Departments of State and
Treasury, Iraq reconstruction activities have been overseen by a new entity — the Coalition
Provisional Authority (CPA). The CPA, which has received over $21 billion to undertake reconstruction
projects in Iraq, is headed by a civilian administrator based in Baghdad but who reports to the President through the
Secretary of Defense. The White House anticipates that the CPA will be dissolved on June 30, 2004, when
governing authority is turned over to Iraqi interim government. It is further presumed that the State Department and
USAID, which have been providing supportive work for the CPA, will take over responsibility for future Iraq
reconstruction efforts.
What is Aid?
The Aff must be one of the following Tarnoff and Knowles 2k4
(Curt Tarnoff Specialist in Foreign Affairs Foreign Affairs and National Defense Larry Nowels Specialist in
Foreign Affairs Foreign Affairs and National Defense “Foreign Aid: An Introductory Overview of U.S.
Programs and Policy,” pg online @ http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/98-916.pdf //um-ef)
What are the different forms in which assistance is provided? Most U.S. assistance is now provided as a grant (gift ) rather than a loan (see the next question
for further discussion). But the forms a grant may take on its way to the recipient country are diverse. Cash
transfers. Although it is the exception rather than the rule, some countries receive aid in the form of a cash grant to the government. Dollars provided in this way support a government’s balance-ofpayments situation, enabling it to purchase more U.S. goods, service its debt, or devote more domestic revenues to developmental or other purposes. Cash transfers have been made as a reward to countries that
have supported the United States in its war on terrorism (Turkey and Jordan in FY2004), to provide political and strategic support (both Egypt and Israel annually since 1979), and in exchange for undertaking
difficult political and economic reforms (multiple African countries since the 1980s, including Ghana, Mozambique, and Zambia in FY2004). Of FY2004 appropriations, about $855 million will be provided as
Commodity import programs (CIP). The Commodity Import Program managed by USAID
allows indigenous private sector business in a foreign country to gain access to U.S. dollars in order to
import eligible American goods. In exchange for the dollars, local currency paid by these businesses goes to a host government account and is then programmed for development
purposes by both the host country and the United States. The program, used widely in the past, is currently administered solely in Egypt and valued at $200 million in FY2004. Equipment and
commodities. Assistance may be provided in the form of food commodities, weapons systems, or
equipment such as generators or computers. Food aid may be provided directly to meet humanitarian needs or to encourage attendance at a maternal/child health
cash transfers.CRS-24
care program. Weapons supplied under the military assistance program may include training in their use. Equipment and commodities provided under development assistance are usually integrated with other
forms of aid to meet objectives in a particular social or economic sector. For instance, textbooks have been provided in both Afghanistan and Iraq as part of a broader effort to reform the educational sector and
train teachers. Computers may be offered in conjunction with training and expertise to fledgling microcredit institutions.
Training. Transfer of know-how is a
significant part of most assistance programs . The International Military and Educational Training Program (IMET) provides training to officers of the
military forces of allied and friendly nations. Tens of thousands of citizens of aid recipient countries receive short-term technical training or longer term degree training annually under USAID’s participant
training program. More than one-third of Peace Corps volunteers are English, math, and science teachers. Other programs provide law enforcement personnel with antinarcotics or anti-terrorism training.
Expertise . Many assistance programs provide expert advice to government and private
sector organizations. The Treasury Department, USAID, and U.S.- funded multilateral
banks all place specialists in host government ministries to make recommendations on
policy reforms in a wide variety of sectors. USAID has often placed experts in private sector business
and civic organizations to help strengthen them in their formative years or while indigenous staff are
being trained. While most of these experts are U.S. nationals, in Russia, USAID has funded the development of locally-staffed political and economic think tanks to offer policy options to that
government. Small grants. USAID, the Inter-American Foundation, and the African Development Foundation often provide aid in the form of grants that may then be used by U.S. or indigenous organizations to
further their varied developmental purposes. For instance, grants are sometimes provided to microcredit organizations which in turn provide loans to microentrepreneurs. Through the USAID-funded Eurasia
Foundation, grants are provided to help strengthen the role of former Soviet Union non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in democratization and private enterprise development.
Aid Budget FYI’s
The foreign aid budget is in five categories; each are handled by different federal agencies.
Tarnoff and Knowles 2k4
(Curt Tarnoff Specialist in Foreign Affairs Foreign Affairs and National Defense Larry Nowels Specialist in
Foreign Affairs Foreign Affairs and National Defense “Foreign Aid: An Introductory Overview of U.S.
Programs and Policy,” pg online @http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/98-916.pdf //um-ef)
Foreign assistance is a fundamental component of the international affairs budget and is viewed by many as an
essential instrument of U.S. foreign policy. Since the end of the Cold War, many have proposed significant changes
in the size, composition, and purpose of the program, several of which have been adopted. The focus of U.S. foreign
aid policy has also been transformed since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. This report provides an
overview of the U.S. foreign aid program, by addressing a number of the more frequently asked questions regarding
the subject.There are five major categories of foreign assistance: bilateral development aid, economic
assistance supporting U.S. political and security goals, humanitarian aid, multilateral economic contributions,
and military aid. Due largely to the recent implementation two new foreign aid initiatives — the Millennium
Challenge Corporation and the Global AIDS Initiative — bilateral development assistance has become the
largest category of U.S. aid. In 2004, the United States is providing some form of foreign assistance to about 150
countries. Israel and Egypt continue, as they have since the late 1970s, as the largest recipients, although Iraq,
receiving over $20 billion for reconstruction activities since mid-2003, is the biggest recipient in FY2004. The
importance of Latin America counter-narcotics efforts is also evident, with Bolivia, Peru, and more recently,
Colombia, among the top U.S. aid recipients. The impact of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, and the
subsequent use of foreign aid to support the war on terrorism is clearly seen in the country-aid allocations for
FY2004. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkey, Jordan, and Indonesia are key partners in the war on terrorism. By nearly
all measures, the amount of foreign aid provided by the United States declined for several decades but has grown in
the past few years. After hitting an alltime low in the mid1990s, total foreign assistance (but excluding Iraq
reconstruction) for FY2003/2004, in real terms, has been larger than any two-year period since the mid-1980s. The
0.2% of U.S. gross national product represented by foreign aid obligations the past two years, however, is among the
smallest amounts in the last half-century. The United States is the largest international economic aid donor in dollar
terms but is the smallest contributor among the major donor governments when calculated as a percent of gross
national income. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) manages the bulk of bilateral
economic assistance; the Treasury Department handles most multilateral aid; and the Department of
Defense (DOD) and the State Department administer military and other security-related programs. The
Millennium Challenge Corporation is a new foreign aid agency created in 2004. The House International
Relations and Senate Foreign Relations Committees have primary congressional responsibility for
authorizing foreign aid programs while the House and Senate Appropriations Foreign Operations
Subcommittees manage bills appropriating most foreign assistance funds.
Foreign aid doesn't include military or non-development purposes
Radelet 06
( By Steven Radelet, “A Primer on Foreign Aid”, Working Paper Number 92, Center for Global Development
- The Center for Global Development is an independent think tank that works to reduce global poverty and
inequality through rigorous research and active engagement with the policy community. This Working Paper
was made possible in part by funding from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. July 2006,
http://www.who.int/hac/techguidance/training/analysing_health_systems/a_primer_on_foreign_aid_06.pdf) //
NVG
The standard definition of foreign aid comes from the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which defines foreign aid (or the equivalent
term, foreign assistance) as financial flows, technical assistance, and commodities that are (1) designed to
promote economic development and welfare as their main objective (thus excluding aid for military or other
non-development purposes); and (2) are provided as either grants or subsidized loans.
Aid is divided into three categories; official development assistance, official assistance, and
private voluntary assistance.
Radelet 06 ( By Steven Radelet, “A Primer on Foreign Aid”, Working Paper Number 92, Center for Global
Development - The Center for Global Development is an independent think tank that works to reduce global poverty
and inequality through rigorous research and active engagement with the policy community. This Working Paper
was made possible in part by funding from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. July 2006,
http://www.who.int/hac/techguidance/training/analysing_health_systems/a_primer_on_foreign_aid_06.pdf) // NVG
The DAC classifies aid flows into three broad categories. Official development assistance (ODA) is the largest,
consisting of aid provided by donor governments to low- and middle income countries. Official assistance
(OA) is aid provided by governments to richer countries with per capita incomes higher than approximately
$9,000 (e.g., Bahamas, Cyprus, Israel and Singapore) and to countries that were formerly part of the Soviet Union or
its satellites. Private voluntary assistance includes grants from non-government organizations, religious
groups, charities, foundations, and private companies.
Aid can be bilateral or multilateral.
Radelet 06 ( By Steven Radelet, “A Primer on Foreign Aid”, Working Paper Number 92, Center for Global
Development - The Center for Global Development is an independent think tank that works to reduce global poverty
and inequality through rigorous research and active engagement with the policy community. This Working Paper
was made possible in part by funding from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. July 2006,
http://www.who.int/hac/techguidance/training/analysing_health_systems/a_primer_on_foreign_aid_06.pdf) // NVG
Historically most aid has been given as bilateral assistance directly from one country to another. Donors also
provide aid indirectly as multilateral assistance, which pools resources together from many donors. The major
multilateral institutions include the World Bank; the International Monetary Fund; the African, Asian, and InterAmerican Development Banks, and various United Nations agencies such as the United Nations Development
Programme.
Aid must be measured in total dollars, a share of GDP, and per capita to get a clear
picture.
Radelet 06 ( By Steven Radelet, “A Primer on Foreign Aid”, Working Paper Number 92, Center for Global
Development - The Center for Global Development is an independent think tank that works to reduce global poverty
and inequality through rigorous research and active engagement with the policy community. This Working Paper
was made possible in part by funding from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. July 2006,
http://www.who.int/hac/techguidance/training/analysing_health_systems/a_primer_on_foreign_aid_06.pdf) // NVG
Aid is typically measured in one of three ways: total dollars, as a share of GDP, or per capita. Each measure
reveals different things. Total dollar amounts clearly are important, but they do not tell the entire story. Aid
measured as a share of GDP indicates its size relative to the entire economy, and is perhaps the most common
measure. But it can be misleading since a high ratio can be indicative of low GDP or a large amount of aid.
The amount of aid needed to immunize 1 million children can look like a large share of GDP in a poor country and a
small share of GDP in a richer country, when the amount per child might be roughly the same. On a per capita
basis, the aid flows to some of the largest recipients are fairly small. Bangladesh received $1.4 billion in aid in
2004, but this was equivalent to just 2 percent of its GDP or about $10 per Bangladeshi. By contrast, Nicaragua
received a slightly smaller amount, $1.2 billion in 2004, but for its 5.5 million people this was equivalent to about
$225 dollars per person. For small countries, a little bit goes a long way. Tiny Sao Tome and Principe received just
$33 million, but this translated into 67 percent of GDP and about $209 per person. Thus, to get a clear picture, it is
helpful to look at all three measures of the amount of aid.
Uniq/FYI: Mexico budget
Mexico is receiving 205 million in US aid
Wells 13, correspondent for the In Sight Crime – Organized Crime in the Americas, (Miriam, “US State
Dept 2014 Budget Cuts Aid to Colombia, Mexico” , 4/12/13, Organized Crime in the Americas,
http://www.insightcrime.org/news-briefs/us-state-dept-2014-budget-reflects-changes-in-latam-crimelandscape) //LA
The US State Department budget proposal for 2014 has reduced aid for Colombia and Mexico while
increasing funds for Central America, reflecting changes in regional priorities.In its budget request to US
Congress earlier this week, the State Department allocated $323 million to Colombia, a $61 million
decrease compared to 2012, reported a senior State Department official (the figures were collated before
the 2013 budget was finalized). A total of $205 million was allocated to Mexico, a $124 million decrease
from 2012. Meanwhile, funds allocated to the Central America Regional Security Initiative (CARSI) rose
by $26 million to $161.5 million. Previous years' assistance to Mexico and Colombia had involved
providing very expensive military equipment, said the official, whereas now the focus was on less-costly
capacity strengthening. Increased funds to Central America reflected increased drug trafficking and crime
in that region, they added.
More evidence - Mexico receives 200 million from the US, and the
Department of State 13, United States Department of State, (“Senior State, USAID Officials on
Obama’s FY 2014 Budget Proposal”, 4/10/13, US Department of State,
http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/texttrans/2013/04/20130410145570.html#axzz2YfmxZwHx)
//LA
QUESTION: I got two very brief ones. About how – about what percent of the additional East Asia Pacific money
would you say is designed to counter either Chinese military or Chinese threats or Chinese influence, and
particularly in Southeast Asia among former French colonies? SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE:
Well, I mean, the pivot to East Asia is, in some sense, is broad in that we don’t have any specific dollar or specific
program that’s meant directly to say this is to counter China influence. I think the whole effort is meant – (laughter)
-- QUESTION: So 100 percent? SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Well, the whole – the effort is
– our effort is to strengthen our engagement in that region, because there are obviously other influences there that
we’re trying to make sure we either counter or we make sure that the countries of that region have help to do that. So
we don’t have a line item in the budget that says “X million dollars to counter Chinese influence,” because I think
by helping countries become a stronger partner is by increasing security assistance, by helping them deal with these
transnational threats, by strengthening regional institutions, it helps strengthen the region. And that’s ultimately in
our interests. QUESTION: Thank you for being so forthcoming. I didn’t expect an answer at all. (Laughter.) I
expected the usual answer, which is not what I got, so that’s good. Just on the Latin American drug initiative,
Merida and Plan Colombia, and their legacies -- SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- is there any – are those still left? SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: They are. But
they – the programs in Mexico and Colombia are on sort of a downward glide path, because – for two reasons. One,
the assistance to those countries in the past have been very, very high, and they were driven largely by big military
equipment, which are very sort of expensive. Now we’re sort of normalizing those programs to be much more in a
capacity training types of programs. So you’re going to see – there are decreases in our budget compared to 2012
with Mexico and Colombia, but we’re also – but we’re increasing our accounted drug efforts in the Caribbean,
where things seem to be moving in terms of drug trafficking and crime. So programs like our regional Central
America security initiative go up. QUESTION: Do you have a breakdown of how much they’re – they will be
decreasing next (inaudible)? SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Yes. Let me just get my notes
here. Hang on one second. Yeah. It’s right here. Yeah. Mexico, we’re providing $205 million, which is about $124
million decrease from 2012. And Colombia, we’re providing $323 million, which is a $61 million decrease.
QUESTION: Decrease. SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Decrease. And the Caribbean initiative
I mentioned, we’re providing $162 million, and that’s a $26 million increase. So we’re basically changing the
balance of the resources in the region. Although, the Colombia and Mexico assistance is still pretty – they’re still
one of the largest recipients of assistance. It’s not like we’re going down to de minimis levels in those countries.
MODERATOR: Time for a couple more? (Inaudible) wanted to get a follow-up. QUESTION: Sure, just a quick – a
couple line items – programs that I’d like to ask for quick explanations on. You funded the Mike Mansfield
Fellowship Program. Is that – we’re not doing that anymore?
Links/FYI: Generic Mexico
Mexico receives 500$ million of US foreign aid
WOLA 11, Washington Office in Latin America, (WOLA, “A First Look at the 2012 U.S. Foreign Aid
Request”, 2/16/11, http://www.wola.org/commentary/a_first_look_at_the_2012_us_foreign_aid_request)
//LA
As the Obama administration seeks to close the huge U.S. deficit without raising taxes, cutting defense or
reducing entitlements, programs like foreign assistance are likely to suffer reductions. And foreign
assistance to regions beyond the Middle East — like Latin America — is still more likely to get cut back.
That is exactly what the White House foresees in the 2012 federal budget request that it sent to Congress
yesterday. The request for State Department and Foreign Operations assistance — the foreign aid budget bill, which
accounts for most U.S. aid to Latin America and the Caribbean — is being cut deeply. The request
includes about $2.07 billion in new aid to Latin America and the Caribbean for 2012. That would be the
lowest amount since 2007, and a reduction of 18.1 percent from 2009 . Since 1996, the year for which we began
tracking aid for the “Just the Facts” project, U.S. aid to the Western Hemisphere has spiked twice. The
first time was 1999-2000, when the Clinton administration provided a big rebuilding aid package to
Central America after Hurricane Mitch, then launched “Plan Colombia,” a large package of counter-drug
aid to Colombia and its neighbors. The second bulge in aid appears on the above chart in 2008, and is
flattening now. That is the “Mérida Initiative,” the Bush administration’s big aid package for Mexico and
Central America. An additional aid spike appears in 2010: the U.S. response to the January 2010
earthquake in Haiti. The same chart without the Hurricane Mitch and Haiti earthquake aid shows clearly
that the second aid “spike” is ending. Unless Congress provides a big supplemental package of aid to the
region this year — which is unlikely — the wave of aid that began with Mérida in 2008 will have crested.
Looking at the first chart by type of aid, rather than by country, yields an interesting result: nearly all of the
2012 aid cut would come from military and police assistance. 23 percent of the aid in the 2012 request for Latin
America and the Caribbean is military and police aid. That is a big change from 2007, when the Bush
administration and a Republican-majority Congress approved a package of 40 percent military and police
aid. Military and police aid to the region through this budget bill would fall by 43 percent from 2009 to 2012 . Most of
the reduction would come from Colombia and Mexico. Military and police assistance to Colombia would
drop by 91 million (31 percent) from 2009 to 2012. Military and police aid to Mexico would drop even
more steeply. 2009, the beginning of the Mérida aid package, was a year of big outlays for expensive
military and police equipment like helicopters; military and police aid to Mexico totaled $387 million that
year. With those big-ticket deliveries out of the way, the focus of U.S. assistance to Mexico has shifted to
the long-term institutional strengthening that Mexico’s law enforcement and justice systems urgently
require. This has meant less military-police aid: $112 million in 2011 and $102 million in 2012. Though a
smaller aid recipient, Bolivia is also notable for a sharp drop in U.S. assistance. Foreign Operations
military and police aid to Bolivia, once regularly above $30 million per year, would barely exceed $10
million in 2012. This reflects the poor state of U.S. relations with Evo Morales’s government. Removing
Colombia and Mexico from the picture, however, reveals an interesting result: minus those two
countries, military and police aid to the rest of the region actually increases from 2009 to 2012, from $185 million to
$186 millioWithout Colombia and Mexico, the Andes, post-Aristide Haiti, and Central America dominate
the military and police aid picture. The wars on drugs and organized crime are still the main missions
underlying this aid. Non-military, economic assistance to the region would also be cut in 2012, but far
less than military and police assistance. The 2012 aid request foresees a 5.0 percent drop in economic and social
assistance to Latin America and the Caribbean from 2009 levels. Development and institution-building aid to the
region would be spared most of the budget-cutting pain. A few additional observations: Colombia: This
may be the first Foreign Operations aid request we have ever seen that would provide Colombia with
more economic and social assistance ($201.7 million) than military and police assistance ($196 million).
(Whether this is truly accurate depends on how much of the “International Narcotics Control and Law
Enforcement” program would pay for military versus nonmilitary aid — the preliminary budget
documents released yesterday do not specify. We estimate this by extrapolating from the proportions in
the 2011 request, and come up with a minority-military aid request for the first time.) Mexico: During her
January visit to Mexico, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton spoke of $500 million in assistance to
Mexico for this year. That package does not appear in the Foreign Operations request, which would give
Mexico $330 million in 2011 and $333 million in 2012. Perhaps there is a big supplemental package of
aid to Mexico in the works for later this year. Or it could be that the Secretary was including Defensebudget aid too, though this would have to increase substantially to bring the aid total to $500 million. Or
maybe she was referring to aid appropriated in past years that is scheduled to be delivered this year.
Uniq/FYI: Latin America budget
Despite the decrease of overall funding, Social and Economic aid programs are receiving
more funding in Latin America
CIP 12, Center for International Policy, (“The 2013 State Department and Foreign Operations Aid
Request and Latin America and the Caribbean”, March 2012, Center for International Policy,
http://www.ciponline.org/research/entry/the-2013-state-department-and-foreign-operations-aid-request)
//LA
On February 13, the Obama administration released its 2013 budget request to Congress, which includes its request
for State Department and Foreign Operations assistance in FY2013. Below are a few things we observed in the new
foreign assistance budget for Latin America and the Caribbean.*** It is important to note, that these observations
and graphs do not discuss or include all U.S. aid to Latin America. The U.S. Department of Defense also provides
military aid to the region, which could increase the military aid amounts in this post by as much as one-third. Also,
smaller economic and social aid programs are not included, as they are not reported by region in the preliminary aid
request. As a result, economic aid numbers could be about one-seventh higher than they appear in this post. The
2013 foreign operations aid request includes about $1.74 billion in new aid to Latin America and the Caribbean.
This is the lowest amount since 2007 and a 12% reduction from the estimated 2012 budget. The aid “spike” that
began with the Mérida Initiative in 2008 crested in 2009 and continues to fall, showing a reduction of 31% from
2009 to 2013. (The large spike in 2010 is aid for Haiti after the earthquake). Economic and social aid to the region
would decrease by 6% from 2012 to 2013. The economic and social aid programs that would receive more funds in
2013 than 2012 include the Development Assistance fund (5% increase), and the OAS Development Assistance
Programs (22% increase). Most of the economic and social aid programs, however, will decline from 2012 to 2013,
including Migration and Refugee Assistance (12.4% decrease), Economic Support Fund (7% decrease), Global
Health (11% decrease), and the Inter-American Foundation (20% decrease) **This leaves out smaller economic-aid
programs that aren’t reported by region in this preliminary aid request, like PL 480 (“Food for Peace”) and the Peace
Corps. Actual economic aid totals may be about one-seventh higher than they appear in this memo. From 2009 to
2013, military and police aid to the region would fall by 47% through this budget request. This will be the lowest
amount of military and police aid ($463 million) from foreign operations assistance to the region since the start of
Plan Colombia (the significant drop in military aid in 2001 is a result of the significant spike in 2000, when aid to
Colombia was appropriated for a two-year period). Aid to Colombia’s armed forces and police continue to decline to
levels last seen before 1999, the year “Plan Colombia” began. Aid to Mexico’s security forces, while still higher
than pre-Mérida Initiative levels, continues to decline from the 2008-2010 period of large-scale purchases of
expensive helicopters and aircraft. While military and police aid to the entire region from this budget request shows
a downward trend, military and police assistance to Central America would increase in 2013 by 3.5%. From 2012 to
2013, military and police aid to Honduras, Costa Rica and Belize would more than double, as a result of significant
increases in Foreign Military Financing funds to those countries. **Again, these aid amounts do not include
assistance from the Department of Defense, which could increase the military aid amounts in this post by as much as
one-third. With Mexico and Colombia—the region’s two largest recipients of U.S. military and police aid—removed
from the picture, military and police aid to the rest of the region, via the State Department and Foreign Operations
budget, actually increases from 2009 to 2013, from $185 million to $212 million. 25.85% ($450.6 million) of the
2013 State/Foreign Operations budget would be military and police aid, while economic and social aid would make
up 74.15% ($1.3 billion) of the budget (compared to 2007, when 40% of the State/Foreign Operations budget was
military and police aid).
Latin America will receive 1.7 billion in aid
Meyer and Sullivan 12, Meyer is an analyst in Latin American affairs, Sullivan is a specialist in Latin
American affairs, (Peter J. and Mark P., “U.S. Foreign Assistance to Latin America and the Caribbean:
Recent Trends and FY2013 Appropriations”, 6/26/12, Congressional Research Service,
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42582.pdf)//LA
The Obama Administration’s FY2013 foreign aid budget request would continue the recent downward
trend in assistance to Latin America and the Caribbean. The Administration has requested some $1.7
billion for the region to be provided through the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID). If Congress appropriates funding at the requested levels, Latin America and the
Caribbean would receive nearly 9% less assistance than the region received in FY2012, and about 11%
less than in FY2011. The proposed cuts are widespread, affecting nearly every foreign aid account.
Colombia, Haiti, and Mexico would see some of the largest absolute dollar declines, but would remain the
top three regional recipients, collectively accounting for some 55% of the aid to the region. Beyond the
assistance provided through the State Department and USAID, many Latin American and Caribbean
nations will continue to receive additional aid from agencies such as the Department of Defense, the
InterAmerican Foundation, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, and the Peace Corps.
Uniqueness/FYI General foreign aid budget
Obama requests 52 billion for foreign aid
Lobe 13, has also written for Foreign Policy In Focus, AlterNet, The American Prospect and
Tompaine.com, Jim received a B.A. degree with highest honours in history at Williams College and a
J.D. degree from the University of California at Berkeley’s Boalt Hall School of Law, (Jim, “Obama
Requests Modest Bump in Foreign Aid”, 4/11/13, Inter Press Service News Agency
http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/04/obama-requests-modest-bump-in-foreign-aid/) //LA
U.S. President Barack Obama Wednesday asked Congress to approve some 52 billion dollars in foreign
aid and international spending in 2014, slightly higher than the current year’s budget which was cut due to
the partisan impasse over how to reduce the yawning federal deficit. Among other provisions, the new
proposal calls for modest increases in global health and development assistance, as well as cuts in military
aid to foreign countries and in special contingency funding for so-called “front-line states” — Iraq,
Afghanistan, and Pakistan. The proposal also calls for major reform – which is likely to prove
controversial in Congress — of the U.S. food-aid programme both to save money in shipping and other
costs and encourage greater investment in food production and security in recipient countries. A number
of development and humanitarian non-governmental organisations (NGOs) active in poor countries
expressed guarded relief at the proposed foreign-aid budget, which was unveiled as part of a total 3.8trillion-dollar federal budget package that will now be taken up by Congress.“At first glance, I am pleased
to see President Obama’s sustained overall commitment to poverty-focused development,” said Samuel
Worthington, president of InterAction, a coalition of nearly 200 NGOs. “Even in a time of belt-tightening,
the U.S. must maintain its moral leadership in helping the world’s most poor and vulnerable.”He and
other NGO leaders appealed for lawmakers in Congress, who approved budget resolutions for
international affairs spending earlier this year that are well below the administration’s request, to
reconsider their position. Last month, the House of Representatives approved a resolution that provided
only 38.7 billion dollars for the international affairs base budget – a 25-percent cut from 2012. “As budget
negotiations continue, tough choices must be made, but it is imperative to support robust funding for
interventions that are both cost-effective and save lives, like maternal health, food security and emergency
humanitarian response,” said Adam Taylor, vice president of World Vision, a major relief group. As in
the past, the proposed international affairs budget, which funds the State Department and the Agency for
International Development (USAID), as well as U.S. contributions to the United Nations and other
multilateral institutions, accounts for only slightly more than one percent of the total federal budget and
about slightly less than 10 percent of the Pentagon’s proposed spending. Under the administration’s
proposal, the Defence Department would receive 527 billion dollars – more than the world’s next 20
biggest military establishments combined — for its core 2014 budget. That total does not include an
estimated 88 billion dollars to fund continuing military operations in Afghanistan. Advocates of aid and
diplomacy have long complained about the imbalance – which worsened considerably under President
George W. Bush (2001-09) – between Washington’s “hard” and “soft power” spending. “If you don’t
fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition,” the head of the U.S. Central
Command (CentCom), Gen. James Mattis, warned senators just in testimony last month. Wednesday’s
release of the proposed budget begins a process of negotiation involving the Republican-dominated
House and the Democratic-led Senate — as well as the administration — that is certain to last most of this
year and possibly well into 2014, particularly given the persistent inability of the parties to agree on a
long-term deficit-reduction plan. Failure to reach such an accord this year will almost certainly result in
another round of major across-the-board cuts in all discretionary spending. The proposed 52-billion-dollar
international affairs budget includes an overseas contingency operations (OCO) fund of 3.8 billion dollars
mainly for State Department and USAID activities in the three “front-line states”, as well as 48.2 billion
dollars in core spending. While the latter figure is slightly more than the current year’s total, it represents
a decline of nearly 15 percent compared to 2010.
Internals: State Dept Controls Food Aid
State department controls food aid, redistribution comes from humanitarian assistance
Natsios 6-12
[Andrew, Executive Professor at the George HW Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A&M
University, Former Administrator of USAID, “House Foreign Affairs Committee Hearing; ‘Modernizing US
International Food Aid: Reaching More for Less.’” June 12, 2013, Pg Lexis]
One cautionary note with regard to all of these proposed reforms. Under Secretary Clinton's reorganization of the State Dept. budgeting functions
in 2009, the Administrator of USAID no longer has control over the spending of the Agency (prior to Secretary
Clinton the Administrator of USAID was dual-hatted as Deputy Secretary of State for Foreign Assistance and controlled both USAID and State
Department spending--the two positions have now been separated) which
is entirely controlled with the State
Department. Our humanitarian assistance programs in emergencies, including food aid, could be directed
to short term geostrategic purposes if the Food for Peace budget line item is abolished and funding centralized in the International
Disaster Assistance Account. I urge the Congress to protect the food aid budget should these reforms go through by
requiring by statute that funds be used for disaster relief and humanitarian feeding programs only.
**Uniqueness**
Uniqueness: Cuts Now
Cuts in USAID and the State Department are already hurting humanitarian efforts and
activities to counter terror, prolif, and illegal drugs
Rogin 2-15 (Josh Rogin, covers national security and foreign policy and writes the daily Web column The Cable. His column appears
bi-weekly in the print edition of The Washington Post. He can be reached for comments or tips at josh.rogin@foreignpolicy.com.
Previously, Josh covered defense and foreign policy as a staff writer for Congressional Quarterly, writing extensively on Iraq,
Afghanistan, Guantánamo Bay, U.S.-Asia relations, defense budgeting and appropriations, and the defense lobbying and contracting
industries. Prior to that, he covered military modernization, cyber warfare, space, and missile defense for Federal Computer Week
Magazine. He has also served as Pentagon Staff Reporter for the Asahi Shimbun, Japan's leading daily newspaper, in its Washington,
D.C., bureau, where he reported on U.S.-Japan relations, Chinese military modernization, the North Korean nuclear crisis, and more. A
graduate of George Washington University's Elliott School of International Affairs, Josh lived in Yokohama, Japan, and studied at
Tokyo's Sophia University. He speaks conversational Japanese and has reported from the region. He has also worked at the House
International Relations Committee, the Embassy of Japan, and the Brookings Institution. Josh's reporting has been featured on CNN,
MSNBC, C-Span, CBS, ABC, NPR, WTOP, and several other outlets. He was a 2008-2009 National Press Foundation's Paul Miller
Washington Reporting Fellow, 2009 military reporting fellow with the Knight Center for Specialized Journalism and the 2011 recipient
of the InterAction Award for Excellence in International Reporting. He hails from Philadelphia and lives in Washington, D.C. “Kerry
warns of serious sequestration cuts for State and USAID”, Foreign Policy, The Cable, Friday, February 15, 2013,
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/02/15/kerry_warns_of_serious_sequestration_cuts_for_state_and_usaid )// NVG
The State Department will have to stop humanitarian aid to millions of people, cut foreign
assistance to Israel, and delay efforts to ramp up diplomatic security abroad after the Sept. 11
attack in Benghazi, if sequestration goes into effect next month, according to Secretary of State
John Kerry At the beginning of March, across-the-board cuts to all discretionary spending accounts will
go into effect, based on the 2011 Budget Control Act and the failure of the "supercommittee" to agree
upon discretionary budget cuts in 2012. Congressional appropriators are planning to reorganize those cuts
when the continuing resolution that has been temporarily funding the government expires at the end of
March, a GOP Congressman told The Cable. Until then, State and USAID are working on how to
adjust to the impending new budget reality and Kerry is warning that the consequences will be
severe. "Sequestration would force the Department and USAID to make across-the-board reductions of
$2.6 billion to fiscal 2013 funding levels under the continuing resolution," Kerry wrote in a letter to Sen.
Barbara Milkuski (D-MD) on Feb. 11. Cuts of this magnitude would seriously impair our ability to
execute our vital missions of national security, diplomacy, and development." Kerry also said that
sequestration would hurt the State Department's efforts to ramp up security for diplomats abroad. State is
still waiting for Congress to approve State's request to shift an additional $1 billion to that effort. "These
cuts would severely impair our efforts to enhance the security of U.S. government facilities overseas
and ensure the safety of the thousands of U.S. diplomats serving the American people abroad,"
Kerry wrote. Here are some specific cuts that Kerry said would be necessary if sequestration happens:
$200 million cut from humanitarian assistance, which would impact millions of disaster-stricken
people $400 million cut from global health funding, hurting efforts to stop HIV/AIDs and child
death $500 million cut from global security accounts $300 million cut from foreign military financing
accounts, which could result in cuts to assistance to Israel, Egypt, and Jordan $70 million cut from
USAID operations accounts. Unspecified cuts to international peacekeeping operations, counter
narcotics programs, counterterrorism efforts, and non-proliferation activities Kerry also warned that
the State Department might not be able to effectively provide emergency services to Americans in trouble
abroad, to properly vet visa applications, and or issue passports to Americans in a timely manner. "I hope
that Congress can act to avoid these severe, across-the-board cuts to programs that further U.S. national
security, advance America's economic interests, protect Americans at home and abroad, and deliver
results for the American people," Kerry wrote.
Uniq: 2014 Budget Set
Foreign aid budget focused on food aid reform – FY 2014 funding is set
USAID 6/20 (United States Agency for International Development, “The Future of Food Assistance: U.S. Food Aid Reform,” 06/20/2013,
http://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1869/TheFutureofFoodAssistance-USFoodAidReform.pdf, AC)
U.S. food assistance has been critical in helping more than three billion people in over 150 countries.
Food assistance ¶ saves lives, helps people recover from crises, and addresses chronic poverty and
malnutrition. Unfortunately humanitarian ¶ needs and the scope of food crises continue to expand while
many countries, including ours, face increasing budget ¶ constraints. In 2011 alone, 206 million people
were affected by droughts, floods, hurricanes and other natural disasters. ¶ Globally, 870 million people
are chronically food insecure. The U.S. must be poised to respond in the most timely, ¶ effective and
cost-efficient way possible.¶ The President’s 2014 Budget includes food aid reform that will allow lifesaving assistance to reach an ¶ estimated two to four million more people annually within the same
resources. Food aid reform will ensure ¶ that the USG is able to flexibly respond to hunger needs around
the world, reaching more people with more efficient ¶ programming. ¶ Reform will enable robust
emergency and development ¶ programming within current budget constraints. The ¶ proposal includes a
shift of funding previously requested in ¶ P.L. 480 Title II to three other assistance accounts as ¶ shown at
right.¶ The FY 2014 President’s Budget provides USAID with $1.8 ¶ billion for food assistance in a more
effective and efficient ¶ system which will reach more people in need. It:¶ Shifts $1.1 billion to
International Disaster ¶ Assistance (IDA) for emergency food response ¶ ($1.4 billion total) USAID’s
Office of Food for Peace ¶ currently implements a $300 million cash-based program to ¶ provide
emergency food assistance in times of crisis with ¶ current funding through IDA. The flexibility that IDA
¶ provides has allowed USAID to provide assistance to those ¶ most in need in complex environments
like Syria.¶ Shifts $250 million to Development Assistance (DA) for the Community Development and
Resilience ¶ Fund (CDRF) to address chronic food insecurity in areas of recurrent crises ($330 million
total) The CDRF ¶ includes $250 million in DA that is replacing current Title II funding as well as an
additional $80 million in DA from ¶ Bureau of Food Security resources, so that in total the CDRF will be
composed of $330 million to be managed by ¶ USAID’s Office of Food for Peace. These CDRF
programs will uphold the longstanding mission of Title II development ¶ programs to address chronic
poverty, build resilience, and help prevent food crises. After the cost inefficiencies of Title II ¶ are taken
into account, these development programs will support the same level of program activity leading to more
¶ people helped through food assistance. ¶ Creates a new Emergency Food Assistance Contingency Fund
($75 million) This new fund will enable the ¶ President to provide emergency food assistance for
unexpected and urgent food needs worldwide with the same ¶ flexibility to use the right tool to address
above-trend emergencies that is at the core of these reforms. U.S. Agency for International Development
2¶ We are not ending food aid. We are recommitting to a more efficient and ¶ effective program that will
reach at least 2 to 4 million more people each year ¶ with equivalent funding.¶ Flexibility, timeliness and
efficiency will be gained. Through the food aid reform proposal, the USG will ¶ gain more flexibility to
use the right tool in each situation, resulting in more efficient and effective ¶ responses.¶ Rather than
limiting the United States to a tied, commodities-only approach, these reforms will enable experts to
select ¶ the right tool to most efficiently meet the needs of hungry and vulnerable people.¶ Food reform
pairs in-kind food aid procurements from the United States with a more expansive use of interventions
such ¶ as food vouchers and local and regional procurement from developing countries near crisis areas.
Studies show that local ¶ and regional procurement of food and other cash-based programs can get food
to people in critical need 11 to 14 weeks ¶ faster and at savings of 25 – 50 percent. ¶ Food aid reform
reaffirms the U.S. commitment to PVO development food aid partners and programs.¶ The nonemergency development programs previously implemented through Title II will remain a critical element
of the ¶ USG’s response to global hunger. The food aid reform proposal maintains both the intent of Title
II development ¶ programs to reduce chronic poverty, build resilience, and help prevent future food crises
as well as equivalent funding ¶ levels at $330 million, given the cost savings associated with ending
monetization.¶ USAID’s PVO partners will benefit from increased efficiencies due to ending
monetization and the expanded availability of ¶ cash for emergencies.¶ The inefficiencies of Title II
monetization will end.¶ Food aid reform ends the costly and inefficient process of Title II monetization,
the sale of U.S. food abroad for cash, ¶ which, according to several studies, including by the Government
Accountability Office (GAO), loses an average of 25 ¶ cents per taxpayer dollar spent on food aid. ¶
What do these efficiency gains translate to? Based on 2012 Title II monetization levels, eliminating
monetization would ¶ enable U.S. development food aid to reach an estimated 800,000 more
undernourished women, men, and children.¶ In addition to being inefficient, monetization incurs
additional administrative costs and is an ¶ added burden on Private Voluntary Organizations (PVOs), as
PVO staff must negotiate the ¶ sale and transportation of commodities in order to generate the proceeds to
fund the ¶ development programs they implement.¶ Commodity purchases in the United States will
continue.¶ The food aid reform proposal guarantees that in 2014 no less than 55 percent of the ¶ requested
$1.4 billion in total funding for emergency food assistance in IDA will be used for ¶ the purchase,
transport, and related costs of U.S. commodities.¶ U.S. commodities will make up a significant portion of
purchases, particularly for many ¶ processed foods and large cereal procurements that are unavailable
elsewhere in the world ¶ or produced in insufficient amounts by developing countries near crises. In other
cases, ¶ U.S. commodities may be the best option because of inflation or food price volatility.¶ By
shifting $25 million of the efficiency savings obtained through these reforms to the ¶ Department of
Transportation's Maritime Administration, the reform will help to retain ¶ militarily-useful U.S.-flag
vessels as well as to provide incentives to facilitate the retention of ¶ mariners in the workforce.
2014 budget is set – trade-offs were made to keep reform efforts in-tact
Department of State13, (U.S. Department of State:, Special Briefing, Senior State, Department and
USAID Officials, “BACKGROUND BRIEFING ON THE PRESIDENT'S FY2014 BUDGET
PROPOSAL”, 4/10/13, State News Service,
http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/) //LA
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Four percent below 2012 for the whole function. One thing I
should point out at the beginning is that the Presidents budget 14 budget compares everything to 2012, because
when we pulled the budget together, the final Fiscal 13 enacted level was not completed, so all of the comparisons
well be making today and all the comparisons in the printed material compare the 14 level to 2012, which was
basically the level weve been operating at until the Congress passed the continuing resolution a couple of weeks ago.
Going from the Function 150 budget to the State-AID budget, again, as a reminder, the State-AID budget is about 92
percent of the total function, so its a majority of the resources. And for Fiscal 14, the budget request for State and
USAID operations and assistance is $47.8 billion. Thats a 6 percent reduction from 2012 levels. The request makes
tough tradeoffs, proposing important reforms and takes advantage of efficiencies to support our core mission of
advancing Americas national security and economic interests and using taxpayer dollars efficiently.
AT: Sequestration Guts USAID
USAID reforms now – protected from sequestration
Morales 13
[John Morales, Staff Writer at Devex , International Development Business, “Amid budget woes, USAID
reforms don’t cost too much money, say experts” March 22 2013, https://www.devex.com/en/news/amidbudget-woes-usaid-reforms-don-t-cost-too-much-money-say-experts/80548]
Just two years ago, the U.S. Agency for International Development made drastic reforms to engage more
local partners, incubate innovations and strengthen its internal processes. These early goals under USAID
Forward are being met and some have already surpassed expectations. This year, USAID wants 10 of its missions
around the world to support mobile money initiatives and increase the total value of public-private partnerships with 1-to-1 leverage by 10
percent. Over the next two years, it wants to increase mission funding awarded to local institutions by 30 percent, complete 70 country strategies
and release 250 high quality evaluations. That’s a lot of goals — and of course, that costs a lot of money as well. As sequestration took away $85
billion from this year’s budget and the United States is entering another budget circus, how can USAID Forward really go forward? Sequester
realities The reality of sequestration is that USAID can still achieve its goals but on a smaller scale , George
Ingram, co-chair of the Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network, told Devex. “We’ll be able to do less in health, less in education, less in
democracy. That’s where you’re going to see the impact of sequestration,” said Ingram. “You may reach the percentage goal, but it’s going to be
a percentage point of a lower magnitude.” The other reality of across-the-board cuts is its power to limit agency’s capacity to spend wisely on
investments. “When you have a blunt instrument like sequestration that just does across-the-board cuts, it limits the opportunity to be really smart
about where and how to spend the money,” Sarah Jane Staats, director of Rethinking U.S. Foreign Assistance at the Center for Global
Development, told Devex. Immune from cuts Still, the good news, according to development experts, is that most of the reform
elements are not expensive undertakings, or that these reforms have been protected from the cuts. “A lot of
the reforms in USAID Forward don’t actually cost a lot of money,” said Staats. “Using evidence from USAID evaluations to
better inform future activities doesn’t cost new program money — it requires the right staff and incentives
to use the information.” USAID Forward’s promise to be more focused and selective about programs and
areas in which USAID works, explained Staats, “is about using existing resources better, rather than asking for
new ones.” “USAID’s Development Credit Authority is another example where a few dedicated staff were able to mobilize a huge amount of
commercial capital with limited U.S. spending,” noted Staats. For Ingram, another case in point is USAID’s goal to complete 70 country
strategies by 2014. “To me, that strategic planning is critical to using your resources in a smart, effective way, ” he
noted. Hiring the right people and training them well, however, take money, said Ingram. “To date, those aspects of the reform plan have mostly
been protected,” he said. “But we need to go back to the normal budgeting process to ensure aid has the resources to hire the people they need.”
Sequestration, added Staats, is not the problem per se. “The budget process doesn’t make it easy. It’s a bit of a gauntlet for any agency to use any
evidence-based decision to inform budgetary decisions, when you have a scenario that the budgets are going through such a protracted process
that they don’t come out after the planning,” she said. A lobbying, education tool Whether sequestration can negatively impact the reforms is still
up for debate. But according to the experts, USAID can leverage the result of the USAID Forward progress report to demand for greater budget
on the Hill. “I think it should very much help USAID make the case that this is not your ‘father USAID’ anymore,” said Staats. “Attention on the
numbers and trying to guess and respond and react takes away our distraction from some of the good progress on another reforms.” It’s not just a
lobbying tool, but educational material for Congress as well. “This progress report provides the Congress with some of the data and information
they need to assess whether or not foreign assistance is being used effectively,” said Ingram. “That is a question that I hear up on the Hill all the
time.” Continue to learn Experts have also said USAID should continue to learn from the lessons gleaned from the
progress report. “Counting the number of evaluations is important,” said Staats. “But the more important issue is whether USAID is
learning and changing process based on what they learn. I think there are some good stories and anecdotes.” Ingram added: “The important thing
in the next couple of years is to continue to learn what’s working and what’s not working, to really use this evaluation and draw from them the
lessons learned and modify the way USAID does business according to those evaluations.”
D 2nc – at: cuts already happened (tradeoff)
Current funding is sufficient – Foreign aid budget focused on food aid reform – FY 2014
funding is set
USAID 6/20 (United States Agency for International Development, “The Future of Food Assistance: U.S. Food
Aid Reform,” 06/20/2013, http://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1869/TheFutureofFoodAssistanceUSFoodAidReform.pdf, AC)
U.S. food assistance has been critical in helping more than three billion people in over 150 countries.
Food assistance ¶ saves lives, helps people recover from crises, and addresses chronic poverty and
malnutrition. Unfortunately humanitarian ¶ needs and the scope of food crises continue to expand while
many countries, including ours, face increasing budget ¶ constraints. In 2011 alone, 206 million people
were affected by droughts, floods, hurricanes and other natural disasters. ¶ Globally, 870 million people
are chronically food insecure. The U.S. must be poised to respond in the most timely, ¶ effective and
cost-efficient way possible.¶ The President’s 2014 Budget includes food aid reform that will allow lifesaving assistance to reach an ¶ estimated two to four million more people annually within the same
resources. Food aid reform will ensure ¶ that the USG is able to flexibly respond to hunger needs around
the world, reaching more people with more efficient ¶ programming. ¶ Reform will enable robust
emergency and development ¶ programming within current budget constraints. The ¶ proposal includes a
shift of funding previously requested in ¶ P.L. 480 Title II to three other assistance accounts as ¶ shown at
right.¶ The FY 2014 President’s Budget provides USAID with $1.8 ¶ billion for food assistance in a more
effective and efficient ¶ system which will reach more people in need. It:¶ Shifts $1.1 billion to
International Disaster ¶ Assistance (IDA) for emergency food response ¶ ($1.4 billion total) USAID’s
Office of Food for Peace ¶ currently implements a $300 million cash-based program to ¶ provide
emergency food assistance in times of crisis with ¶ current funding through IDA. The flexibility that IDA
¶ provides has allowed USAID to provide assistance to those ¶ most in need in complex environments
like Syria.¶ Shifts $250 million to Development Assistance (DA) for the Community Development and
Resilience ¶ Fund (CDRF) to address chronic food insecurity in areas of recurrent crises ($330 million
total) The CDRF ¶ includes $250 million in DA that is replacing current Title II funding as well as an
additional $80 million in DA from ¶ Bureau of Food Security resources, so that in total the CDRF will be
composed of $330 million to be managed by ¶ USAID’s Office of Food for Peace. These CDRF
programs will uphold the longstanding mission of Title II development ¶ programs to address chronic
poverty, build resilience, and help prevent food crises. After the cost inefficiencies of Title II ¶ are taken
into account, these development programs will support the same level of program activity leading to more
¶ people helped through food assistance. ¶ Creates a new Emergency Food Assistance Contingency Fund
($75 million) This new fund will enable the ¶ President to provide emergency food assistance for
unexpected and urgent food needs worldwide with the same ¶ flexibility to use the right tool to address
above-trend emergencies that is at the core of these reforms. U.S. Agency for International Development
2¶ We are not ending food aid. We are recommitting to a more efficient and ¶ effective program that will
reach at least 2 to 4 million more people each year ¶ with equivalent funding.¶ Flexibility, timeliness and
efficiency will be gained. Through the food aid reform proposal, the USG will ¶ gain more flexibility to
use the right tool in each situation, resulting in more efficient and effective ¶ responses.¶ Rather than
limiting the United States to a tied, commodities-only approach, these reforms will enable experts to
select ¶ the right tool to most efficiently meet the needs of hungry and vulnerable people.¶ Food reform
pairs in-kind food aid procurements from the United States with a more expansive use of interventions
such ¶ as food vouchers and local and regional procurement from developing countries near crisis areas.
Studies show that local ¶ and regional procurement of food and other cash-based programs can get food
to people in critical need 11 to 14 weeks ¶ faster and at savings of 25 – 50 percent. ¶ Food aid reform
reaffirms the U.S. commitment to PVO development food aid partners and programs.¶ The nonemergency development programs previously implemented through Title II will remain a critical element
of the ¶ USG’s response to global hunger. The food aid reform proposal maintains both the intent of Title
II development ¶ programs to reduce chronic poverty, build resilience, and help prevent future food crises
as well as equivalent funding ¶ levels at $330 million, given the cost savings associated with ending
monetization.¶ USAID’s PVO partners will benefit from increased efficiencies due to ending
monetization and the expanded availability of ¶ cash for emergencies.¶ The inefficiencies of Title II
monetization will end.¶ Food aid reform ends the costly and inefficient process of Title II monetization,
the sale of U.S. food abroad for cash, ¶ which, according to several studies, including by the Government
Accountability Office (GAO), loses an average of 25 ¶ cents per taxpayer dollar spent on food aid. ¶
What do these efficiency gains translate to? Based on 2012 Title II monetization levels, eliminating
monetization would ¶ enable U.S. development food aid to reach an estimated 800,000 more
undernourished women, men, and children.¶ In addition to being inefficient, monetization incurs
additional administrative costs and is an ¶ added burden on Private Voluntary Organizations (PVOs), as
PVO staff must negotiate the ¶ sale and transportation of commodities in order to generate the proceeds to
fund the ¶ development programs they implement.¶ Commodity purchases in the United States will
continue.¶ The food aid reform proposal guarantees that in 2014 no less than 55 percent of the ¶ requested
$1.4 billion in total funding for emergency food assistance in IDA will be used for ¶ the purchase,
transport, and related costs of U.S. commodities.¶ U.S. commodities will make up a significant portion of
purchases, particularly for many ¶ processed foods and large cereal procurements that are unavailable
elsewhere in the world ¶ or produced in insufficient amounts by developing countries near crises. In other
cases, ¶ U.S. commodities may be the best option because of inflation or food price volatility.¶ By
shifting $25 million of the efficiency savings obtained through these reforms to the ¶ Department of
Transportation's Maritime Administration, the reform will help to retain ¶ militarily-useful U.S.-flag
vessels as well as to provide incentives to facilitate the retention of ¶ mariners in the workforce.
2014 budget is set – trade-offs were made to keep reform efforts in-tact
Department of State13, (U.S. Department of State:, Special Briefing, Senior State, Department and
USAID Officials, “BACKGROUND BRIEFING ON THE PRESIDENT'S FY2014 BUDGET
PROPOSAL”, 4/10/13, State News Service,
http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/) //LA
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Four percent below 2012 for the whole function. One
thing I should point out at the beginning is that the Presidents budget 14 budget compares everything to 2012,
because when we pulled the budget together, the final Fiscal 13 enacted level was not completed, so all of the
comparisons well be making today and all the comparisons in the printed material compare the 14 level to 2012,
which was basically the level weve been operating at until the Congress passed the continuing resolution a couple of
weeks ago. Going from the Function 150 budget to the State-AID budget, again, as a reminder, the State-AID
budget is about 92 percent of the total function, so its a majority of the resources. And for Fiscal 14, the budget
request for State and USAID operations and assistance is $47.8 billion. Thats a 6 percent reduction
from 2012 levels. The request makes tough tradeoffs, proposing important reforms and takes
advantage of efficiencies to support our core mission of advancing Americas national security and
economic interests and using taxpayer dollars efficiently.
Uniq: Cuts to Latin America Now
Haugaard, 11 – executive director, latin America working group (Lisa, “What Do the Budget Battles Mean for Latin America?”, 2/22,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-haugaard/what-do-the-budget-battle_b_826776.html)//AR
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-haugaard/what-do-the-budget-battle_b_826776.html
Is the United States really more secure if its neighbors view it as narrowly interested only in its own security? Do we want our nation's reputation
to be more about guns and less about helping to fight diseases and recover from natural disasters? Do we win good will and allies by being
perceived as selfish?
We must ask these questions as the Congress debates radical budget cuts. Adam Isacson at the Washington Office on Latin America and I took a
look at how the House Republican leadership's proposal for this year's budget (never finalized last year) will affect Latin America
and U.S. relations with the region. What we found is alarming. The House budget proposal slashes the kinds of foreign aid
that show the generous face of our nation abroad, as well as those that most effectively address the impact of U.S.
citizens' demand for illegal drugs trafficked from Latin America. And since these categories are a tiny percentage of overall spending,
it does so with minuscule impact on the deficit. In Latin America, International Disaster Assistance saves lives in the aftermath of devastating
earthquakes, as in Haiti, or catastrophic flooding, as in Central America. Global Health and Child Survival helps prevent the spread of
HIV/AIDS. Economic Support Funds help Mexico, Colombia and Central American nations strengthen courts and
prosecute drug trafficking mafias. Development Assistance supports small-scale farming and helps encourage farmers to grow food, not
coca, the raw material for cocaine. Peace Corps places Americans in communities to work in partnership on health care,
education, and farming. McGovern-Dole International Food for Education helps provide lunches to pre-school and primary-school children.
These programs were placed on the chopping block for steep cuts in the House budget proposal. What didn't the House reduce? Military aid and
training to virtually all of the region's security forces. The House proposal also takes away a critical tool for reducing the horrific
drug-fueled violence in Mexico that has led to 34,000 murders since 2006: it prohibits funding for the U.S. government to
require U.S. firearms dealers near the U.S.-Mexico border to report multiple sales of assault weapons. More than 65,000 guns recovered in
Mexico have been traced back to the United States. As the Congress deals with this year's budget, President Obama presented next year's. Let's
take a look at that. President Obama's budget for Latin America also reduces aid to the region. But in our view, it makes largely smart cuts.
Economic aid is reduced by 5 percent from 2009, while military and police aid programs would go down by 43 percent. W hile the Bush
administration's aid requests for Latin America were well over 40 percent security assistance, less than a quarter of
the 2012 request would go to the region's security forces. The budget would continue a decline in military aid to
Colombia after a decade of expensive investment, while preserving aid to strengthen courts and encourage farmers to turn away from
illegal drug crops. In Mexico, with big-ticket equipment for security forces already paid for, the budget focuses on less
expensive aid that strengthens the rule of law. The proposed cuts to Colombia and Mexico still maintain military aid
at levels far higher than they were in the 1990s. Assistance to the rest of the region's militaries, meanwhile, would hardly be cut, and
as much as 30 percent additional military and police aid would come through the Defense Department's mammoth budget. We support the
administration's cuts in military assistance -- although they don't go far enough. Military aid for Mexico improperly draws the
army into law enforcement, and military abuses are virtually never successfully prosecuted . In Colombia, the armed forces
are alleged to have killed outside of combat more than 3,000 civilians. The vast majority of these cases -- well over 90 percent -- have not yet
resulted in justice. Moreover, after a decade of costly U.S. investment in the Colombian war, it is long past time to place our bets on peace. One
exception to the "smart cuts": aid to refugees. The President would slash aid for refugees in the Western Hemisphere, never
enough to begin with, by 23 percent compared to FY2010. This program provides aid to tens of thousands of refugees fleeing the
conflict in Colombia and living in perilous conditions. As the White House and Congress consider budgets for this year and
next, the sensible course is to preserve already very limited economic and institution-building programs for Latin
America that lend a helping hand. These programs help farmers grow food, not coca; provide immunizations for deadly diseases; strengthen
courts, and help those fleeing from wars and recovering from disasters. Their impact on the U.S. budget is microscopic, but their
return, measured in increased goodwill, security, and protection for human rights, is substantial.
Uniq: Latin Aid Low Now
Latin America US assistance trades off with aid in other regions
Menendez and Shah, 12- Senator, Foreign Relations Committee AND Administrator, US Agency
for International Development (Robert AND RAJIV,”SEN. JOHN KERRY HOLDS A HEARING ON
FY2013 INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES BUDGET”, March 6, 2012, PageLexis
)//JW
MENENDEZ: Thank you Mr. Chairman, Dr. Shah thank you for your service, I have to be honest with you though I don't understand and I know
what your answers were last year when I raise this question with, so you going to have to be better this year than the answer you gave me last
year because I have waited to see and that is my concern about what's happening in Latin America and the Caribbean .¶
As in many
regions of the world where USAID works the absolute level of the U.S. assistance to the countries of
Latin American and the Caribbean has begun to decline. However, in Latin American, unlike
Africa, South and Central Asia and the middle-east so too has the proportion of USAID going to the
region, so that's a compounding factor between fiscal year 2008 and '12 U.S. assistance to Latin
American and the Caribbean fell from 2.1 billion to approximately 1.8 billion, a 13 percent since
2008. Assistance to Latin America has also declined proportionately, Latin America no receives only 8 percent of
bilateral aid part were as in 2008 it received 10.¶ And looking over this year's funding request I am alarmed by what I see for example, the
spending request for ESP is down 7 percent from last year and a whopping 21 percent from 2008. Even direct assistance to Guatemala is down
slightly even though the Miami (inaudible) when it asked the President of Guatemala whether his country had the possibility of being the next
Somalia and knowing that the drug cartels are overwhelming not only the Guatemala government but other Central American governments as
well.¶ So I know you told me in response to my question last year in this regard and this has only gotten worse that your theory of budgeting that
gets the best banks for the buck but not if that means ignoring the areas where some of the need is the greatest. When I look at the western
hemisphere our own front yard I look at what is happening in undermining these countries to the narcotics trafficking. ¶ I look at the resurgence of
health issues that were once thought to be, that were once cured like tuberculosis and I see the rise of it of course health disease know no
borders.¶ When I look at the question of undocumented immigration that we debate in this country and think about what creates that movement,
it's either dire economic necessity or civil unrest. When I see the movements that are anti-democratic in the region continuously challenging their
citizens in terms of their fundamental rights and list goes on and on. ¶ I don't quite understand what it is that the administration does not see that
maybe I and other see. So, my question is what is your justification is this regard and how do you rank the needs of the region versus the needs of
other regions. What indicate did you consider when making these types of cuts in your budget.¶ And if we start
there maybe I will get a sense of how you came to your conclusions but this is not a budget I can support and the final point I will make and give
the balance of the time for our answer. Within that context as well I know ESF accounts took a hit but I see what you did the account for our
democracy programs in Cuba.¶ We have an American citizen languishing in Castro's jails and so our response is to cut the democracy program in
Cuba, is that a deal that we made, that we are going to cut the democracy program in Cuba in response to an American who's sitting in jail, we are
going to get anything for that because otherwise we send the absolute wrong message at the end of the day. ¶ We never in the world -- in the
world, in Vaclav Havel, Lech Walesa, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, cut our democracy assistance programs because of the disapproval of the regime.
Here you are cutting it by 25 percent pretty significant so make me feel better if you can. ¶ SHAH: Thank you Senator for the comments, I will
take them in order. Our approach overall to budgeting is to do our best to maintain quarter results or achieve new ones, given the overall budget
situation and this was a budget and is presented as a budget that has a real reduction in overall foreign assistance within the 150 account. ¶ Within
Latin America our number one priority has been security in Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean, programs like (inaudible) had seen real
and significant and sustained increases year-on-year under this administration that a significant and we would like to continue on that path and
that trend for that number one priority.¶ We have experienced savings that have come in large part from ESF in places like Columbia or Peru
where -- Columbia was the second largest program -- and whereby our criteria of country readiness, country willingness to take on the cost of
implementing certain programs, basic levels of per capita income and revenues at the country level. ¶ We
are able to transition those
efforts to domestic responsibility and we believe that that's an appropriate trade off to make and in fact as part of the pathway
envision for success most notably exemplified by place like Panama where we can close our mission and move on.
Uniq: No Aid Now
No new funding for international aid – resources are shifted
Staats 13 (Sarah Jane, director of Rethinking US Foreign Assistance, “A Scalpel, Not an Ax, for President’s FY14 Foreign Aid Budget,”
04/15/2013, http://www.cgdev.org/blog/scalpel-not-ax-president%E2%80%99s-fy14-foreign-aid-budget, AC)
President Obama's total FY2014 international affairs budget request--$52 billion--looks a lot like what was left for international affairs in FY2013
after sequestration. But the administration uses a scalpel, not an ax, to get there in FY2014. The FY2014 budget, if approved, shifts significant
resources away from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and concentrates spending on food security, global health and multilateral investments. And the
big news, of course, is an overhaul of US food aid.¶ ¶ I see three signs the president’s scalpel is guided by his 2010 Presidential Policy Directive
on Global Development (PPD) (and I owe a huge debt to the always-stellar USGLC budget analysis from Larry Nowels and others): ¶ Selectivity.
The PPD promises the United States will be more selective in where and how it invests. The FY2014 budget includes slight increases (over
FY2012 levels) to Feed the Future (FTF) ($83 million or 7 percent) and global health ($252 million or 3 percent) but concentrates those resources
in far fewer countries (22 fewer FTF countries and 23 fewer global health countries since FY2010). The proposal also reduces USAID’s presence
(presumably staff and offices as well as funding) in 11 countries in FY2014 including Albania, Benin, Jamaica, Macedonia, Madagascar,
Mongolia, Namibia, and Paraguay. Compared to FY2012, the proposed budget shifts resources away from the Frontline
states (down 63 percent in Iraq; 4 percent in Afghanistan; and 33 percent in Pakistan) and makes slight increases to spending in sub-Saharan
Africa (up 1.4 percent) and East Asia the Pacific (up 7 percent). The budget request also cuts funds for Europe, Eurasia and
Central Asia nearly in half (my former colleague Connie Veillette proposed ending the program).¶ ¶ Evidence-based decisions. The PPD
says the United States will use evidence to show development results (or lack thereof) and reallocate resources accordingly. While I’ve been
skeptical of the “evidence-based decision making” buzz-words, the food aid overhaul fits the bill pretty neatly. In the face of dozens of
independent reports that conclude the current US food aid approach is outdated, inefficient and wasteful, the FY2014 budget proposes some
significant—if not yet complete—reforms that would save lives and money. Specifically, $1.4 billion in PL480 Title II is shifted to the
international disaster assistance account ($1.1 billion), development assistance account ($250 million) and a new emergency food
assistance contingency fund ($75 million). Forty-five percent of the $1.4 billion emergency food aid budget is freed of buy- and ship-America
requirements. And monetization ends (i.e. the practice of providing NGOs/contractors US food aid commodities to sell to finance other
development projects). Congressional reaction to the overhaul shouldn’t be partisan, but is political thanks to special interests. The new proposal
reflects similar common-sense reforms proposed during the Bush administration, and I remember well the beating USAID Administrator Andrew
Natsios took on the Hill (told he was “cutting off his nose to spite his face” in one hearing). I can only hope that the decade of additional evidence
and the intense pressure to spend smarter (twinned with some savvy White House-Hill outreach perhaps?) will yield a different result.¶ ¶ More
multilateralism. The PPD vows more support for and leadership in the multilateral development organizations; the FY2014 budget includes both.
My colleague Scott Morris talks about the International Monetary Fund quota reform agreement in the budget. And there are continued financial
commitments to the Global Fund ($1.65 billion for FY14 which sends a strong signal to other donors who will meet later this year to consider
their contributions to the Global Fund’s fourth replenishment). The FY2014 budget also increases commitments to the Asian Development Bank
(up $20 million, $115 million total), the African Development Bank (up $2 million, $32 million total), the African Development Fund (up $31
million, $195 million total), International Fund for Agricultural Development (up $2 million,$30 million total), the Global Environment Facility
(up $15 million, $144 million total), Clean Technology Fund ($40 million, $216 million total), International Development Association (up $75
million, $1.359 billion total), and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (up $10 million, $187 million total).¶ The FY2014
budget also includes an additional $120 million in USAID operating expenses and $173 million (including funds for 22 new staff) to finish the
agency-wide reforms USAID Forward started. I hope some of these resources help report US aid data to the Foreign Assistance Dashboard and
keep the new evaluation policy going.¶ ¶ What’s missing? I expected to see more for President Obama’s global climate change initiative (the third
major development initiative alongside food security and global health), but the request is $837 million. Likewise, the Millennium Challenge
Corporation (MCC) embodies many of the PPD’s principles—selectivity, a focus on economic growth, transparency and modern evaluation—and
has several strong new low-income countries vying for funds, but remains at $898 million (and a far cry from the $5 billion per year agency
originally envisioned by Congress and the Bush administration). ¶ ¶ The FY2014 budget is a credible proposal for doing more with less and will
test whether the administration can convince Congress and aid constituents to follow its lead. For starters, Congress has already passed
budget resolutions that recommend capping international affairs spending much lower than the president’s $52
billion request ($38.7 billion in the House and $45.6 billion in the Senate). I still worry that more than half of the 113th Congress is new since
legislation authorizing the MCC and the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief was passed. But if the current budget mess can finally spur
some smart foreign aid reforms—like the food aid proposal—it might just renew my faith in the policymaking and budget process.
Uniq: USAID Broke
USAID is broke – the plan must divert funds
Norris, 12 - Executive Director of the Sustainable Security and Peacebuilding Initiative at American Progress (John, “Engagement Amid
Austerity”, May 2012, http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2012/05/pdf/foreign_aid.pdf)//AR
Close and consolidate missions. Eliminating small programs goes hand in hand with closing and consolidating missions. According to the
FY 2013 request, 19 USAID missions had administrative costs exceeding 15 percent of the value of aid provided.16
Countries with missions above this threshold warrant further scrutiny to ensure cost effectiveness. USAID program funding in these
countries should either be increased in the case of priority countries or the mission should be closed or consolidated
in the case of graduate and peripheral interest countries. In some regions such as Eastern Europe and Latin America, aid dollars
have declined but staffing levels appear to not have followed suit . A number of aid missions in these regions can be closed and if
necessary consolidated into a regional office. In many cases it may be worthwhile to replace full aid missions with a
development attaché or counselor.
Uniq/Internals: USAID ripe for Trade-offs
USAID is broke – the plan must divert funds
Norris, 12 - Executive Director of the Sustainable Security and Peacebuilding Initiative at American Progress (John,
“Engagement Amid Austerity”, May 2012, http://www.americanprogress.org/wpcontent/uploads/issues/2012/05/pdf/foreign_aid.pdf)//AR
Close and consolidate missions. Eliminating small programs goes hand in hand with closing and consolidating
missions. According to the FY 2013 request, 19 USAID missions had administrative costs exceeding
15 percent of the value of aid provided.16 Countries with missions above this threshold warrant further scrutiny to
ensure cost effectiveness. USAID program funding in these countries should either be increased in the
case of priority countries or the mission should be closed or consolidated in the case of graduate
and peripheral interest countries. In some regions such as Eastern Europe and Latin America, aid dollars have
declined but staffing levels appear to not have followed suit. A number of aid missions in these regions can
be closed and if necessary consolidated into a regional office. In many cases it may be worthwhile to
replace full aid missions with a development attaché or counselor.
Internals: Top Chopping Block (2NC Wall)
Aid is on the chopping block – downward pressure ensures cuts
Veillette 2k12
(Connie Veillette, “Engagement Amid Austerity - Or How the United States Stays in the Game Despite
Budget Pressures,” pg online @ http://www.cgdev.org/blog/engagement-amid-austerity-or-how-united-statesstays-game-despite-budget-pressures //um-ef)
Budget concerns will almost certainly put downward pressure on federal spending across a host of government programs for a number of
years. Although some think it is almost heretical to point out the obvious, the international affairs budget will not be immune from this
dynamic . In fact, international spending could take a disproportionate hit compared to domestic spending – despite the fact that
discretionary international spending is a very small part of the overall budget puzzle. International affairs, and more specifically foreign
assistance , have rarely been popular budget items among the public or on Capitol Hill – despite consistently comprising only
about 1 percent of the total federal budget. Even so, foreign aid and international engagement make good political targets for
elected officials out on the stump . It is far easier to demonize foreign aid than to explain how relatively
modest programs to improve living standards in the developing world have consistently proven to be in the national interest over the
long-term. The central question then becomes how do we maintain U.S. global leadership in development and improve the effectiveness and efficiency of aid programs at a time when the international
affairs budget is surrounded by so much uncertainty? Last fall, we set up a bipartisan working group to think through this question and look at how to reorient the international affairs budget during this current
period of austerity. The resulting report, Engagement Amid Austerity, is now available. This report outlines four big ideas as a framework for reorienting the foreign affairs budget: Be more selective and focused
on what types of economic and security assistance are provided to which countries. Put PEPFAR programs in upper middle income countries on an increased cost-sharing trajectory. Reform U.S. food assistance
programs by eliminating monetization, cargo preference, and allowing more local and regional purchase of emergency food aid. Create an International Affairs Realignment Commission to examine and redesign
programs and architecture. While we are not advocating for cuts to the foreign affairs budget, it is abundantly clear that the United States is spread far too thinly in its assistance programs. The United States
currently provides economic assistance to 103 countries and security assistance to 143 countries. U.S. assistance programs are trying to do too many things in too many places without clear objectives. In addition,
the United States continues to provide aid to far too many countries that are simply poor partners. If a country’s leadership is unwilling to embrace reform, democracy, and more open markets, there is little reason
In short, we should be
directing more resources into fewer countries. Such a footprint would be far easier to manage, entail fewer operational costs, and help shape countries into partners
to think that U.S. aid programs will make much of a difference over the long haul. We believe that programs can be better focused for greater impact.
that no longer require U.S. assistance five to ten years from now. Based on a data-informed process assessing a country’s need, capacity, governance, and commitment to development, as well as subjective
judgments, our report rates every single one of the 146 countries receiving U.S. assistance as to the likelihood that U.S. aid will be effective. We recommend focusing economic assistance in 53 countries, and
focusing security aid in 72 countries. Others may reach alternative conclusions using this same data, and we have provided as much information to readers as possible so that they can do so. We do not expect
amid all the debates that will take place over the next year on how much we
spend on international affairs programs, it is equally vital to engage in an overdue conversation on
how we spend it.
universal agreement about our conclusions. But
Foreign aid saves lives, increases worldwide security, and only is 1% of US spending – yet
it's the first thing that's cut, as it's a political football.
Miller 11 (TALEA MILLER,Associate Editor - Online NewsHour, oversees NewsHour Extra's Student
Voices, student editorials, essays and interviews. She graduated from Northwestern University with a degree
in journalism and has worked for several publications, including a newspaper in South Africa. “Foreign Aid
Advocates Fight Cuts to Programs That 'Save Lives”, PBS NEWSHOUR, GLOBAL HEALTH, OCTOBER
12, 2011 http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/10/advocates-for-us-foreign-aid-fight-proposedcutbacks.html) // NVG
As annual budget decisions loom on Capitol Hill, international development advocates are pushing back
against more proposed cuts to foreign aid. Aid programs took a hit earlier this year-- $8 billion was
slashed from the State Department and international program budgets in the spring-- and more than
200 non-governmental organizations are joining forces to call for an end to new cuts. Supporters like the
ONE campaign, World Vision, PATH and Oxfam America argue that foreign aid is a smart
investment that saves lives, increases global security and has a widespread impact while accounting
for just 1 percent of U.S. spending. "[Foreign aid] has already taken a disproportionate share of
cuts," said Sheila Nix, executive director of ONE. "We are in a political environment where people keep
talking about cuts and not really talking about the implications of those cuts ... these programs are
designed to save lives." But with domestic economic woes dominating the conversation in Washington,
politicians on both sides of the aisle are saying it's time to do more with less as the government looks to
slash spending in all areas. Critics of foreign-aid programs also question their long-term effectiveness,
and say it's high time that aid spending was reexamined. Cuts to the Obama administration's proposed
$59.7 billion in FY2012 spending for international affairs and State Department operations are on the
table in both the House and Senate. The House appropriations subcommittee's plan cuts that request to
$47.2 billion and the Senate has proposed $53.5 billion, which is less than the request but closer to the
$55 billion spent in FY2010. The final number should be hashed out by the end of November. Rep. Kay
Granger, R-Texas, who chairs the House appropriations subcommittee overseeing foreign affairs, told
The New York Times last week that the budget crisis is forcing a reassessment of foreign aid priorities.
She referenced $250 million in relief aid sent to Pakistan after massive flooding in 2010. "I said I think
that's bad policy and bad politics," she told the Times. "What are you going to say to people in the United
States who are having flooding?" Granger told the NewsHour earlier this year that foreign aid -- like
other programs -- will simply have to take some painful cuts in the current economic climate and
likely throughout the next few years. She has said repeatedly that U.S. security interests in foreign aid
need to come first. ONE and other international aid organizations say public misperceptions of
foreign aid are a major part of the programs' political vulnerability. Polls consistently show
Americans overestimate the percentage of the U.S. budget used for foreign assistance. A CNN/Opinion
Research Corporation survey this spring showed Americans on average estimate foreign aid at 10 percent
of the budget, while one in five Americans believe the level is closer to 30 percent. {figure omitted by
NVG} "Politicians are reacting to a public misperception and they are often only too happy to speak
out in accord with what has become a political football," said Noam Unger, policy director of the
Foreign Assistance Reform project at the Brookings Institution, who said more across-the-board cuts
could be devastating for aid programs. But critics of foreign aid such as James Roberts, a research
fellow at the Heritage Foundation, say traditional development assistance is a broken system and
Congress has good reason to examine it for cuts. "The record of development assistance as a catalyst for
long-term sustainable economic growth is abysmal," Roberts, who advocates private-sector trade and
investment as a means for economic growth in the developing world, wrote in a commentary. "As
Congress considers ways to reduce the federal budget deficit, cuts to USAID and its traditional aid
programs should be near the top of the list." ONE argues that aid cuts on the scale the House is
proposing would have a direct negative impact: 1 million more children would be at risk of severe
malnourishment, 500,000 people wouldn't be able to start treatment for HIV and more than
200,000 won't get needed malaria nets, the organization says. But the ongoing debate over funding has
spurred introspection and started another conversation about reform to aid programs. "The reality is that
foreign aid could be more efficient," Unger said, citing ties to U.S. agriculture and shipping that cost the
government more to ship food aid around the globe than it would to develop agricultural capacity in the
region.
Uniq: Aid on Chopping Block
Foreign aid on the chopping block
Staats, 13 – a national security staff writer for National Journal covering the business of war (Sara, “Foreign Aid Reform Already Paying
Sequestration Price”, 3/1, http://www.cgdev.org/blog/foreign-aid-reform-already-paying-sequestration-price)//AR
Other groups are closely tracking how much foreign aid might be cut (roughly $1.7 billion) and the accounts and lives that will be
affected. Regardless of whether Congress is crying wolf with the latest budget showdown, US foreign aid reform may
already be paying a price. The optimist in me hoped budget pressure could propel real and smart aid reform, including possible cuts such as
those proposed by some of my colleagues. But I worry the blunt cuts not only get away from these thoughtful approaches but
undermine the reform efforts that have been built over the last decade . Here's how: More planning than doing. The ongoing
budget uncertainty for FY13 (let alone FY14) means US agencies are stuck in perpetual planning mode with some waiting, more
contingency planning and more waiting in between. I have no doubt that US aid workers are finding impressive ways to keep things going,
but the unresolved budget takes time and attention from US development agency staff and leaders who might
otherwise be focused on implementing programs and improving practice. More of the old, less of the new. The only
certainty right now is that the US foreign aid budget will be smaller than before, which likely means we'll be seeing
much more of the old programs struggling to survive (and constituents struggling to protect them, too) while new approaches,
programs and priorities may have trouble getting off the ground. New isn't always better, but there is widespread agreement that the United States
needs to upgrade its foreign aid and global development policies for the 21st century. The upgrade doesn’t need to cost a lot in dollar
terms, but does require having the right staff in place which may be the first thing to go (or at least slow) with
sequestration budget cuts.
**Links**
2NC Link Wall (Trade-off)
Foreign aid is full of trade-offs – each decision is zero-sum – an increase in Latin aid
trades-off with other parts of the aid budget
Prefer our evidence:
a. From experts in the field
b. Specific to the budgeting process and NEW aid programs
And, Latin American foreign aid is zero-sum – budget cuts ALWAYS start with these
programs
Menendez and Shah 13, SEN. ROBERT MENENDEZ, D-N.J. CHAIRMAN and RAJIV SHAH,
ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, (Robert and Rajiv, “SEN.
ROBERT MENENDEZ HOLDS A HEARING ON INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES IN
THE FY14 BUDGET”, 4/24/13, CQ CQ Transcriptions, LLC,
http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/) //LA
MENENDEZ: Well, I'm not surprised, Assad, and I am concerned having seen the most recent reports about the chemical weapon usage. If
that is verified, it all -- makes all the more case that we have to change our dynamics here and the tipping point. Let me go to an area of the world
We have seen a continuing significant
decline in our assistance to the Western Hemisphere, particularly to Latin America and the Caribbean.
that I -- I am confounded by the administration as well as previous administration's views.
And I am amazed because of all the things that we debate here in the -- or many of the things I should say, not all the things, but many of the
things we debate here in the Congress are in fact emanating in our own front yard. If I don't want to see undocumented immigration come to this
country, there are push factors. People leave their countries for only two reasons, civil unrest or dire economic circumstances, otherwise, they'd
it's in our interest to -- through our development programs to try to create a greater economic growth
in our own hemisphere. If we want to help government stop transnational crime and narcotics trafficking, you have to give growers, poor
stay. So
growers who have to sustain their families, alternative crops so that they're not growing coca at the end of the day. That's in our national interest
'cause the last thing we want to see is those narcotics end up in the streets of our cities. If you want to open up greater markets for U.S. products
and the services for which there is an affinity by Latin Americans to U.S. products and services, you want to create economies that are ultimately
going to buy more U.S. products and services. If you want to look at some of the incredibly important biodiversity issues that affect us
collectively, you want to think about how do you change the dynamics of, you know, eviscerating a rainforest. If you want to stop some of the
diseases that had been largely eradicated and now begin to rise again such as tuberculosis, they know no boundaries. So, I am amazed that with
all of those realities and with the unrest and the movement away from democracy in the region towards dictatorships and totalitarianism that we
continue to cut. This is like a 6 percent cut, but if you compound it over the last several years, you're looking at a very enormous cut and we just
finished talking about poverty. Well, about 30 percent of all of the region's population is below the poverty level and of those, 66 million are in
extreme poverty. This is in our own neighborhood so I don't understand the cuts that we are seeing. I know that we are going through
programmatic changes with Mexico and Colombia, we're moving away from hardware to institution building. But, when I look at the totality of
these cuts, I just don't get it and that's why we create a void in which people like Chavez when he was alive, ultimately
you know, filled the void where the Chinese are coming in, in our own hemisphere, where the Iranians have been promoting
diplomacy in the hemisphere, I just don't get it. So I look at that, I look at in another context a cut on Cuba's democracy program at a time in
which in fact we had 6,000 arrests and detentions last year. We had the Ladies in White, a group of women whose husbands or sons sit in Castro's
jails simply because they sought peaceful change in their country get attacked brutally every week. We saw Oswaldo Paya assassinated, one of
the leading human rights individuals inside of Cuba. His daughter was here not too long ago and made it very clear to us from all the information
that he was assassinated and yet we see a cut in that program. And then, you know, I'd saw -- I look at the totality of this and it certainly doesn't
make public policy sense to me. So I'm going to be looking to try to change this because I just think we have created and it's not until we have a
major problem in the hemisphere then and everybody will run and will spend a fortune instead of doing the right thing now that can ultimately
create the seeds of democracy and open markets within the hemisphere. If there's a one bright spot here, it's CARSI which obviously is one of my
critical concerns and I'll be traveling on the break to this region in terms of you know, preventing violence, combating narcotics trafficking,
increasing citizen's security. And I look forward to hearing how you're going to use the funding for 2014 there as well as
how do we create in these countries fiscal and policy reforms that can sustain this moving forward. So, you know, I've
gone over my time but this is one of my passions since no one else seems to have a lot of great passion for it. But, it just doesn't make a lot of
sense in my mind in terms of the national interest and security of the United States. SHAH: Thank you Senator. We had the chance to discuss
this and I very much appreciate and recognize your strong and consistent leadership here. We, too, believe the region is critical and important.
We've had to present a budget that conforms to an overall 6 percent reduction which has forced a
lot of difficult tradeoffs at a time when the actual number of humanitarian disasters around the world is doubling that we need to
respond to in terms of caseloads. There have been, as you point out, some critical areas like CARSI where we are presenting in this budget a 29
percent increase in our investment and our focus on that critical security program for the Northern Triangle.We know that our efforts have been
delivering real results. In Mexico where we've worked on prosecution-related partnerships, we've seen the rates of
participating cities go up significantly and delays go down significantly. We've built a new partnership with Los Angeles to
bring some of the crime control measures that have been effective and proven in that setting to other countries in the region. We know that the
alternative crop program to which you made reference in Peru has been successful there and a model for work in other parts of the world. And we
also see across regions, Latin America has been by far the most successful with public-private partnerships. For every dollar
we put into a public-private partnership in that region, we're able to attract $2.53 from private sector local partners and we believe that that serves
we recognize that, you know, this is a very
important region and we've had to make tough tradeoffs in a budget that we certainly wish was
larger but... MENENDEZ: I'll just close on this, Administrator. For several years now, whether you or the administrator or previous ones, I
have heard that there's always tough tradeoffs and where the tough tradeoff goes always is Latin
as an engine of sustaining significant development, investment and partnership. But
America and the Caribbean, that's always where it ends up being lookup and I just think that that is
foolish. At the end of the day, we're gonna have a problem and then when we have a problem, we'll spend the fortune. We did the same thing
with Central American wars and then after we spent a fortune in Central America providing democracy, we've got out and we didn't lay the
foundation, the seeds that would have provided long term growth and prosperity, Senator Corker. CORKER: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I'm glad
to hear -- glad to hear you talk about a topic you care deeply about, thank you
Each subcommittee has its own budget – every reallocation of money is zero sum
English, 13 - the Director of Science Policy Outreach at COMPASS where he helps scientists find the policy relevance in their work (Chad,
“Budget Trade-offs: A Zero-Sum Game”, 3/25, http://compassblogs.org/blog/2013/03/25/what-to-do-when-the-budget-becomes-a-zero-sumgame/)//AR
Each Appropriations subcommittee works with their slice of the budget, called (opaquely) their 302(b) sub-allocation. But here’s the important
part: Once those sub-allocations are set, it’s a zero-sum game within that subcommittee ; a dollar to one
program must mean a dollar less for other programs. For scientists, the Commerce, Science, Justice and Related Agencies subcommittee is one
of the big ones to watch. It determines the budget for the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). But it also sets the budget for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Commission on Civil Rights, the
any additional dollar that goes to NSF must come out
of one of these other agency’s budgets. (The Washington Post reported today that the continuing resolution process to keep the government running
the rest of this year is facing the same situation.) This is how we get to the scenario David alluded to. Asking a member of Congress to support
funding for science is implicitly asking them to trade away something else for that money, and those are neither simple nor easy
Drug Enforcement Administration, the U.S. Marshal Service, and others. Once that’s set,
decisions. Each thing that you might trade away has a constituency that cares deeply or even depends upon it… and that member of Congress? It’s their job to
represent that constituency, too. While the budget is the focus of discussion now, these concepts apply to any issue that a policymaker faces.
That means aid trades off – part of the foreign affairs committee
USSCFR, No Date – they pass bills for us (US Senate, “COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS MEMBERSHIP AND
JURISDICTION OF SUBCOMMITTEES”, http://www.foreign.senate.gov/about/subcommittees/)//AR
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND FOREIGN ASSISTANCE, ECONOMIC AFFAIRS, INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION, AND PEACE CORPS The
subcommittee's responsibilities include general oversight responsibility for
U.S. development policy and foreign assistance programs. It includes U.S. bilateral humanitarian,
development , economic, trade and security assistance programs carried out by the U.S. A gency for
I nternational D evelopment, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, and other U.S. agencies, and U.S. voluntary contributions to international
organizations providing assistance to foreign nations. It also includes matters related to: (1) international monetary policy, including U.S. participation in international
financial institutions; (2) U.S. foreign economic policy, including export enhancement and trade promotion; and (3) international investment, protection of intellectual
property, and technological transfer.
And, the cuts will happen irrationally – EE Programs Trade-off with Defense and Security
Assistance
Arkedis 11, Project Director for the Center for Global Health R&D Policy Assessment project (Jean,
“Getting to a “Grand Bargain” for Aid Reform: The Basic Framework for U.S. Foreign Assistance”,
February 11, Center for Global Development,
http://www.cgdev.org/files/1424793_file_Arkedis_Aid_Framework_FINAL.pdf) //LA
The U.S. foreign assistance system does not allow policymakers to make rational tradeoffs between
multiple objectives. Because there is no broadly understood and commonly accepted framework for identifying the
purposes of foreign assistance, the system obscures, rather than clarifies, the key tradeoffs that are inherent in
prioritizing a budget.1On the one hand, existing legislation lists many overlapping and often redundant goals. As a result, it is impossible to
address them all while maintaining policy coherence and strategic focus. On the other hand, rhetoric that conflates aid with a broad and
nebulous definition of U.S. national interests is not particularly helpful either. While national interests can indeed
cover just about anything that we use foreign aid for (development, defense, and diplomacy) and it may be a useful trope for
advocating for a larger resource pie, stopping the debate at “foreign aid = national interest” does nothing to elucidate how to make more rational
choices about how to divide up what is ultimately a finite pie. To see that there are at least two overarching purposes, consider a budget built only
around one or the other extremes. A foreign aid budget drawn up based on solely geopolitical criteria would allocate large
sums of money to allies in the war on terror and to counter terrorism programming more narrowly.2 Such a budget would
exemplify an instrumental view of aid as a reward for allies and as a “stick” to address both state and non-state
threats. At the other end of the spectrum is the idea that foreign aid is first and foremost about growth and poverty
reduction. Under this view, assistance would be allocated solely on the basis of the aid effectiveness criteria embodied in best practice
documents such as the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness—need, host-country commitment, and performance. Assistance would not be used
as a quid pro quo for diplomatic or other national security objectives (such as advancing peace in the Middle East or in support of bilateral trade
pacts or other international agreements). Anyone who has spent some time with the U.S. foreign assistance budget knows
that the aid budget pursues both of these goals, and many others as well. The United States uses foreign assistance as
tool to achieve defensive, threat-based objectives (e.g., counterterrorism, counternarcotics, etc .) as well
as social and economic development that reduces poverty (e.g., economic growth as pursued through the Millennium
Challenge Account). Between the extremes, there are cases where the levels of assistance to a country may be motivated by geopolitical
considerations, but the programs themselves attempt to achieve developmental results (e.g., many of USAID’s programs in Pakistan and Egypt).
In addition, a major portion of foreign aid goes for specific concerns in developing countries (such as HIV/AIDS treatment) that are considered to
be important in their own right, regardless of country-level outcomes. It is easy to underestimate the tensions between aid for
development and aid to advance strategic interests precisely because many of the security threats the United States
faces are occurring in developing countries, and because many of the programs in strategic partner countries look
like traditional development programs. But over time, a muddled process of marginal funding decisions (by both
Congress and the executive) adds up to a portfolio of assistance investments which tells a story about where our strategic
emphasis lies. Often the story told is unintentional because of the broken decision-making processes and
accountability systems. Currently, decisions are not typically framed in terms of the larger goals and purposes for
foreign aid. Instead, budgeting is essentially “constraint-based” (what programs can or cannot be cut without violating earmarks
and directives?) rather than strategic (what’s the right balance between funding for development and
funding for other important foreign policy concerns?)
And, well win a new link here – country-specific programs create trade-offs
Veillette, 11 - Former Director of Rethinking U.S. Foreign Assistance Program (Connie, “The Future of U.S. Aid Reform: Rhetoric,
Reality, and Recommendations”, Center for Global Development, 9/19,
http://www.cgdev.org/files/1425457_file_Veillette_Future_Aid_Reform_FINAL.pdf)//AR
Eliminate Earmarks. Congress
should eliminate hard earmarks of country and sector allocations. Agencies will be unable to be
selective and focused if individual members of Congress are allowed to protect some countries over others. Likewise, the ratio of
sector directives does not reflect need, country ownership, or sound development policy that is evidence-based. Congress
has many other mechanisms, both formal and informal, to express its preferences. One approach is to convert hard earmarks to soft
ones (by changing “shall” to “should”). Congress is also able to assert its preferences through report language and the 653(a) process of country and account
allocations.14
And, assistance OUTSIDE of the strategic budget trades-off
Carothers, 09 - leading authority on international support for democracy, rights, and governance and on comparative democratization
(Thomas, “Revitalizing U.S. Democracy assistance the challenge of USAID”, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 10/29,
http://carnegieendowment.org/files/revitalizing_democracy_assistance.pdf)//AR
The causes of USAID’s troubled performance in the democracy and governance field are hardly mysterious. They are part and parcel of the
debilitating institutional deficiencies that plague the agency as a whole. As is unfortunately all too well-known, over the last two decades
USAID has sunk to a low state—dysfunctional in fundamental ways, demoralized internally, marginalized within the U.S. government, and disrespected in many
quarters at home and abroad. This
deterioration is the result of an interlocking series of basic ills, including but not limited to: An unproductive
relationship with Congress that involves, among other things, excessive budgetary earmarking, onerous reporting
practices, episodic interest and support, and deep-seated mutual distrust; An uneasy and often tense relationship with the State
Department (both before and after the 2006 reorganization putting USAID more fully under State Department direction) in the field and in Washington; The lack
of a clear, stable development mandate; instead, shifting priorities, often imposed from outside the agency; Repeated
bouts of weak leadership; A badly outdated legislative foundation for foreign assistance consisting of a 48-year-old original law
overlaid with multiple amendments, often overlapping or contradictory;
2NC Link Wall (Reform)
Cutting USAID funding hurts security, econ, ag and military
Beckmann, Ingram and Kolbe 10
[David, George, and Jim, Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network (MFAN) by Co-Chairs, “MFAN Statement:
RSC Budget Proposal Would Derail Progress on Foreign Assistance Reform” January 26, 2010,
http://www.modernizeaid.net/2011/01/26/mfan-statement-rsc-budget-proposal-would-derail-progress-on-foreignassistance-reform/]
We strongly oppose last week’s Republican Study Committee budget proposal, which would cut all operating expenses at the United States
Agency for International Development (USAID). The cuts
would derail the comprehensive reform agenda underway inside the
a time when its ability to perform effectively is crucial to our national security, our
economic interests, and the lives and well-being of millions of the world’s most vulnerable people. USAID is a crucial
partner of the United States military in “frontline states” including Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen, where the
agency, at
agency’s civilian development professionals train security forces, support efforts to bolster democracy and the rule of law, and improve quality of
life for people in areas where extremism thrives. Secretary of Defense Gates, Joint Chiefs Chairman Mullen, and Afghanistan Commander
Petraeus have called for strengthening these civilian programs, noting that the military does not want, and is not designed or equipped to carry,
the extra burden of leading development programs. Secretary Gates also said recently that helping countries develop “is a lot cheaper than
sending soldiers.” The
agency also builds critical agricultural growth programs, entrepreneurship
initiatives, and community health efforts that help developing countries, the fastest growing markets in the world, mature and
become better partners for U.S. exports and investment. Just as the U.S. supported the Green Revolution in agricultural development in the 20th
century – which helped countries like South Korea become strong trading partners and stalwart allies – we must continue this work by supporting
the growth of vibrant private sectors and healthy middle classes, thriving civil societies, and empowered citizens in developing countries. Most
importantly, USAID Administrator Raj Shah is making progress on a tough reform agenda that would decrease inefficiencies;
make the agency more selective, accountable and better at evaluating results; “graduate” countries that no longer need U.S. assistance; and
uphold economic growth and empowered citizens as core goals of all development efforts. We believe this reform effort
must be given
a chance to succeed, and we hope bipartisan Members of Congress will play a constructive role in making the agency more effective and
accountable by helping to enshrine these and other foreign assistance reforms in law.
Internals: at risk now (Good for Reforms Version)
Aid is in the firing line – cuts reverse all progress
Sharma 11
[Yojana, SciDevNet, “US budget cuts ‘could reverse USAID’s gains’” 3/8/11,
http://www.scidev.net/global/funding/news/us-budget-cuts-could-reverse-usaid-s-gains-.html]
**DAC is the Development Assistance Committee of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
The DAC's peer review report of US aid efforts, released last week (28 July), suggested that the country should do more to incorporate
and reflect the goals of the countries it assists, but it was generally positive about the reform efforts within the US Agency for International
Development (USAID). These have included a renewed emphasis on the role of science and technology (S&T), and innovation, in promoting
development, two of seven key areas of reform that have been identified by the Obama administration.But the report's release has coincided
with bitter political fighting in Washington over the future of the US budget, with foreign aid already in the
firing line for major cuts that observers fear could reverse the progress of recent years. Samuel Worthington, president
of InterAction, in Washington, DC, an alliance of almost 200 non-governmental organisations active internationally, told SciDev.Net that the
budget passed by congress this week (1 August) envisaged cuts of up to 30 per cent in USAID's operating expenditure. " This
undoes all
their gains over the last few years, and pares USAID down to being a contractor of services," he said. "Even if some
groups were spared within the organisation, the pain would be widespread if these cuts take place. The
organisation's technical capacity and knowledge capacity will be reduced." John Daly, a former USAID science official said that everyone is
expecting foreign assistance to get significant cuts, and that "there is a risk, even a probability" of gains made by USAID in recent years being
reversed. "The problem is no-one has an interest in protecting the foreign assistance budget," Daly said. Alex Dehgan, S&T advisor to the USAID
administrator said the final details on the budget are not yet known, but that the cuts "will definitely slow things down." Responding to the DAC's
criticism that US aid to developing countries should better incorporate and reflect the goals of the countries it assists, Dehgan, said: "A lot of
what we are trying to do is consistent with the priorities of developing countries. We are not choosing specific technologies but identifying
problems." He emphasised that S&T has become an important part of the US development aid strategy. "We are not trying to dictate [to
developing countries]. We want to work with them to create spaces to use talent to resolve development problems using science and technology."
AT: No Link – Not USAID
Economic Engagement provided through assistance is managed by USAID
Tarnoff and Knowles 2k4
(Curt Tarnoff Specialist in Foreign Affairs Foreign Affairs and National Defense Larry Nowels Specialist in
Foreign Affairs Foreign Affairs and National Defense “Foreign Aid: An Introductory Overview of U.S.
Programs and Policy,” pg online @ http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/98-916.pdf //um-ef)
Foreign assistance is a fundamental component of the
international affairs budget
and is
viewed by many as an essential instrument of U.S. foreign policy. Since the end of the Cold War, many have proposed significant changes in the size, composition, and purpose of the program, several of which
have been adopted. The focus of U.S. foreign aid policy has also been transformed since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. This report provides an overview of the U.S. foreign aid program, by
addressing a number of the more frequently asked questions regarding the subject.
There are
five major categories of foreign
assistance: bilateral development aid, economic assistance supporting U.S. political and
security goals, humanitarian aid, multilateral economic contributions, and military aid . Due largely to the
bilateral development assistance has
become the largest category of U.S. aid. In 2004, the United States is providing some form of foreign assistance to about 150 countries. Israel and Egypt continue, as
they have since the late 1970s, as the largest recipients, although Iraq, receiving over $20 billion for reconstruction activities since mid-2003, is the biggest recipient in FY2004. The importance
of Latin America counter-narcotics efforts is also evident, with Bolivia, Peru, and more recently,
Colombia, among the top U.S. aid recipients. The impact of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, and the subsequent use of foreign aid to support the war on
recent implementation two new foreign aid initiatives — the Millennium Challenge Corporation and the Global AIDS Initiative —
terrorism is clearly seen in the country-aid allocations for FY2004. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkey, Jordan, and Indonesia are key partners in the war on terrorism. By nearly all measures, the amount of foreign aid
provided by the United States declined for several decades but has grown in the past few years. After hitting an alltime low in the mid1990s, total foreign assistance (but excluding Iraq reconstruction) for
FY2003/2004, in real terms, has been larger than any two-year period since the mid-1980s. The 0.2% of U.S. gross national product represented by foreign aid obligations the past two years, however, is among
the smallest amounts in the last half-century. The United States is the largest international economic aid donor in dollar terms but is the smallest contributor among the major donor governments when calculated
(USAID) manages the bulk of bilateral economic
assistance; the Treasury Department handles most multilateral aid; and the Department of Defense (DOD) and
the State Department administer military and other security-related programs . The Millennium Challenge Corporation is
a new foreign aid agency created in 2004. The House International Relations and Senate Foreign Relations Committees
have primary congressional responsibility for authorizing foreign aid programs while the House
and Senate Appropriations Foreign Operations Subcommittees manage bills appropriating most
foreign assistance funds.
as a percent of gross national income. The U.S. Agency for International Development
D 2nc – at: n/l – no spending
Any new aid exceeds the budget – that forces a budget tradeoff
Alliage, 13 - Staff Writer at Devex (John, “Sequestration’s effect on US aid”, 3/2,
https://www.devex.com/en/news/sequestration-s-effect-on-us-aid/80420)//AR
Since U.S. lawmakers failed to reach a deal on March 1 to avert $85 billion in across-government
budget cuts, the global aid community has been nervously awaiting the impact on development
business. Sequestration will reduce fiscal 2013 funding for the State Department and U.S. Agency for
International Development by roughly $2.6 billion overall and cut foreign assistance by close to $1.7
billion, USAID spokesman Kamyl Bazbaz told Devex on March 1, the day a long-dreaded $85 billion budget cut,
also known as sequestration, begins to take effect. A 5-percent cut will now be applied to many government
programs, most notably, for the aid community, to the State Department’s global health programs, a reduction of
$411 million from a sequestrable base amount of $1.9 billion, according to a March 1 notice by the White House
Office of Management and Budget. Other large DOS accounts include international peacekeeping, embassy security
and construction, contributions to international organizations, migration and assistance, and international narcotics
control and law enforcement. USAID cuts for fiscal 2013, which ends Sept. 30: Assistance for Europe, Eurasia
and Central Asia: $32 million (from $630 million). Capital Investment Fund of USAID: $7 million (from $130
million). Development Assistance Program: $127 million (from $2.5 billion). Development Credit Authority
Program Account: less than $1 million (from $8 million). International disaster assistance: $49 million
(from $980 million). Office of Inspector General operating expenses: $3 million (from $51 million ). Operating
expenses: $68 million (from $1.4 billion). Transition initiatives: $3 million (from $57 million). Other
programs facing cuts include: African Development Foundation: $2 million cut (from $30 million). Food for Peace
Title II grant: $74 million cut (from $1.5 billion). Inter-American Foundation: $2 million cut (from $29 million).
McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program: $9 million cut (from $185 million).
Millennium Challenge Corp.: $45 million cut (from $904 million). Overseas Private Investment Corp.: $3 million
cut (from $58 million) Peace Corps: $19 million cut (from $377 million). Trade and Development Agency: $3
million (from $50 million). It’ll take a while for the effects of sequestration to become clear, and even then,
lawmakers may not agree on a way to reduce its burden on the U.S. economy and job market. But its effect on
government is fast becoming clear – and it involves furloughs and procurement delays. The
Department of Defense disclosed that about 800,000 civilian workers would be forced to stay home one day per
week because of sequestration. Other agencies were expected to issue similar furloughs. By 6 p.m. on Friday,
neither the State Department nor USAID had apparently issued those dreaded notices to staff.
AT: No Trade-off
Foreign aid is on the chopping block – plan trades off
Savoy, 13 - Fellow, Project on U.S. Leadership in Development and Project on Prosperity and Development (Conor, “Same Wine, Different
Bottle: The Fiscal Year 2014 Foreign Operations Budget” 4/25http://csis.org/publication/same-wine-different-bottle-fiscal-year-2014-foreignoperations-budget)//AR
Within the budget, there is some evidence that the administration is beginning to shift its focus and resources. In particular, the
FY2014 request begins to transform the U.S. relationship with rising middle income countries such as Brazil and India. In both
instances this will involve moving toward a more traditional donor-to-donor relationship and be more responsive to the needs of these countries.
This is an important shift and one that will free up funds for other priorities. The budget contains a notation that in Tanzania and Ghana the
administration is shifting funds to address constraints to growth that were identified through an analysis performed in each country under the
Partnership for Growth program. It is something of a Washington truism that foreign aid is the “low-hanging fruit” of the federal
budget, meaning in times of debt and deficit it easy to cut this money because it goes overseas and does not directly benefit
Americans. In large measure, this explains the growing desire by some in Congress to substantially reduce the amount of
foreign aid. For example, the House recently approved a budget resolution that provided $38.7 billion in base funding for the FY2014 Foreign
Operations budget. This constitutes a proposed an extra 7 percent cut on top of the 5 percent sequestration cut. The broader development
community, for its part, warns that cuts (or any cuts for that matter) like this will have catastrophic effects for developing countries. Neither
position gets the United States to where it should be: aid aligned with the broader strategic goals of the country. As the largest donor in the world
in terms of money spent, the United States has long had the luxury of being everywhere or almost everywhere. Even though the foreign aid
budget represents less than 1 percent of total federal spending each year, it will still be cut. This is an opportunity for
U.S. development to more strategic and targeted in creating lasting growth; the FY2014 budget request does not do
that. With bigger battles looming over spending, it remains to be seen if the President’s FY2014 is approved. It seems possible that, absence a
broader grand bargain, FY2014 will again be funded by a continuing resolution. Therefore, the opportunity still
remains for this administration to leave a lasting mark on how U.S. aid is programmed. But we may have to
wait till next fiscal year to see this happen.
D 2nc – at: l/t – saves money
This argument is asinine – while the plan might save money in the long term – the act of
requiring reallocation forces the tradeoff in the short term which triggers the internal link
chain
Each subcommittee has its own budget – every reallocation of money is zero sum
English, 13 - the Director of Science Policy Outreach at COMPASS where he helps scientists find the policy
relevance in their work (Chad, “Budget Trade-offs: A Zero-Sum Game”, 3/25,
http://compassblogs.org/blog/2013/03/25/what-to-do-when-the-budget-becomes-a-zero-sum-game/)//AR
Each Appropriations subcommittee works with their slice of the budget, called (opaquely) their 302(b) sub-allocation. But here’s the important
those sub-allocations are set, it’s a zero-sum game within that subcommittee ; a dollar to one
program must mean a dollar less for other programs. For scientists, the Commerce, Science, Justice and Related Agencies subcommittee is one
part: Once
of the big ones to watch. It determines the budget for the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). But it also sets the budget for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Commission on Civil Rights, the
any additional dollar that goes to NSF must come out
of one of these other agency’s budgets. (The Washington Post reported today that the continuing resolution process to keep the government running
the rest of this year is facing the same situation.) This is how we get to the scenario David alluded to. Asking a member of Congress to support
funding for science is implicitly asking them to trade away something else for that money, and those are neither simple nor easy
Drug Enforcement Administration, the U.S. Marshal Service, and others. Once that’s set,
decisions. Each thing that you might trade away has a constituency that cares deeply or even depends upon it… and that member of Congress? It’s their job to
represent that constituency, too. While the budget is the focus of discussion now, these concepts apply to any issue that a policymaker faces.
That means aid trades off – part of the foreign affairs committee
USSCFR, No Date – they pass bills for us (US Senate, “COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
MEMBERSHIP AND JURISDICTION OF SUBCOMMITTEES”,
http://www.foreign.senate.gov/about/subcommittees/)//AR
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND FOREIGN ASSISTANCE, ECONOMIC AFFAIRS, INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION, AND PEACE CORPS The
subcommittee's responsibilities include general oversight responsibility for
U.S. development policy and foreign assistance programs. It includes U.S. bilateral humanitarian,
development , economic, trade and security assistance programs carried out by the U.S. A gency for
I nternational D evelopment, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, and other U.S. agencies, and U.S. voluntary contributions to international
organizations providing assistance to foreign nations. It also includes matters related to: (1) international monetary policy, including U.S. participation in international
financial institutions; (2) U.S. foreign economic policy, including export enhancement and trade promotion; and (3) international investment, protection of intellectual
property, and technological transfer.
Links: Earmarks
Earmarks set sector funding –aid doesn’t get to the right target areas
Veillette, 11 - Former Director of Rethinking U.S. Foreign Assistance Program (Connie, “The Future of U.S. Aid Reform: Rhetoric,
Reality, and Recommendations”, Center for Global Development, 9/19,
http://www.cgdev.org/files/1425457_file_Veillette_Future_Aid_Reform_FINAL.pdf)//AR
A full endorsement of country ownership is made difficult by continued congressional earmarking of country and
sector funding. In the 2010 appropriations bill, Congress earmarked 66.5 percent of development funds by sector . These
decisions were made without any indication that the ratio of 3 percent water, 10 percent food security, and 65
percent health, for example, reflect the needs of poor countries or their own development preferences.
Recommendations: Swap Earmarks for Reviews. Congress should eliminate earmarks of country and sector allocations . In
exchange, Congress and the administration should create a process for the appropriate congressional committees to review
country strategies. Such a process would allow for congressional preferences to be expressed and taken into account while at the same time
providing administrations with the flexibility to work with partner countries in designing appropriate strategies.
Earmarking forces focus on too many target areas – creates tension
Carothers, 09 - leading authority on international support for democracy, rights, and governance and on comparative democratization
(Thomas, “Revitalizing U.S. Democracy assistance the challenge of USAID”, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 10/29,
http://carnegieendowment.org/files/revitalizing_democracy_assistance.pdf)//AR
Many of these overarching maladies hurt the agency’s democracy and governance work in one way or another . The heavy congressional
earmarking of USAID’s budget, for example, tends to favor certain socioeconomic issues, such as child health or
education, resulting in a relatively small pool of non-earmarked funds from which democracy and governance
programs can draw. The agency’s abysmal human resources practices militate against attracting or keeping the best and brightest in the ranks
of the agency to work on democracy and governance programs. The tensions between USAID and the State Department sometimes result in
blockages or lack of clear direction.
Earmarks hamper USAID’s ability to resolve issues
Armstrong, 09 - author and strategist on the issues that shape, empower, and limit U.S. public diplomacy and strategic communication.
(Matt, “USAID challenges reflect greater problems at the State Department”, Mountain Runner, 8/18,
http://mountainrunner.us/2009/08/usaid_and_state/)//AR
staff and loss of expertise has limited the agency’s technical competency and its managerial control over projects,
making USAID increasingly dependent on larger and larger grants and contracts to spend its budget . This has
The reduced
transformed USAID from a creative, proactive, and technically skilled organization focused on implementation to a contracting and grant-making
agency. … On a policy level, meanwhile, large presidential initiatives and congressional earmarks for health care, HIV /AIDS,
K-12 education, microfinance, and the environment have in recent years crowded out other development interventions,
such as anticorruption measures, agricultural assistance, democracy-promotion programs, and infrastructureenhancement measures. … Strategic needs on the ground should dictate the nature of the programs, but currently,
allocation decisions are determined by earmarks, presidential initiatives, or diplomatic pressures. Money alone can’t solve this
problem. The Agency requires strong leadership and strong support and an updated mandate.
Earmarks prevent resource allocation – creates inefficiencies
Weddle, 09 - correspondent based in Washington DC (Ryan, “Ex-USAID Official Blasts Congressional ‘Earmarks,’ Calls for FAA
Reform”, Devex, 2/26, https://www.devex.com/en/news/usaid-official-blasts-congressional-earmarks-calls-for-faa-reform/59195)//AR
Kunder stated that the 1961 Foreign Assistance Act defines development as a tool of foreign policy but also affirms that "we are essentially doing
this because we are good-hearted and want to keep starving people alive." But he said that this mission is undermined by congressional
"earmarks" (did he mean budget line-items?) that allow little leeway for the agency to spend funds.
"At the end of the day, the very bright officers
that we send out are torn in a hundred different directions ," he said. "If we
were a corporation, we would have gone out of business a long time ago."
Kunder also criticized FAA restrictions on USAID shifting resources between priority sectors. He gave the example of a plan
developed in the field, which promises to eradicate illiteracy within twenty years. USAID headquarters would have to reject the plan, according
to Kunder, essentially telling its field staff, "I'm sorry, would you like some AIDS money or malaria money? 'Cause
that's all we have."
Thomas Pickering, a former undersecretary of state for political affairs, chimed in with additional advice for the subcommittee:
"Don't change the priorities every five years."
Links: Military Funding Trades-off
Generous military funds cause diplomacy and foreign funding to fall short
Lugar, 08 – Chairman, Committee of Foreign Relations (Richard G., “STRENGTHENING
NATIONAL SECURITY THROUGH SMART POWER -- A MILITARY PERSPECTIVE”, March 5,
2008, pageLexis)//JW
SEN. RICHARD G. LUGAR (R-IN): Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I join you in welcoming our
very distinguished witnesses.¶ They are two distinguished leaders, as you have mentioned, that advocated
strengthening the civilian component of our national security operations.¶ During the last 5 years, the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee has focused much attention on how we can improve our diplomatic and foreign
assistance capabilities and integrate them more effectively with the military components of national power.¶
Since 2003, we have been advocating through hearings and legislation the establishment of a civilian counterpart to
the military devoted to post-conflict situations. We have argued for a rapidly deployable civilian corps that is trained
to work with the military on stabilization and reconstruction missions in hostile environments.¶ I'm very pleased that
the Bush administration is requesting $248.6 million for the Civilian Stabilization Initiative. Creating and sustaining
this civilian capacity is precisely the intent of the Lugar-Biden-Hagel legislation that passed the Senate in 2006,
passed this Committee again last March. In addition to meeting contingencies in Iraq and Afghanistan, we must be
ready for the next post-conflict mission.¶ In 2006, I directed the Republican staff of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee to investigate the expanding role of the United States military in areas that traditionally were the
province of the State Department.¶ The resulting report entitled, quote, "Embassies as Command Posts in the
Campaign Against Terror", end of quote, documented the rise in development and humanitarian assistance that is
being funneled through the Pentagon and recommended that all security assistance, including Section 1206 funding
administered by the Defense Department, be included under the Secretary of State's authority in the new
coordination process for rationalizing and prioritizing foreign assistance.¶ In 2007, the Committee staff completed a
second field-based study that focused more broadly on U.S. foreign assistance efforts. The report examined
assistance funded through the State Department, USAID, the Defense Department, and other agencies in
more than 20 countries in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, and Latin America.¶ It recommended that a
comprehensive foreign assistance strategy be linked to our actual foreign aid spending and that the State
Department's director of Foreign Assistance be responsible for all government agencies' foreign aid
programs.¶ We undertook these efforts in part because the United States government is paying insufficient
attention to fundamental questions about whether we are building United States national security capabilities
that can address the threats and challenges that we are likely to encounter.¶ Although our defense, foreign
affairs, homeland security, intelligence, and energy budgets are carefully examined, from the incremental
perspective of where they were in the previous year, it is not apparent that Congress or the Executive Branch
is adequately evaluating whether the money flowing to these areas represents the proper mix for the 21st
century.¶ While Congress maintains generous levels of funding to our military, funding for our diplomacy
and foreign assistance persistently falls very short.¶ The Bush administration deserves praise for its International
Affairs budgets, which have attempted to reverse the downward spiral in U.S. foreign policy capabilities that were
imposed during the 1990s.¶ By 2001, embassy security upgrades were behind schedule. We lacked adequate
numbers of diplomats with key language skills. Many important overseas posts were filled by junior Foreign Service
officers. And our public diplomacy was completely inadequate for the mission in an era of global terrorism.¶ Our
diplomatic capabilities have made progress under President Bush. But obviously, much work is left to be done.¶
Defense agencies increasingly have been granted authority to fill gaps in foreign assistance and public information
programs. But the military is sometimes ill-suited to run such programs.¶ A far more rational approach would be to
give the State Department the resources it should have to achieve what clearly are civilian missions. This view was
echoed by Defense Secretary Gates in a speech last month at CSIS.¶ He pointed out the total foreign affairs budget
request was roughly equivalent to what the Pentagon spends on health care alone. He also noted that the planned
7,000-troop increase in the Army expected for 2008 is equivalent to adding the entire U.S. Foreign Service to the
Army in one year.¶ We must adjust our civilian foreign policy capabilities to deal with a dynamic world where
national security threats are increasingly based on non-military factors.¶ I would underscore that although
military and civilian capabilities are severely out of balance, the United States must do more than add funds to the
foreign affairs account.¶ We must build our diplomatic capabilities in the areas of greatest consequence, paying
particular attention to international economic and energy policy. It is difficult to overstate the role of energy in
contemporary foreign policy calculations.¶ Russian foreign policy is now largely based on maximizing the political
leverage and financial earnings of its energy supplies and dominating the transport of energy to Eurasia.¶ This is so
critical to Russian strategy that Vladimir Putin has personally negotiated oil and gas deals with Central Asian
leaders.¶ In January, French President Nicolas Sarkozy traveled throughout the Middle East promoting French sales
of civilian nuclear power plants that could have an enormous impact on proliferation calculations.¶ Meanwhile, the
Chinese are pursuing relationships with almost everyone who promises them a reliable supply of oil. States such as
Iran, Venezuela, and Sudan have used their energy wealth to support aggressive policies and insulate themselves
from outside pressures.¶ Important rivals are exercising power in ways that circumvent traditional military or
diplomatic levers. And we have to ask whether the State Department and other federal agencies have the
resources and expertise to effectively function in a world where power is being wielded through energy
relationships and other rapidly evolving economic mechanisms such as sovereign wealth funds.¶ I appreciate,
especially, the opportunity to discuss this broad range of issues today. I thank the chairman for calling this series of
hearings and we look forward to the insights of our witnesses.¶ Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Links: Aid Forces T/Off
The plan exceeds the aid budget – that forces a budget tradeoff
Alliage, 13 - Staff Writer at Devex (John, “Sequestration’s effect on US aid”, 3/2, https://www.devex.com/en/news/sequestration-s-effecton-us-aid/80420)//AR
Since U.S. lawmakers
failed to reach a deal on March 1 to avert $85 billion in across-government budget cuts, the
global aid community has been nervously awaiting the impact on development business. Sequestration will reduce
fiscal 2013 funding for the State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development by roughly $2.6
billion overall and cut foreign assistance by close to $1.7 billion, USAID spokesman Kamyl Bazbaz told Devex on March 1, the
day a long-dreaded $85 billion budget cut, also known as sequestration, begins to take effect. A 5-percent cut will now be applied to many
government programs, most notably, for the aid community, to the State Department’s global health programs, a reduction of $411 million from a
sequestrable base amount of $1.9 billion, according to a March 1 notice by the White House Office of Management and Budget. Other large DOS
accounts include international peacekeeping, embassy security and construction, contributions to international organizations, migration and
assistance, and international narcotics control and law enforcement. USAID cuts for fiscal 2013, which ends Sept. 30: Assistance for
Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia: $32 million (from $630 million). Capital Investment Fund of USAID: $7 million (from $130 million).
Development Assistance Program: $127 million (from $2.5 billion). Development Credit Authority Program Account: less than $1
million (from $8 million). International disaster assistance: $49 million (from $980 million). Office of Inspector General
operating expenses: $3 million (from $51 million). Operating expenses: $68 million (from $1.4 billion). Transition initiatives:
$3 million (from $57 million). Other programs facing cuts include: African Development Foundation: $2 million cut (from $30 million).
Food for Peace Title II grant: $74 million cut (from $1.5 billion). Inter-American Foundation: $2 million cut (from $29 million). McGovern-Dole
International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program: $9 million cut (from $185 million). Millennium Challenge Corp.: $45 million cut
(from $904 million). Overseas Private Investment Corp.: $3 million cut (from $58 million) Peace Corps: $19 million cut (from $377 million).
Trade and Development Agency: $3 million (from $50 million). It’ll take a while for the effects of sequestration to become clear, and even then,
lawmakers may not agree on a way to reduce its burden on the U.S. economy and job market. But its effect on government is fast
becoming clear – and it involves furloughs and procurement delays. The Department of Defense disclosed that about 800,000
civilian workers would be forced to stay home one day per week because of sequestration. Other agencies were expected to issue similar
furloughs. By 6 p.m. on Friday, neither the State Department nor USAID had apparently issued those dreaded notices to staff.
Links: Latin Am. T/Off
Empirics prove – latin American operations trade off with security
Francis, 13 - national correspondent for The Fiscal Times and is based in Washington, D.C. (David, “The Pentagon Cries Wolf on
Sequestration Pains”, 5/3, http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2013/05/03/The-Pentagon-Cries-Wolf-on-SequestrationPains.aspx#page1)//AR
In the past, the Pentagon has had trouble focusing on multiple threats. For instance, the mission in Afghanistan all
but was forgotten once the Iraq War began, just as Iraq was ignored when attention was turned back to Afghanistan.
The Pentagon has already signaled its intention to dismantle much of its European operation. It’s made clear that it
would only engage in in so-called “small wars” in Africa, sending drones or Special Forces in support capacity. And
Southern Command chief General John Kelly recently told Congress that sequestration has reduced his forces’
capacity to track and capture illegal drug shipments. “It’s a zero sum game,” Eaglen said. “Counterdrug operations
are being shortchanged right now to meet demands in the Middle East and the Pacific. According to Eaglen, this
kind of budgeting could put the country at risk by ignoring ties between organized crime and terrorism. The Drug
Enforcement Administration has already identified links between al Qaeda and drug trafficking. “At the end of the
day, the threats are transnational and can’t be confined to one region,” she said. “You can’t take the eye off the ball
in South America if you want to stop terrorism in North Africa.”
Links: Food Aid T/Off
Boost in food aid transfer program trades off with international disaster assistance
Murphy, 13 - Co-Founder, Development and Aid World News Service (Tom, “Five Things To Know
About the White House Foreign Aid Budget Proposal¶“, Humanosphere, April 12, 201, ¶
http://www.humanosphere.org/2013/04/five-things-to-know-about-the-white-house-foreign-aid-budgetproposal/)//JW
Disaster Assistance Under Threat.¶ International disaster assistance technically gets a boost thanks to the new
food aid transfer program, but the devil is in the details. The White House Budget allocates $629 million to
disaster assistance and response. That is $500 million less than what was appropriated in the FY13 budget, says
Mercy Corps Director of Policy and Advocacy Jeremy Konyndyk. It happens to be a pretty important budget in
terms of responding to crises like the civil war in Syria and coup in Mali.¶ This cut would severely hinder the
United States’ ability to respond to the needs of millions of people who fall victim every year to conflict or
natural disasters. The proposed reductions would particularly constrain the U.S.’ ability to respond to the
Syria crisis, which is enormous and continues to grow. These cuts would also put a significant squeeze on
lower-profile emergencies such as those in Mali, Sudan, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, potentially
forcing a zero-sum trade-off between those emergencies and the crisis in Syria.¶ ¶ The United States will be
able to respond better when it comes to food, but other needs could be left in the dust due to the cuts.
Links: Country Aid T/Off
US foreign aid to repressive countries correlates with opportunity costs of human
rights
Gibler, 07- Professor of Political Science, University of Alabama (Douglas M., “United States
Economic Aid and Repression: ¶ The Opportunity Cost Argument*”, June 2007,
http://sitemason.vanderbilt.edu/files/hWtqKY/Gibler.pdf)//JW
While many have examined whether the US considers human rights abuses in the ¶ distribution of its economic
aid, little attention has been given to the effectiveness of this ¶ policy on raising levels of human rights respect
abroad. In one of the first systematic ¶ investigations into this question, Regan (1995: 624) found that “the
effectiveness of U.S. ¶ economic aid as a tool to shape the human rights policies of the recipient countries has ¶ been
virtually nil.” Using a sample of 32 developing countries from Asia and Latin Gibler ¶ - 9 -¶ America, Regan’s
study demonstrated no relationship between changes in US economic ¶ aid levels and changes in human rights. ¶ In
a similar study focused on changes in human rights, Meyer (1996) confirmed ¶ Regan’s findings. For two years of
data, Meyer found that US economic aid was either ¶ statistically insignificant (1985) or inconsistent and weak
(1990) in predicting human ¶ rights levels in approximately 50 recipient countries. In both the Regan and the Meyer
¶ studies, economic development proved to be the only consistently strong predictor of ¶ respect for human rights in
each sample of countries. Of course, the level of ¶ development could be an intervening variable linking aid to
changes in human rights, but ¶ there exists scant evidence that US aid, or even foreign aid more generally, can ¶
consistently increase economic development (Easterly, 2001). ¶ While instructive, these studies miss an important
way in which US economic aid ¶ can affect the behavior of foreign leaders. If political repression is a rational
decision ¶ made by leaders wishing to remain in power (Duvall and Stohl, 1988; Gurr, 1986; ¶ Davenport, 1997;
1999; Poe, 2004), then any factor that increases the relative cost of ¶ oppression should have an effect on the
decision calculi of the leader. The opportunity ¶ cost of lost US economic aid is one such factor. ¶ The
opportunity cost of any decision is the cost of foregoing the next best choice. ¶ In the international relations
literature, opportunity costs are often explained using the ¶ trade-off between guns and butter – producing
more guns necessitates a reduction in the ¶ production and benefits of butter. In an example more relevant to
the human rights ¶ literature, consider a leader who has a choice between repressing a separatist group of ¶ citizens
and placating the same separatists with a grant of limited autonomy. The Gibler ¶ - 10 -¶ opportunity costs of
repression in this situation would then include the lost benefits of a ¶ policy of limited autonomy. Since the
United States considers repression in decisions to ¶ grant aid, lost US aid monies would be one of the
opportunity costs associated with ¶ repression of the separatists. ¶ It follows that, ceteris paribus, potentially
repressive leaders have strong ¶ monetary incentives to find measures other than repression to maintain their hold on
¶ power; however, the likelihood of receiving US economic aid is not evenly distributed ¶ across all countries.
Strategic interest, proximity to the United States and overall need ¶ are among the factors that control the likelihood
of receiving aid (Apodaca and Stohl, ¶ 1999), and foreign leaders should discount any potential aid gains consistent
with these ¶ indicators. Thus, countries outside American strategic and geographic interests, and the ¶ wealthier of
the developing countries, are less likely to receive US aid, rendering these ¶ countries less prone to the opportunity
costs of repression. Costs are highest, and human ¶ rights changes are most likely, in poorer countries nearer
the United States, both ¶ geographically and politically. ¶ Note that this framework can easily incorporate recent
arguments that aid ¶ conditionality is the primary mechanism controlling state-level change. For example, ¶
Dunning (2004) demonstrates that the modest, statistically significant relationship ¶ between official developmental
assistance and democratization in sub-Saharan Africa ¶ since 1977 (Goldsmith, 2001) is primarily relegated to
changes that took place in the ¶ years following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Dunning contends that
bipolarity ¶ during the Cold War diminished the ability of US leaders to credibly condition aid Gibler ¶ - 11 -¶
disbursemfents on liberalization since client states in the region were actively courted by ¶ both superpowers. ¶ This
credible commitment story can also be understood as an opportunity cost ¶ argument. The credibility of any
commitment is a probability, and Cold War geostrategic positioning is but one factor affecting that probability
function. Leaders of ¶ Soviet client states would heavily discount the likelihood of receiving US economic aid, ¶ just
as West-leaning leaders would question the ability US leaders have to withdraw their ¶ support. As strategic
interests in a region increase, leaders of other countries will ¶ appropriately alter their expected probabilities
of receiving US economic aid, and this, in ¶ turn, will condition their domestic-level policies. The opportunity
cost argument thus ¶ subsumes geo-strategic interests within a broader framework of aid likelihoods, and I ¶
discuss all these factors in the next section as I develop the opportunity cost measure.
Links: Foreign Aid T/Off
Foreign aid is k2 security
Borgen Project, 13 - nonprofit organization that is addressing poverty and hunger (Conor, “Sequester Threatens
Foreign Aid”, 3/1, http://borgenproject.org/sequester-threatens-foreign-aid/)//AR
The sequester has many of people nervous for a number of reasons, and the future of foreign aid is one of
them. The sequester that was planned to start at the beginning of this month was designed to cut hundreds of
billions of dollars in national spending. Patrick Christy and Evan Moore have recently published their case on why
U.S. foreign aid should not be cut by the sequester. Currently, foreign assistance is scheduled to be
decreased by 5.3 percent in the coming year and an additional cut of $50 billion over the next ten years. Foreign
assistance serves many purposes; it helps keep America safe by stabilizing areas of possible conflict and
eliminating the root causes of terrorism while strategic aid provides American job security. Not to
mention the positive effects that aid programs have, fighting hunger and poverty, building schools,
and improving the quality of life for millions of people around the world. U.S. foreign aid is still less
than 1 percent of the national budget and as Senator Marco Rubio said “if you wiped out all the foreign aid in
the world, you wouldn’t notice it in terms of the debt conversation.” Whatever happens when the
sequester compromise talks end, Congress will have to consider these issues before cutting foreign aid.
Aid k2 perception
Rogin, 13 - covers national security 2/15,
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/02/15/kerry_warns_of_serious_sequestration_cuts_for_state_and_usai
d)//AR
"These cuts would severely impair our efforts to enhance the security of U.S. government facilities
overseas and ensure the safety of the thousands of U.S. diplomats serving the American people abroad," Kerry
wrote. Here are some specific cuts that Kerry said would be necessary if sequestration happens: $ 200 million cut
from humanitarian assistance, which would impact millions of disaster-stricken people$400 million cut
from global health funding, hurting efforts to stop HIV/AIDs and child death $500 million cut from global security
accounts $300 million cut from foreign military financing accounts, which could result in cuts to
assistance to Israel, Egypt, and Jordan $70 million cut from USAID operations accounts Unspecified
cuts to international peacekeeping operations, counter narcotics programs, counterterrorism efforts, and nonproliferation activities Kerry also warned that the State Department might not be able to effectively provide
emergency services to Americans in trouble abroad, to properly vet visa applications, and or issue passports to
Americans in a timely manner. "I hope that Congress can act to avoid these severe, across-the-board cuts to
programs that further U.S. national security, advance America's economic interests, protect Americans at home and
abroad, and deliver results for the American people," Kerry wrote.
Links/Internals: Plan Forces T/Off
The plan exceeds the aid budget – that forces a budget tradeoff
Alliage, 13 - Staff Writer at Devex (John, “Sequestration’s effect on US aid”, 3/2,
https://www.devex.com/en/news/sequestration-s-effect-on-us-aid/80420)//AR
Since U.S. lawmakers failed to reach a deal on March 1 to avert $85 billion in across-government
budget cuts, the global aid community has been nervously awaiting the impact on development
business. Sequestration will reduce fiscal 2013 funding for the State Department and U.S. Agency
for International Development by roughly $2.6 billion overall and cut foreign assistance by close to
$1.7 billion, USAID spokesman Kamyl Bazbaz told Devex on March 1, the day a long-dreaded $85 billion budget
cut, also known as sequestration, begins to take effect. A 5-percent cut will now be applied to many government
programs, most notably, for the aid community, to the State Department’s global health programs, a reduction of
$411 million from a sequestrable base amount of $1.9 billion, according to a March 1 notice by the White House
Office of Management and Budget. Other large DOS accounts include international peacekeeping, embassy security
and construction, contributions to international organizations, migration and assistance, and international narcotics
control and law enforcement. USAID cuts for fiscal 2013, which ends Sept. 30: Assistance for Europe, Eurasia
and Central Asia: $32 million (from $630 million). Capital Investment Fund of USAID: $7 million (from $130
million). Development Assistance Program: $127 million (from $2.5 billion). Development Credit Authority
Program Account: less than $1 million (from $8 million). International disaster assistance: $49 million
(from $980 million). Office of Inspector General operating expenses: $3 million (from $51 million ). Operating
expenses: $68 million (from $1.4 billion). Transition initiatives: $3 million (from $57 million). Other
programs facing cuts include: African Development Foundation: $2 million cut (from $30 million). Food for Peace
Title II grant: $74 million cut (from $1.5 billion). Inter-American Foundation: $2 million cut (from $29 million).
McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program: $9 million cut (from $185 million).
Millennium Challenge Corp.: $45 million cut (from $904 million). Overseas Private Investment Corp.: $3 million
cut (from $58 million) Peace Corps: $19 million cut (from $377 million). Trade and Development Agency: $3
million (from $50 million). It’ll take a while for the effects of sequestration to become clear, and even then,
lawmakers may not agree on a way to reduce its burden on the U.S. economy and job market. But its effect on
government is fast becoming clear – and it involves furloughs and procurement delays. The
Department of Defense disclosed that about 800,000 civilian workers would be forced to stay home one day per
week because of sequestration. Other agencies were expected to issue similar furloughs. By 6 p.m. on Friday,
neither the State Department nor USAID had apparently issued those dreaded notices to staff.
Links: Mexico Border Security
Mexico is receiving over 200$ million in foreign assistance for border security
Meyer and Sullivan 12, Meyer is an analyst in Latin American affairs, Sullivan is a specialist in Latin
American affairs, (Peter J. and Mark P., “U.S. Foreign Assistance to Latin America and the Caribbean:
Recent Trends and FY2013 Appropriations”, 6/26/12, Congressional Research Service,
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42582.pdf)//LA
Background. Taking into account obligations from all U.S. agencies, the United States provided Mexico and the
countries of Central America with foreign assistance worth $27.5 billion in constant 2010 U.S. dollars (or $18.9
billion in current, or non-inflation adjusted, dollars) between FY1980 and FY2010.7Over 91% of the aid provided
was in the form of economic assistance, with the remainder in military assistance. El Salvador accounted for 33% of
the U.S. assistance provided over the 31-year period, followed by Honduras (17%), Guatemala (13%), Mexico
(11%), Costa Rica (10%), Nicaragua (9%), Panama (5%), and Belize (1%). U.S. assistance to the sub-region has
declined in each decade since the 1980s. As noted above, Central America was a major priority for U.S. foreign aid
during the 1980s as the United States sought to combat Soviet influence and support allied governments fighting
leftist insurgencies. The United States provided Mexico and Central America with $12.8 billion (constant 2010 U.S.
dollars) in assistance over the course of the decade—43% of which went to El Salvador. Assistance declined
considerably during the 1990s as the Cold War and civil conflicts came to an end. Although several countries in the
sub-region received substantial amounts of U.S. assistance for reconstruction in the aftermath of Hurricane Mitch in
1998, total aid for the 1990s amounted to $7.6 billion in 2010 U.S. dollars, a 41% decline from the previous decade.
U.S. aid to Central America and Mexico declined again between FY2000 and FY2009 to about $5.9 billion in 2010
U.S. dollars. Despite the decline, several countries in the sub-region benefited from new aid initiatives. El Salvador,
Honduras, and Nicaragua were awarded MCC compacts, and Mexico—which had not been a major recipient of U.S.
assistance—began receiving large amounts of aid through the anticrime and counterdrug program known as the
Mérida Initiative. In FY2010, Mexico and Central America received almost $1.3 billion (constant 2010 U.S. dollars)
in U.S. assistance, 57% of which went to Mexico. FY2013 Appropriations Request. Looking more recently at
foreign aid appropriated for the State Department and USAID through the annual State Department and Foreign
Operations appropriations measure, Mexico and the countries of Central America received $532.4 million current
U.S. dollars in assistance in FY2011 and an estimated $664.4 million in FY2012. The Administration’s FY2013
request for the sub-region is $619.8 million, a $44.6 million (7%) decrease from the FY2012 estimate (see Table 3).
Under the FY2013 request, Mexico would receive $269.5 million in U.S. assistance. This would be a $60.6 million
(18%) decrease compared to the FY2012 estimate. Nevertheless, Mexico would still account for over 45% of aid to
the sub-region as a result of substantial U.S. support for its efforts to combat transnational organized crime.
According to Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Roberta Jacobson, the decline in U.S.
assistance to Mexico is a result of a shift in the Mérida Initiative from providing expensive pieces of security
equipment, like helicopters, to providing less costly training and capacity building programs.
Links: Border Security
US has aided Mexico with over 1.5$ billion for border security
Rosen 12, Rosen is a former writer and producer for The Atlantic's Global channel, (Armin, “ The
'Dividends' of U.S.-Mexican 'Cooperation' on the Drug War”, 10/3/12, The Atlantic,
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/10/the-dividends-of-us-mexican-cooperation-onthe-drug-war/263072/) //LA
At the root of the issue is the overhaul of earlier approaches to Mexico's drug war. After his election in
2005, Mexican President Felipe Calderón abandoned what Felbab-Brown called "an essentially
corporatist approach to crime" -- the time-honored Mexican policy, mostly pursued by the long-ruling
Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI), of co-opting favored drug trafficking organizations though a
complex system of clientelism and selective enforcement. But when Calderón used Mexico's military to
take on the country's powerful and well-armed drug trafficking organizations, he had little sense of what
the consequences of a full-on war would be. "Under the PRI there were tacit agreements. You bribe away
officials, you don't engage in turf battles, and so on," said Sanho Tree of the Institute for Policy Studies.
"This doesn't work in the long run. You have to deal with rule of law and these illegal groups. But that's a
long process and [Calderón] didn't have the institutions to do that. By 2009, both Calderon and the newly
inaugurated President Obama realized that winning Mexico's drug war meant reforming the country's
corrupt state structure and security services. Under the 2007 Merida Initiative, the U.S. provided over
$1.5 billion in security aid to Mexico over the following three years, mostly in the form of hardware,
including "Blackhawk helicopters, database equipment, speed boats, and other hard equipment,"
according to Shannon O'Neil of the Council on Foreign Relations. Under Obama,"institutionalizing the
rule of law," "reforming the police," and "building strong and resilient communities" became the center
of U.S. policy in Mexico. In late 2009, the United States increased its efforts to train jurists and police
officers, and undertook institution- and community-level projects that included opening a police academy
in San Luis Potosí and funding more than a dozen $100,000 community-building grants in crime-ridden
Ciudad Juárez. At the same time, the United States aided and trained Mexican intelligence, as a 2009
embassy cable published by WikiLeaks revealed. "Cooperation, while not flawless, has never been
better," the cable reads. "Close collaboration and assistance ... in key counterdrug operations undoubtedly
is critical and will pay dividends over time." But in the wake of the CIA agents' August 24 shooting, it's
worth asking again: Just what are these "dividends" supposed to look like? As a 2011 Congressional
Research Service study explained, Mexico and the United States have different definitions of "success" in
the drug war. For Washington, the seizure of drug shipments and the removal of kingpins -- such as the
2009 killing of cartel boss Arturo Beltran Leyva, who was cornered by the Mexican Navy with the help
of U.S. intelligence -- are markers of success. But for Mexico, the drug trade is a "national security
threat" rather than an "organized crime threat," and the country's short-term goals might be more focused
on "reducing drug trafficking-related crime and violence" than on dismantling the country's criminal
organizations, according to the CRS study. This will be especially true after Enrique Peña Nieto -- the
president-elect of Mexico who promised a break from Calderón's militarized drug policy -- is inaugurated
on December 1. Nieto has emphasized public safety and violence reduction over a Calderón-like assault
on drug cartels and their leadership.
**Internals**
Internals: Trades-off with MENA
That trades off with MENA aid
Sorcher, 13 – a national security staff writer for National Journal covering the business of war (Sara, “Attaching Strings to Foreign Aid
Often Proves Ineffective, 5/29, http://www.nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/attaching-strings-to-foreign-aid-often-proves-ineffective20120722)//AR
You will tend to see Congress layering more conditions on how money can be spent when they have concerns about
administration strategy,” Wittes noted. Foreign aid in general is less popular with the American public in a tough budget
environment. “So when times are tight like they are now, it’s not surprising you would see increased scrutiny of foreign aid by members of
Congress and increased conditionality.”
Congressional conditions can be designed to pressure the administration into enacting what lawmakers see as the right
policies—or even give the executive branch an opportunity to invoke the conditions in a type of “good cop/bad cop” routine. They are also
meant to inflict some discomfort if the executive branch decides to sidestep them by using the national-security waiver, said former Rep. Jim
Kolbe, R-Ariz., who chaired the Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee. “Conditionality should be used sparingly by
Congress, but it’s certainly a legitimate tool,” Kolbe said.
But “we have to recognize that too often the [foreign-aid] money does not achieve the results we want,” Leahy told the U.S. Global Leadership
Coalition last week. “We often do not hold foreign governments accountable when they fail to perform.”
The Obama administration is now pushing a $770 billion Middle East and North Africa Incentive Fund to respond to
countries’ needs and to encourage reform. The Senate committee liked the idea and gave it $1 billion; the House gave it zero. Some
members, such as Foreign Operations Subcommittee Chairwoman Kay Granger, R-Texas, called it a “slush fund” that could skirt congressional
oversight.
U.S. funds can create an undue sense of expectations or even entitlement within governments, Wittes said, and rather than using foreign aid as a
stick to coerce behavior, the incentive fund is meant to communicate “there is a pot of money out there; the more you do, the more opportunity
[to access it]…. It’s not a one-shot deal.”
Links: USAID trades-off with other areas
USAID funding increases while other areas suffer
Liberman 13, Liberman is a Devex development correspondent. For the past nearly four years, she has
been based mostly in New York City, reporting from the UN Headquarters, as well as from Asia and
Latin America. (Amy, “Analysis: Obama's 2014 foreign aid budget request”, 4/11/13,
https://www.devex.com/en/news/analysis-obama-s-2014-foreign-aid-budget-request/80681//LA
The Obama administration released its fiscal 2014 budget on Wednesday, totaling $52 billion in foreign assistance
and support funding, a $2.4 billion decrease from fiscal 2012. In the document, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry
noted foreign assistance is a strategic imperative for America — not charity or a favor. “It lifts others up, and then
reinforces their willingness to link arms with us in common endeavors,” Kerry writes at the beginning of the 176page executive summary. “When we help other nations crack down on corruption, it makes it easier for our
companies to do business, as well as theirs… This budget enables us to respond to the dynamic political, economic
and social shifts we see around the world.” As expected, the budget, which will face the daunting task of passing as
is through the House of Representatives, where Republicans hold the majority, contains some proposed overhauls to
the way the United States administers foreign humanitarian aid. The delivery of food aid, for instance, would look
different, channeled more effectively and swiftly into three programs, including a planned $75 million emergency
food assistance fund, all managed by the U.S. Agency for International Development. The proposed transition, is
being backed by large international humanitarian groups like CARE and Oxfam International. Funding for USAID
would rise slightly next year under the proposal, to $1.57 billion, from $1.52 billion in 2012 and $1.53 billion in the
sequestered 2013 budget, while military operations, in form of overseas contingency operations, would be slashed
by $184 million, down to $71 million. Education and cultural exchange programs, which include American research
centers overseas and a literacy training center in Pakistan, also would take a loss of $15 million, totaling $309
million. Other educational independent centers and funds, like the National Endowment for Democracy, which
provides funds to nongovernmental organizations, also would experience significant cuts, as would migration and
refugee assistance. The budget is dense and only subtly reveals the areas that would feel the proposed fiscal
decrease. Some highlights, based on an initial Devex analysis, include.
**Impacts**
Impact Internals: Various
(pretty random find but I think a decent internal link if we have an impact to regional
programs, feed the future, or the global health program)
Current cuts have decimated (whichever program we have an impact to) – funding
tradeoffs are the nail in the coffin
Shah, 13 - economic development specialist who is currently the Administrator of USAID (Rajiv, “TESTIMONY OF ADMINISTRATOR
RAJIV SHAH BEFORE THE SENATE APPROPRIATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE ON STATE AND FOREIGN OPERATIONS”, USAID, 5/7,
http://www.usaid.gov/news-information/congressional-testimony/may-7-2013-testimony-administrator-rajiv-shah-senate-appropriations)//AR
A NEW MODEL FOR DEVELOPMENT: PARTNERSHIPS, INNOVATION, AND RESULTS
The FY 2014 request for USAID managed or partially managed accounts is $20.4 billion, six percent below the total enacted
funding for FY 2012. In this tough budget environment, USAID is committed to maximizing the value of every dollar. We have made
tough choices so that we are working where we will have greatest impact, and shifting personnel and funding resources towards
regional program areas have been reduced by
29%, Feed the Future agriculture programs have been phased out of 22 countries, and
USAID global health program areas have been phased out of 23 countries.
programs that will achieve the most meaningful results. Since 2010,
Neg Impact Card
Reform key to US softpower
Kaiser Family Foundation 13
[Henry Kaiser Family Foundation is a non-profit, private operating foundation focusing on the major
health care issues facing the U.S., as well as the U.S. role in global health policy. “USAID Reform
Should Be ‘Priority’ For U.S. Government” April 15 2013, http://kff.org/news-summary/usaid-reformshould-be-priority-for-u-s-government/]
“The amount of good our nation has done for poor and hungry people around the world over the last 10
years is astounding,” Rev. David Beckmann, president of Bread for the World; George Ingram, a senior fellow at the Brookings
Institution; and former Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.), a senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United States and a senior adviser at
McLarty Associates, write in a Politico opinion piece. The authors, co-chairs of the Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network, continue, “We
have saved and improved millions of lives through programs like [PEPFAR], which was launched by former
President George W. Bush to battle the disease in Africa, and the Feed the Future initiative, which President Obama
started to support small farmers and the growth of local economies in developing countries.” They note the
2010 Policy Directive on Global Development (PPD), meant to reform USAID, as well as the recent
release of the USAID Forward Progress Report, and write, “Completing this transformation must be a
foreign policy priority for Obama and his successors because effective and robust development efforts
will have to play a larger role in U.S. foreign policy if we are to maintain a strong global presence as our
major military engagements end.”The authors outline several key areas on which USAID reform has focused, including evaluation and
selectivity, country ownership, economic growth and innovation, partnership, and transparency. “In addition to increased diligence and resolve by
the Obama administration and USAID, congressional engagement is needed to solidify these reforms,” they write, adding, “The president’s
budget includes strong reform elements, including a proposal to reshape the inefficient U.S. food aid
system to reach more people and save more taxpayer dollars, and we urge Congress to support this and
other proposals.” The authors continue, “Completing the transformation of U.S. foreign assistance will reposition
the U.S. as not just the most generous, but also the most strategic, innovative, and effective player in
global development. … The opportunity at hand for the next 10 years is to turn progress into lasting change by helping those people take
control of their own lives” (4/15).
Impacts: Laundry List
The budget for foreign aid is already decreasing – yet it's key to a laundry list of impacts
including nuclear weapons, climate change, and poverty.
Department of State 13 (US Department of State, John Kerry, “Highlights of the Department of State and U.S.
Agency for International Development Budget Fact Sheet”, Office of the Spokesperson, Washington, DC, April 10,
2013, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2013/04/207281.htm#) //NVG
The President’s FY 2014 budget request for the Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) is $47.8 billion, a six percent decrease from FY 2012. The request makes tough tradeoffs, proposes important reforms, and takes advantage of efficiencies to support our diplomatic, development,
and national security priorities and use taxpayer dollars efficiently. With just over one percent of the federal
budget, the State Department and USAID budget advances U.S. national security; protects Americans at home
and abroad; creates American jobs and opens markets overseas; fights disease, hunger and extreme poverty;
addresses climate change; forges global partnerships; and delivers real results for the American people. It
supports U.S. engagement with the governments and citizens of over 180 countries, and provides the people and
programs necessary to protect U.S. interests, promote peace, and ensure America’s leadership in the world.
Advancing Peace, Security, and Stability Our investments in diplomacy and development help prevent wars,
reduce the threat of nuclear weapons, secure our borders, and protect Americans abroad. The men and women
of the State Department and USAID serve on the front lines, including in the most dangerous corners of the world,
protecting and advancing American interests and countering violent extremism. Knowing that failed states are
among our greatest security threats and that new partners are our greatest assets, we advance civilian power,
lessening the need for costly military intervention that risks American lives.
Impacts: USAID k Innovation/Growth
USAID Forward leads to innovation and growth
IGD 3-20
[Initiative for Global Development, “USAID Forward: Delivering Development Reform”, March 20, 2013,
http://www.igdleaders.org/usaid-forward-delivering-development-reform/]
USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah today released the first USAID Forward progress report. Launched in 2010,
USAID Forward is a
reform initiative that seeks to transform USAID into the world’s premier development agency by focusing on three key areas: building local
capacity through partnerships, driving innovation, and strengthening results. These three focus areas hold enormous
potential to fundamentally change the business of development assistance. As we argued in our 2012 report “The Business Case for
Development,” donors like USAID can increase their efficiency and effectiveness by leveraging corporate investment strategies that are aligned
with development priorities. USAID
Forward’s emphasis on building capacity, fostering innovation, and achieving results demonstrates a
an environment in which
trade and investment increasingly replace aid. • Capacity building: Strengthening local organizations, both
public and private, helps attract investment and spur growth. Across Africa, USAID missions now contribute on average 10
concerted effort to strengthen partner countries, help them attract increased private capital, and create
percent of their funding to local institutions. In our work to facilitate investment in key African agriculture value chains, for example, we have
successfully connected a number of our member companies, whose business strategies align with Feed the Future priorities, with USAID to
develop comprehensive approaches that leverage public and private resources for agricultural development. By focusing on building local
capacity—in terms of access to credit, farmer training, or hiring more extension workers, for example—USAID Forward is helping create an
environment where private capital can increasingly fill the investment gaps faced by African governments. • Innovation: Many of the
challenges facing Africa will require collaborative solutions, bringing together innovations from
businesses and universities with donor programs to reduce costs and broaden access. This is a win-win for innovators and
development practitioners, but is of greatest benefit to the poor, many of whose lives have been radically improved by technological
advancements and creative lower-cost solutions. A number of IGD companies have pioneered approaches that help reach the poorest of the poor
with innovative products and services, often in collaboration with donors, like USAID, or donor-supported NGOs. • Results: Strengthening
USAID’s capacity to deliver results is central to USAID Forward. In order to demonstrate progress in building local capacity, partnering for
development, and catalyzing innovation, the agency has committed to enhancing its financial and technical expertise and hiring people with
business experience to drive engagement with the private sector. USAID recruited its first Field Investment Officers in 2012, for example, a
number of whom are deployed in Africa and have been tasked with engaging the local private sector in USAID planning. We believe USAID
Forward marks real reform. USAID is now positioned at the forefront of a powerful trend around the world—the rapid emergence of private
capital and investment flows as the dominant source of funding in developing countries. Multi-stakeholder partnerships are key to delivering the
innovation and resources that will secure strong development outcomes.
Impacts: Jobs/Exports
Key to military, jobs, exports
Rogin 11
[Josh, covers national security and foreign policy for the daily Web column The Cable and The Washington Post.
Josh previously covered defense and foreign policy as a staff writer for Congressional Quarterly, writing extensively
on Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantánamo Bay, U.S.-Asia relations, defense budgeting and appropriations, and the defense
lobbying and contracting industries. Prior to that, he covered military modernization, cyber warfare, space, and
missile defense for Federal Computer Week Magazine. He has also served as Pentagon Staff Reporter for the Asahi
Shimbun, Japan's leading daily newspaper, in its Washington, D.C., bureau, where he reported on U.S.-Japan
relations, Chinese military modernization, the North Korean nuclear crisis, and more., “USAID chief to Congress:
Don’t play games with national security” January 21, 2011,
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/01/21/usaid_chief_to_congress_don_t_play_games_with_national_sec
urity]
Rajiv Shah, head of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), has a message for those in Congress who want
to slash
development and foreign-aid budgets: Cuts will undermine U.S. national security. On the heels of a major
speech on the coming reforms to America's premier development agency, Shah sat down for an exclusive interview with The Cable to explain his
vision for making USAID more responsible and accountable, an effort he said will require increased short-term investment in order to realize
long-term savings. But if
Congress follows through on a massive defunding of USAID as the 165-member Republican Study Group
recommended yesterday, it would not only put USAID's reforms in jeopardy, but have real and drastic
negative implications for American power and the ongoing missions in Afghanistan and Pakistan, according to
Shah. "That first and foremost puts our national security in real jeopardy because we are working hand and glove with our
military to keep us safe," said Shah, referring to USAID missions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, the Horn of Africa, and Central
America, and responding directly to congressional calls for cuts in foreign aid and development. The RSC plan calls for $1.39 billion in annual
savings from USAID. The USAID operating budget for fiscal 2010 was approximately $1.65 billion. The RSC spending plan summary was not
clear if all the cuts would come from operations or from USAID administered programs. "That would have massive negative implications for our
fundamental security," said Shah. "And as people
start to engage in a discussion of what that would mean for protecting
our border, for preventing terrorist safe havens and keeping our country safe from extremists' ideology … and what
that would mean for literally taking children that we feed and keep alive through medicines or food and leaving them to
starve. I think those are the types of things people will back away from." The interests between the development community
and U.S. national security objectives don't always align, and this tension is at the core of the debate on how to reinvigorate USAID. Short-term
foreign-policy objectives sometimes don't match long-term development needs, and U.S. foreign-policy priorities are not made with development
foremost in mind. But Shah's ambitious drive to reform USAID seems to embrace the idea that development investments can be justified due to
their linkage with national security. He is preparing to unveil next month USAID's first ever policy on combating violent extremism
and executing counterinsurgency. He also plans to focus USAID's efforts on hot spots like Afghanistan, Pakistan,
Sudan, and parts of sub-Saharan Africa, while transitioning away from other countries that are faring well and downgrading the
agency's presence in places like Paris, Rome, and Tokyo. Shah pointed out that Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm.
Mike Mullen, and ISAF Commander Gen. David Petraeus have all come out in strong support of increasing USAID's capacity to do foreign aid.
"In
the military they call us a high-value, low-density partner because we are of high value to the
national security mission but there aren't enough of us and we don't have enough capability," he said. "This is actually a
much, much, much more efficient investment than sending in our troops, not even counting the tremendous risk to American lives when we have
to do that." For those less concerned with matters of national security, Shah also framed his argument for development aid in terms of increased
domestic economic and job opportunities: If
we want to export more, we need to help develop new markets that are
we are going to be competitive as a country and create jobs at home, we cannot ignore
the billions of people who are currently very low income but will in fact form a major new middle-class market in
the next two decades," he said. One of the main criticisms of USAID both on Capitol Hill and elsewhere is that the agency has been
U.S.-friendly. "If
reduced over the years to not much more than a contracting outfit, disbursing billions of dollars around the world to organizations that have
mixed performance records. In Shah's view, if Congress wants USAID to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse, it has to increase the agency's
operating budget and allow the agency to monitor contracts in-house. "It was the Bush administration that helped launch the effort to reinvest in
USAID's capabilities and hiring and people, and the reason they did that is they recognized you save a lot more money by being better managers
of contracts," Shah said. "We have a choice. We have a critical need to make the smart investments in our own operations … which over time
will save hundreds of millions of dollars, as opposed to trying to save a little bit now by cutting our capacity to do oversight and monitoring."
Shah wouldn't comment on the latest and greatest USAID contracting scandal, where the agency suspended contractor AED from receiving any
new contracts amid allegations of widespread fraud. But he did say that his office would be personally reviewing large sole-source contracts from
now on, requiring independent and public evaluations, and that more corrective actions are in the works. "I suspect you'll see more instances of
effective, proactive oversight that in fact saves American taxpayers significant resources," he said.
Impacts: Stability/Conflict
USAID key to stability, mitigating risk of conflict – military fails without it
Holmes 1-15
[Chris, Global Water Coordinator, “8 Things Our Future Military Leaders Need to Know About Water
Management”, January 15th 2013, http://blog.usaid.gov/2013/01/8-things-our-future-military-leaders-need-to-knowabout-water-management/]
At USAID, we support
a wide variety of water programs that foster economic development throughout the
developing world. These programs help mitigate the prospect of conflict and play an important role in both
meeting emergency relief needs and bringing long-term stability to people in areas afflicted by conflict. One day,
our future military leaders will be planning and implementing peace-keeping operations, and it is important for them to know how the range of
water management approaches implemented by USAID can help foster stability, resilience and economic growth. I was thus pleased to receive an
invitation from Col. Wiley Thompson, the head of the United States Military Academy Department of Geography and Environmental
Engineering, to deliver a lecture in mid-December on water to about 140 West Point cadets. As these men and women will one day be leading our
country, I was honored to impart lessons about how water management may help strengthen the cadets’ capacity to lead. … The Army and
USAID have partnered on wide range of water activities, such as: increasing the energy output of the Kajaki dam in Afghanistan, restoring carp
fisheries in Iraq, and providing relief to flood and earthquake victims in Pakistan. Such partnering is supported by the USAID- DOD Civilian
Military Cooperation policy (PDF). Both USAID
and the military bring differing but complimentary technical
expertise. In addition, the military provides the logistics support and security to support USAID efforts in the field. This
collaboration is essential, especially in providing security in areas prone to conflict and in providing
emergency humanitarian assistance requiring the transport of medical supplies and relief personnel.
Impacts: Climate
USAID key to climate resiliency, cutting emissions – Philippines proves
Truong 6-18
[Joseph, Outreach Coordinator at the Asia Bureau, “Increasing Economic Growth without Increasing Emissions”
June 18, 2013, http://blog.usaid.gov/2013/06/increasing-economic-growth-without-increasing-emissions/]
Since 2010, USAID, through efforts such as the Enhancing Capacity for Low Emission Development
Strategies (EC-LEDS) program, has been partnering with countries such as the Philippines to find
alternative development pathways that lower greenhouse gas emissions trends and increase the
resilience of communities and economies to climate change impacts. These programs are part
of the U.S. Government’s continuing commitment to encourage developing economies to move towards a
low carbon economic growth pathway, which is integral to long term, sustained development. Under ECLEDS, the Philippines is partnering with the United States in strategizing on how to enable low emission
economic growth. “This program is an important diplomatic priority for the U.S. government. Special
Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern views this as an opportunity to enhance key diplomatic
relationships with partner countries, furthering our global goal of limiting temperature increase to no
more than two degrees Celsius,” said Assistant Administrator Eric Postel of USAID’s Bureau for
Economic Growth, Education and Environment to a Government of Philippines delegation visiting the
United States recently. The climate change and economy officials from the Philippines met with
EC-LEDS partners at USAID and the Department of State, who both lead the program, as well as
experts from other U.S. Government interagency partners, think tanks, and industry organizations. Greg
Beck, USAID’s Asia Bureau Deputy Assistant Administrator, said, “While we in the United States and
the Philippines both work together to improve the Philippines’ international competitiveness, it is equally
important that the Philippines pursues its economic targets through a low carbon pathway. The United
States government is committed to providing the necessary technical assistance in
enhancing capacity for low emission strategies.” For the Philippines, EC-LEDS focuses on three
areas: 1) supporting the development of the country’s greenhouse gas inventory, which will help
determine where emissions are coming from and provide a baseline to measure any increase or decrease
in emissions over time; 2) building the in-country capacity to use analytical tools to choose the most costeffective actions to reduce emissions; and 3) helping Philippines take actions that address climate change,
such as identifying promising sources of renewable energy, improving forest management, and
supporting local Eco-Towns. EC-LEDS builds upon a long history of partnership between the United
States and the Philippines, which was solidified when the Philippines was chosen to join three other
countries (El Salvador, Ghana and Tanzania) under President Obama’s flagship Partnership for Growth,
or PFG. Under the PFG, both governments are working hand-in-hand to address the most
serious constraints to economic growth and development in the Philippines. The partnership
theme carries over to EC-LEDS, as the partner countries themselves drive the process. “By design, a
LEDS is a country-specific strategic plan to promote climate-resilient economic growth and reduce longterm greenhouse gas emissions trajectories. U.S. support and technical assistance is tailored to those
development priorities identified by our partners,” Beck said. The noteworthy Philippine commitment to
this partnership is fueled in part by having seen the lasting devastation climate change can have after
weather-related disasters move on. The country’s government created a Climate Change Commission in
2009 after discovering that typhoon-related costs that year amounted to 2.9% of the Philippines’ GDP,
according to Mary Ann Lucille Sering, the Commission’s head. “We believe that the twin goals of
economic prosperity and environment protection are achievable and LEDS is the effective mechanism to
reach those goals,” said Beck.
in
Impacts: USAID k Climate
USAID helps reduce global climate change on an international basis.
USAID 6-6 (United States Agency of International Development, “USAID'S STRATEGY”, Updated
May 6, 2013, http://www.usaid.gov/content/global-climate-change/usaids-global-climate-change-anddevelopment-strategy)// NVG
USAID's Global Climate Change and Development Strategy sets out principles, objectives and
priorities for USAID climate change assistance from 2012 through 2016. The overarching mission is to
help developing country partners speed their transition to climate-resilient, low-emission,
sustainable economic growth. This mission governs all underlying objectives and activites, together
aiming to help countries slow the pace of greenhouse gas emissions while investing in resilient,
sustainable growth and development. Priorities USAID's climate strategy has three objectives Adaptation, Mitigation, and Integration - and three pillars, or priority areas of action - Adaptation,
Clean Energy and Sustainable Landscapes. Adaptation means helping countries and communities
prepare for and adapt to changes in climate by building the climate resilience of people, places and
livelihoods Mitigation means helping countries slow or curb carbon emissions while promoting clean
and sustainable economic development. Mitigation includes work in three main areas: Enhancing
Capacity for Low Emission Development Strategies (EC-LEDS) supports climate-resilient, lowemission economic growth. Clean Energy supports investment in clean energy and energy efficiency.
Sustainable Landscapes supports sustainable land-use planning and management. USAID has major
investments in sustainable tropical forest management, in support of the U.S. policy on Reducing
Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD), and is expanding this to include
investments in non-forest landscapes. Integration means factoring climate change knowledge and
practice into all USAID programs to ensure all sector portfolios—agriculture, energy, disaster
preparedness, democracy and governance, health, and others—are climate resilient and, when possible,
curb greenhouse gas emissions. Activities USAID engages in a range of activities that support
climate-smart planning and programs: We work directly with partner countries to help
develop national strategies and policies that support low emissions growth and development. We
help countries access and use the best available climate data and tools (i.e., geospatial data and early
warning
systems)
to
inform
decisions in
agriculture,
disaster
preparedness, natural resources management, and other areas. We test and demonstrate new ways
to integrate climate knowledge and practice into food security, disaster preparedness, and other areas.
We work to reduce USAID's own greenhouse gas emissions from operations in Washington and
overseas.
Impacts: Climate
The GCCI combats climate change through USAID.
Lattanzio 5-28 (Richard K. Lattanzio, Analyst in Environmental Policy, “The Global Climate Change
Initiative (GCCI): Budget Authority and Request, FY2010-FY2014” Congressional Research Service, May
28, 2013, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41845.pdf )
The United States supports international financial assistance for global climate change initiatives in
developing countries. Under the Obama Administration, this assistance has been articulated primarily
as the Global Climate Change Initiative (GCCI), a platform within the President’s 2010 Policy
Directive on Global Development. The GCCI aims to integrate climate change considerations into
U.S. foreign assistance through a range of bilateral, multilateral, and private sector mechanisms to
promote sustainable and climate-resilient societies, foster low-carbon growth, and reduce emissions
from deforestation and land degradation. The GCCI is implemented through programs at three
“core” agencies: the Department of State, the Department of the Treasury, and the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID). Most GCCI activities at USAID are implemented through the
agency’s bilateral development assistance programs. Many of the GCCI activities at the Department
of State and the Department of the Treasury are implemented through international organizations,
including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’s Least Developed Country
Fund and Special Climate Change Fund, as well as multilateral financial institutions such as the Global
Environment Facility, the Clean Technology Fund, and the Strategic Climate Fund. The GCCI is funded
through the Administration’s Executive Budget, Function 150 account, for State, Foreign Operations, and
Related Programs.
Internals: Reforms Solve Food Aid
Reforms to foreign food aid now
Momagri 13 (Momagri.com, movement for a world agricultural organization, “U.S. Development Food Aid In a Process of FarReaching Change,” 05/13/2013, http://www.momagri.org/UK/a-look-at-the-news/U-S-development-food-aid-in-a-process-of-far-reachingchange_1266.html, AC)
The United States is planning a new reform of its development food aid. Since 1954, over 91 percent of
American foreign food aid consists in shipping overseas, on US-flag cargo vessels, food that is
exclusively produced on American soil. In addition, the practice specifies that national firms must handle
75 percent of the aid granted by Washington. In contrast, 55 percent of the EU food aid is purchased
locally.¶ The Obama Administration planned reform looks more like a compromise for the fiscal
year 2014 budget: 55 percent of the US food aid would still be purchased from American farmers, while
options of local food purchases and cash transfers will be proposed––a system that has been in effect in
the European Union since the 1990s.¶ Rajiv Shah, Administrator of the United States Agency for
International Development (USAID), indicated that the new reform would make the system more
effective and more flexible, and help feed four million more people every year. In addition, the
reform would save money on the purchase and delivery of foreign food aid, whose costs have
multiplied by more than ten times since 1991.¶ Beyond the many considerations leading the U.S. to
overhaul its foreign food aid strategy, the reform brings to mind a founding principle that is too often
forgotten by international deciders: Food insecurity in developing countries, where most people suffering
from hunger are farmers, is more related to the insolvent nature of domestic demand than a supply
shortage, a fact long-advocated by the economist and agricultural engineer Marcel Mazoyer.¶ It is
therefore crucial to implement policies adapted to this situation by securing and stimulating
national agricultural production through gainful prices, so that sustainable economic development can
be achieved
Impacts: National Security
International affairs funding key to national security
Christy and Moore 13 (Patrick and Evan, senior policy analysts at the Foreign Policy Initiative, “Don’t Let Sequestration Cut
Foreign Aid,” 02/27/2013, http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2013/02/27/dont-let-sequestration-cut-foreign-aid, AC)
Much attention has focused on how looming sequestration cuts will harm national defense, but few
people understand how sequestration's March 2013 onset will also hurt U.S. foreign assistance programs
that advance America's security, prosperity, and global leadership. Under sequestration, spending on
international affairs (a major component of which is U.S. foreign assistance) will be slashed not only
by roughly 5.3 percent in fiscal year 2013, but also by as much as $50 billion over the next decade—
roughly what the United States spends on diplomacy and development in a single year. ¶ It's important to
remember that America's commitment to foreign assistance reflects not only the nation's moral
character, but also its strategic and economic interests. ¶ First, foreign assistance promotes
national security by helping to fight the causes of terrorism, stabilize weak states, and promote regionallevel security and global stability. To take a key example, foreign assistance is playing a crucial role in
America's larger struggle to combat conditions that can spawn terrorism—namely, poverty, weak
institutions, and corruption—by promoting economic development, good governance, and
transparency in the Middle East and South Asia. ¶ [See a collection of political cartoons on sequestration
and the fiscal cliff.]¶ Second, foreign assistance promotes prosperity and self reliance by
encouraging economic development and private enterprise in aid-recipient countries, as well as opening
and developing international markets for the United States. For example, South Korea—which was a
leading benefactor of U.S. foreign assistance after having been devastated in the Korean War—is now
America's seventh largest trading partner, a vibrant democracy, and a significant donor of foreign
assistance.¶ Third, foreign assistance advances America's moral values and humanitarian interests
by saving lives, fighting poverty and hunger, combating infectious diseases like HIV/AIDS,
promoting education, and bolstering democratic institutions. For example, President George W.
Bush launched the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) in 2003 to battle the spread of
HIV/AIDS in Africa. In conjunction with the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Malaria, and Tuberculosis,
PEPFAR has achieved real and objective results.¶ [See a collection of political cartoons on the economy.] ¶
Foreign assistance—properly understood—is neither national bribery nor altruistic charity, but rather
strategic investment. As Paul D. Miller, a former director for Afghanistan in the National Security
Council under Presidents Bush and Obama who earlier served as an Army reservist in Afghanistan,
wrote:¶ Foreign aid helps countries whose interests align with our own increase their capacities .
The United States gives money to help select countries—not the entire world—improve specific abilities,
like their ability to provide public security, defend their borders, or buy and sell goods.... Aid is hard
power. It is a weapon the United States uses to strengthen allies [and partners] and, thus, ourselves.¶ To be
clear, the goal of results-driven foreign assistance is to help America's partners become self reliant. While
it is true that certain development programs faced challenges in the past, Washington has increasingly
embraced new—and arguably revolutionary—reforms over the last decade to make foreign assistance
even more transparent, accountable, and more effective. ¶ [Read the U.S. News Debate: Given The Current
Deficit Crisis, Should Foreign Aid Be Cut?]¶ Yet, despite significant reforms, foreign assistance is still
frequently misunderstood. As Sen. Marco Rubio has noted, even though foreign assistance comprises
roughly 1 percent of total U.S. government spending, ¶ … there's this urban legend out there that
somehow, if we just eliminated foreign aid, we'd have all the money we need to wipe out our debt.
Foreign aid is very small. It's a significant number of dollars, no doubt about it, and one dollar
of waste is too much. But if you wiped out all the foreign aid in the world, you wouldn't notice it in
terms of the debt conversation.¶ However, if you completely wiped out U.S. foreign assistance, you would
notice the severe and likely irreparable damage to America's security, prosperity, and global leadership. ¶
[See a collection of political cartoons on defense spending.]¶ In addition to harming U.S. diplomacy and
international development, sequestration cuts will further undermine America's ability to address the
challenges of the 21st century. That is because current law will slash $500 billion—in addition to the
$487 billion that is already being cut by the Obama administration—from defense spending over the next
decade. Indeed, Pentagon leaders have repeatedly warned that near-term budget reductions will severely
restrict the military's ability to adequately protect America's economic and security interests. This will
have a major impact on global security. As Marine Corps Commandant General James F. Amos recently
warned in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee: ¶ [A] fiscally driven lapse in American
leadership and forward engagement will create a void in which old threats will be left unaddressed and
new security challenges will find room to grow. There should be no misunderstanding…[S]equestration
will have a deleterious effect on the stability of global order, the perceptions of our enemies, and the
confidence of our allies.¶ If the United States is to remain a global leader in the 21st century, then it is
critical that leaders in Washington work to sustain investments in foreign assistance, diplomacy, and
national defense. As the ongoing French intervention in Mali has demonstrated, unstable territory can
quickly become a safe-haven for extremist groups. The truth is that a robust and strategically-applied
foreign assistance budget—in conjunction with a strong military—can bolster America's capacity to
respond to critical global events. Allowing sequestration to occur, however, would undermine both
America's strategic interests and its values.
Impacts: National Security
Foreign aid key to national security; it costs us less in the short term vs. fighting the wars
later.
President Obama, 6-24, “Remarks by the President at the National Defense University”, The White House,
May 24, 2013 Friday, http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2013/05/23/president-obamaspeaks-us-counterterrorism-strategy#transcript) NVG
Success on these fronts requires sustained engagement, but it will also require resources. I know
that foreign aid is one of the least popular expenditures – even though it amounts to less than one
percent of the federal budget. But foreign assistance cannot be viewed as charity. It is fundamental to
our national security, and any sensible long-term strategy to battle extremism. Moreover, foreign
assistance is a tiny fraction of what we spend fighting wars that our assistance might ultimately
prevent. For what we spent in a month in Iraq at the height of the war, we could be training
security forces in Libya, maintaining peace agreements between Israel and its neighbors, feeding
the hungry in Yemen, building schools in Pakistan, and creating reservoirs of goodwill that
marginalize extremists. America cannot carry out this work if we do not have diplomats serving in
dangerous places. Over the past decade, we have strengthened security at our Embassies, and I am
implementing every recommendation of the Accountability Review Board which found unacceptable
failures in Benghazi. I have called on Congress to fully fund these efforts to bolster security, harden
facilities, improve intelligence, and facilitate a quicker response time from our military if a crisis
emerges. But even after we take these steps, some irreducible risks to our diplomats will remain. This is
the price of being the world’s most powerful nation, particularly as a wave of change washes over the
Arab World. And in balancing the trade-offs between security and active diplomacy, I firmly believe
that any retreat from challenging regions will only increase the dangers we face in the long run.
Targeted action against terrorists. Effective partnerships. Diplomatic engagement and assistance.
Through such a comprehensive strategy we can significantly reduce the chances of large scale
attacks on the homeland and mitigate threats to Americans overseas. As we guard against dangers
from abroad, however, we cannot neglect the daunting challenge of terrorism from within our
borders. As I said earlier, this threat is not new. But technology and the Internet increase its frequency
and lethality. Today, a person can consume hateful propaganda, commit themselves to a violent agenda,
and learn how to kill without leaving their home. To address this threat, two years ago my Administration
did a comprehensive review, and engaged with law enforcement. The best way to prevent violent
extremism is to work with the Muslim American community – which has consistently rejected terrorism –
to identify signs of radicalization, and partner with law enforcement when an individual is drifting
towards violence. And these partnerships can only work when we recognize that Muslims are a
fundamental part of the American family. Indeed, the success of American Muslims, and our
determination to guard against any encroachments on their civil liberties, is the ultimate rebuke to those
who say we are at war with Islam.
Impacts: Aid k Security
Foreign aid is k2 security
Borgen Project, 13 - nonprofit organization that is addressing poverty and hunger (Conor, “Sequester Threatens Foreign Aid”, 3/1,
http://borgenproject.org/sequester-threatens-foreign-aid/)//AR
The sequester has many of people nervous for a number of reasons, and the future of foreign aid is one of
them. The sequester that was planned to start at the beginning of this month was designed to cut hundreds
of billions of dollars in national spending. Patrick Christy and Evan Moore have recently published their
case on why U.S. foreign aid should not be cut by the sequester. Currently, foreign assistance is
scheduled to be decreased by 5.3 percent in the coming year and an additional cut of $50 billion over the
next ten years. Foreign assistance serves many purposes; it helps keep America safe by stabilizing areas
of possible conflict and eliminating the root causes of terrorism while strategic aid provides American job
security. Not to mention the positive effects that aid programs have, fighting hunger and poverty, building
schools, and improving the quality of life for millions of people around the world. U.S. foreign aid is still
less than 1 percent of the national budget and as Senator Marco Rubio said “if you wiped out all the
foreign aid in the world, you wouldn’t notice it in terms of the debt conversation.” Whatever happens
when the sequester compromise talks end, Congress will have to consider these issues before cutting
foreign aid.
Impacts: MCC
(Was looking for maybe an MCC scenario? Will come back to this when done with feed the future)
MCC to be cut
Kumar and Hewko 11
[Raj Kumar is president of Devex, the online community for global development professionals, and a member of the
Council on Foreign Relations. John Hewko, the general secretary and chief executive of Rotary International, was
vice president for operations at the Millennium Challenge Corp. from 2004 to 2009, Washington Post, “A lifeline
for an aid agency” October 17, 2011, Pg Lexis]
Those in Washington who work in global development speak in hushed tones nowadays, worried that after 10 years of bipartisan
front and center on the debt commission's
chopping block. Nowhere are the concerns greater than at the Millennium Challenge Corp. (MCC), an innovative creation
support for U.S. foreign assistance,
foreign aid is
about to be
of the George W. Bush administration that is in an unusual position for a government agency: It has not spent its money fast
enough. The government "corporation" was established in 2004 on the premise that U.S. foreign assistance would have the greatest
impact if offered on a non-political basis to developing countries that adopt sound economic and social policies. As such, it
grants money for specific pro-growth, anti-poverty projects, but only after countries meet key
indicators in areas such as control of corruption, rule of law and investment in health and
education. Essentially, it fosters merit-based competition for U.S. foreign aid. Congress has appropriated about $10 billion to
the MCC over the past seven years, but the prudent agency has disbursed just a few billion, in part because it makes multiyear
agreements with its partner countries and demands proof that they are keeping up their side of the bargain before giving them all the
agreed-upon funding. Its flush account in the U.S. Treasury, with about $6 billion yet to be disbursed, is one reason
appropriations bills in the past two years have allocated around $1 billion per year to the MCC,
a big downgrade for an agency that, when it was created, was slated to get $5 billion per year by
2006. Although the MCC model of delivering U.S. aid abroad has been a success in a field sometimes marked
by roads to nowhere, the agency is now a takeover target . Some analysts have predicted it will eventually become
part of a restructured U.S. Agency for International Development. The MCC has 300 employees; it was created to be
lean and mean, but today it's looking more like a morsel that could get eaten as part of a
broader reform of foreign aid or simply be badly sliced during looming budget cuts. Those
who work with the MCC say they worry about losing their start-up, private-sector culture and fear being pressured to spend money
too quickly and before it makes sense to do so.
Impacts: Aid k U.S. Cred
Aid k2 perception
Rogin, 13 - covers national security 2/15,
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/02/15/kerry_warns_of_serious_sequestration_cuts_for_state_and_usaid)//AR
"These cuts would severely impair our efforts to enhance the security of U.S. government facilities
overseas and ensure the safety of the thousands of U.S. diplomats serving the American people abroad,"
Kerry wrote. Here are some specific cuts that Kerry said would be necessary if sequestration happens:
$200 million cut from humanitarian assistance, which would impact millions of disaster-stricken
people$400 million cut from global health funding, hurting efforts to stop HIV/AIDs and child death
$500 million cut from global security accounts $300 million cut from foreign military financing accounts,
which could result in cuts to assistance to Israel, Egypt, and Jordan $70 million cut from USAID
operations accounts Unspecified cuts to international peacekeeping operations, counter narcotics
programs, counterterrorism efforts, and non-proliferation activities Kerry also warned that the State
Department might not be able to effectively provide emergency services to Americans in trouble abroad,
to properly vet visa applications, and or issue passports to Americans in a timely manner. "I hope that
Congress can act to avoid these severe, across-the-board cuts to programs that further U.S. national
security, advance America's economic interests, protect Americans at home and abroad, and deliver
results for the American people," Kerry wrote.
Impacts: Foreign Affairs Good
Foreign aid pays for a laundry list of good things – NATO, support for democratic
elections, containment of diseases.
Leahy 11 (Patrick Leahy, senior United States Senator from Vermont, in office since 1975. A member of the
Democratic Party, Leahy has been the since December 17, 2012. (Don't let them give you sass about him
being a Democrat, usually, Republicans are the ones supporting foreign aid) As President pro tempore, he is
third in the presidential line of succession. He is the President pro tempore of the United States Senate, the
most senior senator, and took office at a younger age than any other current senator. Leahy is the only
elected Democratic Senator in Vermont's history. He is the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
“Cuts to Foreign Aid Cost the U.S. Globally”, US News, October 11, 2011, http://www.usnews.com/debateclub/given-the-current-deficit-crisis-should-foreign-aid-be-cut/cuts-to-foreign-aid-cost-the-us-globally) //
NVG
Foreign aid today is an oft-maligned term that is widely misunderstood. It is viewed by many as a form
of charity, or a luxury we can do without, or as a sizable part of the federal budget. It is none of
those things. What we call "foreign aid" pays for our embassies that help the millions of Americans who
travel and work overseas. It pays for UN peacekeeping that does not require the costly deployment of
U.S. troops, UNICEF, the operations of our NATO security pact, aid for refugees who have fled
wars or natural disasters, and to combat AIDS, the Asian flu, and other contagious diseases. It
promotes U.S. exports, supports democratic elections, combats poverty, and helps build alliances
with countries to counter terrorism, thwart drug trafficking, protect the environment, and stop
cross-border crime. It totals less than 1 percent of the federal budget, yet it is a crucial investment
in our national security. As we cut these programs, our allies and our competitors are spending more to
project their influence and to compete in the global marketplace. Great Britain is increasing its
international assistance to .7 percent of its national budget, compared with .2 percent for the United
States. U.S. leadership is being challenged unlike at any time since the Cold War. In Latin America,
which is a larger market for U.S. exports than any other region except the European Union, our
market share is shrinking while China's is growing. It is the same story everywhere. The world is
changing, and we cannot afford to retreat or to succumb to isolationism. Funding that enables us to
engage with allies, competitors, and adversaries helps us meet growing threats to our struggling economy
and our security. Everyone in Congress wants our country to lead, to build alliances, to help American
companies compete, and to protect the interests and security of our citizens. You can't have it both ways.
You can't expect others to follow if you can't lead, and you can't lead if you don't pay your way. We need
to stop acting like these investments don't matter, that the State Department isn't important, that global
threats to the environment, public health, and safety will somehow be solved by others. U.S. foreign
operations already have gone through deep budget cuts, with more to come. But the American people
deserve to be told that slashing, disproportionate cuts in these programs would have no appreciable
impact on the deficit, and it would end up costing our country far more in the future.
Impacts: Aid k Stop Terror
Cuts in foreign aid increases terrorism – poverty encourages extremist ideology and
violence.
AFP 6-14 ("Aid cuts breeding terrorism, says Togo leader”, AFP, Tuesday, May 14 2013,
http://www.africareview.com/Business---Finance/Aid-cuts-breeding-terrorism-says-Togo-leader//979184/1852398/-/xni8rg/-/index.html)// NVG
The president of Togo, one of the world's poorest countries, on Monday slammed rich nations who
have cut development aid saying it contributes to the spread of terrorism. President Faure
Gnassingbe told a UN Security Council meeting on terrorism in Africa that rich countries had unjustly
cut foreign aid since the 2008 financial crisis. "It is urgent that partner countries honour their promises"
on aid, Mr Gnassingbe said. "The crisis does not authorise donor countries to not respect their
engagement to reach 0.7 per cent of gross domestic product by 2015." His attack came ahead of a meeting
at the UN headquarters this week of UN panel — led by Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain,
Liberia's President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf and Indonesia's President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono — that
will set the agenda for the Millennium Development Goals after 2015. The Togo leader, whose country
ranked 159th out of 186 countries in the latest UN human development index, said extra cash is
desperately needed to boost security and alleviate poverty which, he said, encourages militant
groups operating in countries like Mali and Somalia. According to a 2012 Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD) report, international aid fell to 125.6 billion dollars in 2012 —
0.29 per cent of the gross national income of creditor countries and down from 0.31 per cent in
2011. "This does not seem just to me when we know that poor countries must take up new challenges for
which they are not responsible," said President Gnassingbe, who singled out the "frenzied
industrialisation of rich countries." Arms controls The Togo leader, whose country organised the meeting
as a president of the 15-nation Security Council for May, said more help had to be given to the poor
alongside measures such as greater controls on arms transfers. "It is only in assuring the well-being of
populations, in particular the most poor and the weakest, that they will be less receptive to
extremist ideologies and violence," the president said. While highlighting successes against Islamist
militant groups in Mali and Somalia, US ambassador Susan Rice said that Al-Qaeda and its allies are
becoming "more diffuse and entrepreneurial" in Africa. She said African governments must be "wary of
repressive approaches, which often fuel the very radicalisation they seek to eliminate." "This requires
fighting poverty and corruption. It requires expanding trade and investment, and building critical
infrastructure so that African economies can grow sustainably," Ms Rice said. Governments must
improve health and education services, Ms Rice said, "and it requires ensuring that people are able
to hold their governments accountable."
Impacts: Health/Disease
Cuts in foreign aid negatively impact worldwide health, humanitarian assistance, and
people with HIV-AIDS.
Vorozhko 4-3 (Tatiana Vorozhko, “Budget Cuts Hit US Foreign Aid Programs”, Voice Of America, April 3,
2013, http://www.voanews.com/content/budget-cuts-hit-us-foreign-aid-programs/1633892.html)//NVG
The mandatory U.S. federal budget cuts that recently went into effect -- known as "sequestration" -- are
affecting more than the government's domestic programs. The $85 billion across-the-board cuts are also
taking their bite out of international aid and development efforts. Despite the challenges and the rhetoric,
many feel the future of international aid is still optimistic. Mandatory federal cuts Like other federal
agencies, the U. S. Agency for International Development has to cut its budget as a result of
sequestration. The four-percent USAID must cut will reduce its foreign assistance, but many ongoing
projects will not be affected immediately since USAID provides funding up to two years in advance.
Even if the budget cuts for USAID and other U.S. aid and development programs remain small, they will
affect the health and the lives of real people, says George Ingram of the Brookings Institution. "The area
that will be impacted the most is health, and that because it is the biggest part of the development budget.
And the cuts that will be taken on health are almost $400 million, which is a large amount of money,'
Ingram explained. The second is humanitarian assistance, which will be cut by about $200 million. Both
cases are very serious hits because in both of these accounts we are talking about life and death
situations." International programs dependent on US aid Raj Kumar is President of Devex, an
organization that researches and reports on international aid. He thinks that people with HIV-AIDS
might suffer the most. "We are in a world with 30 million people living with HIV, for example. Many of
them are dependent on US foreign assistance," he said. One bright spot in the aid picture is the increasing
role of private philanthropies, like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. And corporations are also
becoming involved in development -- in communities where they do business and want people to be able
to afford their products. Still, these efforts can not close the entire gap in aid provided by the US
government -- especially in the area of health and disaster assistance. “The private sector is not going step
in and provide the medical care, the food, the water that is required when you have humanitarian crisis,"
noted Ingram. While many Americans criticize foreign aid, the public actually supports many of its goals.
“The American people are very strongly supportive of helping other countries with their health problems,
with education, with microenterprise, with promoting democracy, with promoting economic growth.
Americans don’t like foreign aid but they seem to support all of the elements of it," added Ingram. "The
people who are very supportive of national security, traditionally more conservative candidates,
Republican candidates, have come on board with foreign assistance because they see it as a part of
broader national security, antiterrorism strategy," said Kumar. And while foreign aid is a popular
punching bag in political debates, it actually accounts for no more than 1 percent of the entire US budget.
Impacts: Israeli Aid
Aid to Israel key to prevent Middle East conflict
Sharp 12
[Jeremy M. Sharp, staff writer, “CRS Report for Congress,” March 12, 2012,
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf]
But today, in these budget constrained times—some
are now asking the question why should we keep providing
aid to Israel? Yes, Israel is a long time democratically and we share a special bond—but some skeptics are questioning whether that’s
enough of a reason to continue to spend hard earned American tax payer dollars on Israel’s security. I can answer that skepticism directly—we
don’t just support Israel because of a long standing bond, we support Israel because it is in our
national interests to do so. This aspect of our relationship with Israel is often overlooked. America’s
commitment to Israel’s security and prosperity has extended over many decades because our leaders on both sides of the aisle have long
understood that a robust United States-Israel security relationship is in our interests. Our
support for Israel’s security helps
preserve peace and stability in the region. If Israel were weaker, its enemies would be bolder. This
would make broader conflict more likely, which would be catastrophic to American interests in the
region. It is the very strength of Israel’s military which deters potential aggressors and helps foster peace and stability. Ensuring
Israel’s military strength and its superiority in the region is therefore critical to regional stability
and as a result is fundamentally a core interest of the United States.
US aid to Israel high now
Sharp 12
[Jeremy M. Sharp, staff writer, “CRS Report for Congress,” Mar. 12, 2012,
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf]
Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance since World War II. To date, the
United States has provided Israel $115 billion in bilateral assistance. Almost all U.S. bilateral ¶ aid to Israel is in
the form of military assistance, although in the past Israel also received ¶ significant economic assistance. Strong congressional
support for Israel has resulted in Israel ¶ receiving benefits not available to any other countries; for
example, Israel can use some U.S. ¶ military assistance both for research and development in the
United States and for military ¶ purchases from Israeli manufacturers. In addition, all U.S. assistance earmarked
for Israel is ¶ delivered in the first 30 days of the fiscal year, while most other recipients normally receive aid in ¶ installments. In addition to
receiving U.S. State Department-administered foreign assistance, ¶ Israel also receives funds from annual defense appropriations bills for joint
In 2007, the Bush Administration and the Israeli government agreed to
a 10-year, $30 billion ¶ military aid package that gradually will raise Israel’s annual Foreign
Military Financing grant ¶ from a baseline of nearly $2.55 billion in FY2009 to approximately $3.1
billion for FY2013 ¶ through FY2018. For FY2013, the Obama Administration is requesting $3.1
billion in FMF to ¶ Israel. ¶ In the second session of the 112th Congress, in addition to the normal foreign operations ¶ appropriations
U.S.-Israeli missile ¶ defense programs. ¶
process, lawmakers may address: Administration or Israeli requests for additional ¶ defense appropriations for joint U.S.-Israeli missile defense;
an extension of U.S. loan guarantees ¶ to Israel beyond FY2012 when they are set to expire; and new funding for joint U.S.-Israeli ¶ scientific
research. ¶ The Obama Administration’s FY2013 request includes $3.1 billion in Foreign Military Financing ¶ for Israel and $15 million for
U.S. Missile Defense Agency’s FY2013 budget
request includes $99.8 million in joint U.S.-¶ Israeli co-development for missile defense. ¶ On March
5, 2012, House lawmakers introduced H.R. 4133, the United States-Israel Enhanced ¶ Security
Cooperation Act of 2012. If passed, this bill would, among other things, allocate ¶ additional weaponry and
munitions for the forward-deployed United States stockpile in Israel; ¶ provide Israel additional surplus defense articles
and defense services, as appropriate, in the wake ¶ of the withdrawal of United States forces from Iraq; expand Israel's
authority to make purchases ¶ under the Foreign Military Financing program on a commercial basis;
encourage an expanded ¶ role for Israel within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), including an enhanced ¶
presence at NATO headquarters and exercises; support extension of the long-standing loan ¶ guarantee program
for Israel, recognizing Israel's unbroken record of repaying its loans on time ¶ and in full; and require the
President to submit a report on the status of Israel's qualitative military ¶ edge in light of current
trends and instability in the region.
refugee resettlement. Within the U.S. Department of Defense, the
¶
US aid to Israel key to military technological advances and preventing Middle East conflict
Berman 11
[Howard L. Berman, Democrat from Florida, Ranking Minority Member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee,
“This is no time to consider cutting aid to Israel”, http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-1019/opinions/35278875_1_israeli-interests-assistance-enemies]
Our support for Israel is both moral and strategic. Assistance to Israel demonstrates to its enemies
that the U.S. commitment to the Jewish state is unwavering; cutting that assistance would send the
opposite message. This is especially important during a time of tremendous turmoil in the Middle
East, and when Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas conspire daily to undermine U.S. and Israeli
interests.¶ A strong and secure Israel serves U.S. national security interests in the Middle East. U.S. aid to
Israel has helped deter major conflict in the region — conflict that would be very costly for us in many ways — by making it clear to potential enemies that they
cannot defeat Israel.¶ Our assistance also gives Israel the confidence it needs to take risks for peace, as it has done
repeatedly over the years. This confidence is reflected in the Israeli government’s unconditional commitment to
negotiate if and when the Palestinians return to the table.¶ Finally, we benefit from close defense
cooperation. Israel’s use of U.S. defense materials on the battlefield helps our military improve its
equipment. Our soldiers also benefit from Israeli technological advances, including life-saving armor used extensively in Iraq and
Afghanistan.¶ The aid we provide to Israel to help ensure its existence, to combat our enemies and to promote American interests is only about one-tenth of 1 percent of the federal budget. In my opinion, this is money well spent.
Impacts: Food For Peace k Famine
Monetization policy of Food for Peace key to solving famine
Natsios 6-12
[Andrew, Executive Professor at the George HW Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A&M
University, Former Administrator of USAID, “House Foreign Affairs Committee Hearing; ‘Modernizing US
International Food Aid: Reaching More for Less.’” June 12, 2013, Pg Lexis]
While monetization to raise money to run development programs does not make sense as a policy or program matter, there is one instance
where it can
be an important tool in fighting famines. One of the major factors leading to wide-spread
deaths in famines is the sharp rise in food prices in local markets over short periods of time usually after a major crop
failure. These dramatic prices increases mean only the wealthy can afford to buy food to survive the crisis. In Somalia in 1991, for example, the price of grain increased between 700-1200% in less than a one year period, this was the immediate cause of the
Somali famine which killed 250,000 people. USAID has intervened in markets by auctioning food aid locally to reduce prices to a more normal
level, so that more people can afford to buy food in the markets. Any food
aid reforms should not preclude market
interventions to stabilize food prices during famines. Where a drought covers a large geographic area in which most
crops have failed local purchase might not be wise, as it would drive up food prices in this case food should be
imported far from the crisis. The decision on when to purchase locally versus sourcing food in the US should be made in USAID by
Food for Peace officers, not by law or by interest group pressure in the US.
Impacts: Food for Peace
Note: Food for Peace also known as PL480 or Title II
Food for Peace key to econ, military
Ros-Lehtinen 4-9
Ileana, Representative from Florida, “Letter: Department of Agriculture’s food for Peace Program” April 9, 2013,
http://ros-lehtinen.house.gov/press-release/letter-department-agriculture%E2%80%99s-food-peace-program]
As you know, the United States is the single largest donor of food aid in the world, providing considerable humanitarian assistance to those who
are poor and hungry. Yet, along
with saving millions of lives overseas, the Food for Peace Program is also
critical to supporting employment among U.S. farmers and merchant mariners. In fact, when President
Eisenhower signed into law legislation authorizing the program, he explained that the purpose was to “lay the basis for a
permanent expansion of our exports of agricultural products with lasting benefits to ourselves and peoples of other lands.”
However, your Administration is reportedly considering changing the Food for Peace Program from in-kind food assistance to cash grants, or
purchasing food from foreign suppliers. While it is imperative that measures be taken to improve the program, your Administration should
Eliminating inkind food assistance will be disastrous for many U.S. jobs and the domestic sealift capacity provided
by the U.S. Merchant Marine, on which our U.S. military depends. The Food for Peace Program can, and should,
instead focus on greater coordination, transparency, and accountability among the agencies that administer this program.
continue to both benefit numerous communities throughout the U.S. while helping meet humanitarian food needs across the globe.
Cuts for Food for Peace being considered now, it’s key to jobs and maritime response
Henry, 4-10
[James, USA Maritime Chairman writing on the Maritime Executive, “President’s Budget Proposal to Effectively End the PL-480 Food for Peace
Program” April 10, 2013, http://www.maritime-executive.com/article/Presidents-Budget-Proposal-to-Effectively-End-the-PL480-Food-forPeace-Program-2013-04-10/]
“USA Maritime is severely disappointed that the Obama
Administration has moved forward with this misguided proposal to
effectively eliminate the long-standing and successful Food for Peace program,” said James L. Henry, chairman of USA Maritime.
“Despite recent letters from Congress to the White House that demonstrate strong, bipartisan support for this program, the Administration is still
advocating an unnecessary and harmful change to our flagship international aid program. We continue to view this
proposal as shortsighted
and seriously damaging to both national security and merchant mariner jobs.” “Since 1954, Food for Peace alone has
benefited more than 3 billion people in 150 countries and is an important symbol of America’s goodwill. Unlike other foreign aid programs, this
time-tested program does more than just send aid overseas. Food
for Peace is a point of pride for the 44,000 American
farmers, shippers, processors, longshoremen, and merchant mariners whose jobs depend upon the
program. Food for Peace leverages private and public resources to make a meaningful difference for millions of people in a way that
Government cash handouts simply cannot.” “Food for Peace is not only one of our premiere diplomatic tools, but it is also an important
compoment of our national security. By
ensuring a steady flow of American cargo shipped by Americans on
U.S.-flag ships, PL-480 helps maintain our Merchant Marine, which is critical for our ability to
support our troops and first responders in time of war or national emergency. In fact, American mariners
on commercial U.S.-flag vessels delivered more than 90 percent of defense cargo to military posts in
Iraq and Afghanistan. According to the Department of Defense, without the base of food aid cargoes to help sustain the
commercial U.S.-flag fleet, we will not be able to sustain the national defense sealift capability our military needs
without significant additional Federal expenditures.” “The Administration’s proposals to shift funding to a system of global food stampvouchers,
or to shift to purchases of food aid from allegedly cheaper foreign suppliers instead of donating wholesome commodities grown by American
farmers will be harmful to our US Merchant Marine, harmful to our national defense sealift capability, harmful to our farmers and millers, and
bad for our economy. USA Maritime strongly encourages Congress to reject the Administration’s misguided proposal, maintain the current
program and sustain PL 480 Food for Peace funding. Doing so will ensure that this program continues to focus on the reliable export of safe and
nutritious U.S.-grown commodities to those in need overseas.” “We all agree on the importance of reducing spending during these trying
economic times, but the Food
for Peace program has already been cut 35 percent since 2008 despite increased
need among the most vulnerable populations in the world. Now is not the time to drastically alter the most dependable
tool we have to fight global hunger – a tool that has been working for over 50 years. And in a time when unemployment remains a major
obstacle to economic growth, shipping American jobs overseas is the last thing any Administration should be proposing.”
Food for Peace key to ag, poverty, famine
Marshall 2-22
[Aarian, citing various US congressmen/women, “Senate responds to foreign food aid cuts” February 22, 2013,
http://www.agri-pulse.com/Next-budget-to-cut-Food-for-Peace-Program.asp]
Food for Peace provides economic benefits at home, stimulating our farm and transportation industries,” the letter
said. “American agriculture is one of the few U.S. business sectors to produce a trade surplus, exporting
$108 in farm goods in 2010. During this time of economic distress, we should maintain support for
the areas of our economy that are growing.” The senators also noted that the program gives American commodities “directly
to those without access to food” to help “end the cycle of poverty.” Though the White House has yet to make a formal announcement about the
Food for Peace program, Ellen Levinson, executive director of the Alliance for Global Food Security, said that a number of stakeholders were
informed of the change last week. The administration will “instead seek funding for a much smaller and not-yet-defined food aid program at [the
U.S. Agency for International Development] based on international procurement,” Levinson said in an email. Levinson says her organization is
“surprised” that the White House has not been more transparent about the change - transparency is “kind of one of their hallmarks,” she said in an
interview with Agri-Pulse. The budget, due at the beginning of February but yet to be released, is not final, but Levinson said the administration
“hasn’t had a good discussion with their stakeholders.” Yesterday, over 70 nonprofit, farm, commodity, labor and other organizations sent their
own letter to the president protesting the change. The groups cited the
program’s economic benefits at home, but also its
“strong track record of reducing child malnutrition and increasing incomes and food supplies for
very poor and vulnerable populations.” The groups described Food for Peace commodities, “bearing the U.S. flag and stamped
as ‘From the American People,’” as “ambassadors of our nation’s goodwill” - bulwarks, they argue, against international instability. The
organizations also praised the “transparency, accountability, and reliability of (the Food for Peace) system,” calling it the “result of decades of
cooperation through a uniquely sustainable public-private partnership among thousands of committed Americans at faith-based and other nongovernmental organizations, and in agriculture, labor, industry, and government." The Office of Food for Peace provides the majority of the U.S.
government’s overseas food assistance. The majority of the office’s funding comes from the Food for Peace Act, which was reauthorized under
the 2008 farm bill.
Obama cutting Food for Peace now, empirics prove the program works
Growing Georgia 4-23
[Press Release on Growing Georgia, which focuses on agricultural issues, reaches agribusiness owners, community
leaders, policy makers and growers. “Obama Administration Proposes Drastic Changes to U.S. Food Aid”, April
23rd 2013, http://growinggeorgia.com/news/2013/04/obama-administration-proposes-drastic-changes-us-food-aid/]
The United States has a long and proud history of helping feed the world's hungry, and U.S. wheat farmers support the
current food aid
system that includes a full range of options to help countries attain lasting and sustainable food security.
Unfortunately, President Barack Obama's fiscal year 2014 budget proposal eliminates the Food for Peace
program, an important, longstanding and successful food aid program. The proposal would replace this gold standard of international food
aid with cash for procurement of foreign commodities overseas. Wheat farmers play a major role in U.S. food aid, both
through emergency donations as well as developmental programs. In fiscal year 2012, Food for Peace shipped
595,300 MT of wheat to those in need. Wheat makes up 35 percent of donations in the U.S. food aid portfolio, which includes Food for Peace,
Food for Progress and other programs. The
Administration's proposal would eliminate the developmental
component of food aid under Food for Peace, ending monetization (the sale of donated commodities by nongovernmental organizations in a recipient country to fund important development projects), which is a proven tool that provides a
multitude of benefits. This includes the Food for Peace program in Mozambique from 2008 to 2010 that used wheat
to generate funds to serve a wide range of agricultural development and other food security projects reaching
200,000 farmer households and 375,000 young children and caretakers. Another monetization-funded project in Uganda between
2008 and 2010 improved agricultural productivity, household savings, nutrition and hygiene, thereby
strengthening the ability of communities to withstand climatic and other shocks. The results in Mozambique,
Uganda and many other countries are not the full story. Development food aid also contributes to the development of fledgling milling industries
in recipient countries. These food aid programs provide a commodity that is currently in short supply to a food insecure country while addressing
constraints faced by small businesses in these countries like insufficient access to credit or hard currency and the need for smaller volumes of
wheat. U.S. food aid programs have been in place for nearly 60 years and have a proven track record of helping those in need. In addition to Food
for Peace, several
programs currently exist to provide a variety of tools to help countries achieve
sustainable food security. Supporting the Food for Peace program, which forms the backbone of those
efforts, will only continue to positively assist those in need around the world.
2014 Budget gets rid of Food for Peace
Cadei 4-9
[Emily, “Obama to Propose Restructuring of Food Aid”, April 9, 2013,
http://www.cochran.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/in-the-news?ID=1bba1b7e-9abe-4b0a-a5a1-47d3968fbac0]
In the fiscal 2014 budget proposal, the Food for Peace program, as it is currently structured, would cease to
exist, with the funds transferred out of the Department of Agriculture budget to three accounts in the State
Department and Foreign Operations budget — International Disaster Assistance; Development Assistance; and a new account that will be called
the Community Development and Resistance Fund.
Empirics prove Food for Peace actually works – cutting results in using untested theories that put lives at risk
Evans 4-9
[Dave, U.S. President of Food for the Hungry (FH) and a member of the Global Executive Office. He oversees U.S.based private and public resource development and provides leadership for effective programs in such areas as
disaster relief, health, livelihoods, food security, education and public policy. He has more than 28 years of relief
and development program implementation, management and fund-development experience in the U.S., Africa, Latin
America and Asia.“We can’t gamble with lives for so-called food aid reform” April 9, 2013,
http://blog.fh.org/2013/04/we-cant-gamble-lives-so-called-food-aid-reform/]
As we near President Obama’s budget submission, many in the international aid community are concerned about reports that U.S. food aid to the most vulnerable is at
risk. Specifically the program called Food
for Peace is reported as being cut from the president’s budget. The changes proposed are
untested at the
scale proposed and could put vulnerable people at acute risk. FH is an implementer of Food for Peace and has seen the
significant difference this program makes in the lives of the poor who are living in under-resourced, hard-to-reach
being called “reforms” however the result is a complete elimination of the program and a transition to radically different programs which are
communities in the developing world. Since 2008, FH has served more than 675,000 people living in extreme poverty in D.R. Congo, Sudan, Mozambique, Ethiopia
and Bolivia through U.S. food aid programs. During
the recent Horn of Africa food crisis, the FH-implemented Food for Peace
a part of helping 7.6 million avoid severe hunger, thereby reducing emergency food aid
requests by $100 million. Through the Food for Peace program, food (primarily grains and cooking oil) is shipped from the U.S. to countries in need.
program was
Those who would like to eliminate these programs say that only cash is needed to provide assistance and food can be purchased locally or regionally to serve those in
need. On the surface, it seems reasonable, but as in many situations, digging deeper shows us another reality. Is this just about shipping food and dumping it off for the
most vulnerable?If you have heard food aid being discussed in recent days, it’s possible that you’ve seen a portrayal of large quantities of food being shipped from the
U.S.to developing countries in an inefficient manner and being distributed in a way that creates dependency and disrupts local markets. In reality, U.S.food
aid
is delivered through a well-developed infrastructure. It takes place in a strategic manner, serving communities that
are experiencing long-term sustained crises and food is not simply given to people. It’s more helpful to think of the food as one tool that is used in an overall strategy
to strengthen the abilities for poor communities to get out of crisis mode and become self-sufficient. The food is often used in “food for work” programs through
which participants are “paid” with food to do work that moves whole communities toward providing for themselves—such as building roads and improving fields for
farming. While those
who want Food for Peace eliminated say that this food could be bought more
cheaply in local regions, this is a theory that has not been tested at the scale proposed. And it’s a very risky
proposition which could lead to lost lives. In places like Ethiopia and D.R. Congo, the food is simply
not available in country. It could actually be more expensive to acquire food regionally, and the quality of
food will likely go down.
Food for Peace key to maritime readiness – Afghanistan and Iraq prove
Wytkind 6-18
[Edward, president of the AFL-CIO’s Transportation Trades Dept., “Oppose the Royce-Engel Amendment to the
Farm Bill” June 18, 2013, http://www.ttd.org/tag/food-for-peace-program/]
The Food for Peace Program is an effective, efficient, accountable, and transparent program that for nearly 60 years has saved lives
by sending nutritious U.S. commodities to the neediest people overseas. Since its inception, it has become the principal U.S. government food
assistance program, benefitting more than three billion people in more than 150 countries. In fact, the United States provides approximately 60
percent of the world’s food aid. Just as importantly, this program is
a key contributor to the U.S. economy and national
security. Food for Peace keeps our maritime sector strong by using U.S.-flag vessels and U.S. crews
to transport food from American farmers to those in need. The program smartly uses American tax-payer dollars to not only feed the
needy, but to strengthen the American maritime and agriculture industries. Food for Peace, as currently constructed, is simply a smart government
policy that promotes the American value of generosity while also strengthening our own economy. Furthermore, the reliable source of cargo
provided through the Food for Peace Program helps maintain a strong and viable U.S.-flag fleet that plays
an important role in our national security, serving as a naval auxiliary in time of war or national emergency. U.S.flag ships have delivered the majority of the material to Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation Iraqi Freedom. Since 2009, U.S.-flag
vessels have moved more than 90 percent of all the cargoes to Afghanistan and Iraq supporting U.S.
and coalition forces. In 2011, then-Commander of the DOD Transportation Command General Duncan McNabb
told Congress that “the movement of international food aid has been a major contributor to the cargo
we have moved under the cargo preference law that our U.S. commercial sealift industry depends on.” He added that “any reductions will have to
be offset in other ways to maintain current DOD readiness.” To this point, the Navy League of the United States recently stated that “to
recreate the capacity it obtains from the U.S.-flag commercial industry, the Department of Defense would have to incur an additional $9 billion in
capital costs and $1 billion in annual operating costs.” The changes
to the Food for Peace program proposed in the Royce-Engel
significantly impact the capabilities of the U.S.-flag fleet, and any savings seen as a result
of this amendment would be more than offset in additional DOD expenses needed to expand its own
sealift capabilities. Equally important, denying U.S.-flag vessels this source of government impelled cargo will exacerbate what is already
a serious situation affecting our sealift capability. Simply put, notwithstanding what the proponents of this change suggest, losing even one
U.S.-flag vessel will cost the maritime industry and our nation the seafaring jobs needed to support
the civilian manpower base and to ensure the American people that our country will have the U.S.flag capability and American mariners needed in time of war or other international emergency to
support America’s troops. To seize nearly half of the Food for Peace Funds, as the Royce-Engel amendment proposes, and use them
amendment would
to provide cash transfers to organizations abroad, would be to gut the very things that make this program such a success. This amendment would
undermine our nation’s maritime and agriculture industries and their workforces, our commercial and military sealift capabilities, and our ability
to successfully deliver international aid around the globe.
Cutting Food for Peace hurts jobs and maritime capabilities
MarineLink 6-25
[Reporter of maritime news, provides information on events, regulations, and developments.“USA Maritime
Applauds Continuation of ‘Food for Peace’ Program” June 25, 2013 http://www.marinelink.com/news/continuationmaritime356018.aspx]
Under the PL 480 Food for Peace Program, high quality American produced agricultural commodities are processed, bagged and
transported to American ports where the commodities are loaded onto merchant vessels for delivery overseas. Under existing law, 50 percent of
these commodities
are transported by U.S.-flag commercial vessels with American crews, contributing
significantly to the commercial sealift capability needed by the Department of Defense to support
America’s troops. Shifting the program to a cash give-away system will not only cost American farmers and
American transportation workers business and jobs, but it will reduce the amount of cargo U.S.-flag commercial
vessels rely on. USA Maritime states that in 2011, then-Commander of the United States Transportation Command General Duncan McNabb told
Congress that “International food aid has been a major contributor to the cargo we have moved under the cargo preference law that our U.S.
commercial sealift industry depends on.” He warned that “Any reductions
will have to be offset in other ways to maintain current DoD
sealift readiness.”
[another maritime readiness card]
AMO 6-12
[The American Maritime Officers, “Proposed evisceration of PL-480 Food for Peace program would undermine
U.S. defense sealift capability” June 12, 2013, http://m.amo-union.net/article.php?a=1813]
Note: HR 1983 is a bill to get rid of the Food for Peace Program
Under the existing PL 480 Food for Peace Program, U.S. grown agricultural commodities are transported to American ports, processed, bagged
and loaded onto American ships by American workers, and carried by U.S.-flag, U.S.-crewed vessels to those in need. Under
HR 1983,
economic activity generated by the PL 480 Program would be lost to foreign companies, and
the associated American jobs, including the jobs of American workers our organizations represent, would, like the American tax
dollars, be sent overseas. Despite what the proponents of this legislation and the Administration's proposal contend, ending the PL 480
Food for Peace Program will diminish our nation's U.S.-flag sealift capability and will result in the loss of American jobs. It is the
privately-owned U.S.-flag maritime industry that is called upon by the Department of Defense to
deliver the supplies and equipment needed to support our troops and their mission overseas. In fact,
this system would end, the U.S.
more than 95 percent of all the cargo sent to Iraq and Afghanistan has been carried by U.S.-flag, U.S.-crewed vessels. In 2011, then-Commander
of the Department of Defense Transportation Command General Duncan McNabb told Congress that " The
movement of
international food aid has been a major contributor to the cargo we have moved under the cargo
preference law that our U.S. commercial sealift industry depends on." He warned Congress that "Any
reductions will have to be offset in other ways to maintain current DOD readiness." Significantly, General McNabb's statement
was made prior to the time the Administration set its policy to eliminate the PL 480 Food for Peace Program, and prior to the time the
Department of Defense and all Federal agencies were obligated to express support for this policy. When
DOD was free to look
objectively at the impact that reductions in food aid cargoes for the U.S.-flag merchant marine
would have on DOD readiness, their conclusion was that readiness would be adversely affected. As
recently stated by the Navy League of the United States, "to recreate the capacity it obtains from the U.S.-flag commercial industry, the
Department of Defense would have to incur an additional $9 billion in capital costs and $1 billion in annual operating costs." Consequently, not
only will HR 1983 reduce America's commercial sealift capability but it will increase Federal spending as the Department of Defense will have to
spend significantly more to replace the commercial sealift capability provided today by the U.S.-flag maritime industry. Finally, we urge that you
not be misled by the Administration's claim that this adverse impact can be offset through a new $25 million appropriation for affected U.S.-flag
vessels. Simply put, it is the combination of the Maritime Security Program and the
cargoes provided under the Food for Peace
U.S.-flag vessels in operation, keep American mariners employed, and guarantee the
commercial sealift capability needed by DOD. In fact, simply looking at whether or not a particular vessel is
itself considered "militarily useful," is not and should not be the determining factor. Rather, it is important to
understand that every U.S.-flag vessel, regardless of type and regardless of what it carries and where it operates, contributes to
America's commercial sealift capability by providing employment for the American merchant
mariners needed by DOD. The operation of U.S.-flag ships ensures that there is a reserve pool of
qualified American mariners readily available to man the privately owned and government owned vessels needed by DOD in
time of war or other emergency. Justifying the elimination of this important base of food aid cargo because vessels that are not
Program that keep
themselves deemed "militarily useful" is at best misleading and inaccurate.
Sealift solves great power war
Conway et al 7
[James T., General, U.S. Marine Corps, Gary Roughead, Admiral, U.S. Navy, Thad W. Allen, Admiral, U.S. Coast
Guard, “A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower,” October,
http://www.navy.mil/maritime/MaritimeStrategy.pdf]
Maintenance and
extension of this Nation’s comparative seapower advantage is a key component of deterring major power war.
Deter major power war. No other disruption is as potentially disastrous to global stability as war among major powers.
While war with another great power strikes many as improbable, the near-certainty of its ruinous effects demands that it be actively deterred
using all elements of national power. The
expeditionary character of maritime forces—our lethality, global
reach, speed, endurance, ability to overcome barriers to access, and operational agility—provide the
joint commander with a range of deterrent options. We will pursue an approach to deterrence that includes a credible and
scalable ability to retaliate against aggressors conventionally, unconventionally, and with nuclear forces. Win our Nation’s wars. In times of
war, our ability to impose local sea control, overcome challenges to access, force entry, and project
and sustain power ashore, makes our maritime forces an indispensable element of the joint or
combined force. This expeditionary advantage must be maintained because it provides joint and combined force commanders with
freedom of maneuver. Reinforced by a robust sealift capability that can concentrate and sustain forces, sea control and power
projection enable extended campaigns ashore.
[Laundry list of reasons why Food for Peace is good]
ADRAI et al. 2-21
[Adventist Development & Relief Agency International, Alliance for Global Food Security, America Cargo
Transport Corp., American Feed Industry Association, American Maritime Congress, American Maritime Officers,
American Maritime Officers’ Service, American Peanut Council, American Soybean Association, APL Limited,
BKA Logistics LLC, California Wheat Commission, Central Gulf Lines, Inc., Congressional Hunger Center,
Counterpart International, Feed the Children, Food for the Hungry, Global Food & Nutrition, Hapag-L1oyd USA,
LLC, International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots, International Partnership for Human Development,
International Relief & Development, International Services Corporation, Joint Aid Management USA, Lake Charles
Harbor and Terminal District, Land O’Lakes, Liberty Maritime Corporation, Maersk Line, Ltd., Marine Engineers’
Beneficial Association, Maritime Institute for Research and Industrial Development, National Association of Wheat
Growers, National Barley Growers Association, National Corn Growers Association, National Cotton Council,
National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, National Farmers Union, National Oilseed Processors Association,
National Potato Council, National Renderers Association, National Sorghum Producers, North American Millers’
Association, OIC International, Pacific Cargoes Incorporated, PCI, Planet Aid, Inc., Sailors’ Union of the Pacific,
Salesian Missions, Seafarers International Union Sealift, Inc. Southern United States Trade Association,
TechnoServe, Inc., Transportation Institute, United Maritime Group, LLC, United Methodist Committee on Relief,
U.S. Dry Bean Council, U.S. Grains Council, U.S. Meat Export Federation, U.S. Overseas Cooperative
Development Council, U.S. Rice Producers Association, U.S. Wheat Associates, USA Dry Pea and Lentil Council,
USA Maritime, USA Rice Federation, Washington State Potato Commission, Waterman Steamship Corporation,
Western U.S. Agricultural Trade Association, Winrock International, World Vision International and World Vision
U.S., “Food for Peace must be maintained says broad-based national coalition” February 21, 2013,
http://www.sailors.org/pdf/newsletter/wcs-mar-2013.pdf]
Growing, manufacturing, bagging, shipping, and transporting nutritious U.S. food creates jobs
and economic activity here at home, provides support for our U.S. Merchant Marine, essential
to our national defense sealift capability, and sustains a robust domestic constituency for these programs not easily
replicated in alternative foreign aid programs. Overseas, Food for Peace has a strong track record of reducing child malnutrition and
increasing incomes and food supplies for very poor and vulnerable populations. Food
for Progress expands business and
income opportunities along the agriculture value chain and improves the quality and quantity
of food supplies. Both of those programs are proven models for addressing global food insecurity. In addition to fighting global
hunger and facilitating developmental programs to end the cycle of hunger, these programs are also some of our most
effective, lowest-cost national security tools. Bags of U.S.-grown food bearing the U.S. flag and stamped as
“From the American People” serve as ambassadors of our Nation’s goodwill, which can help to address the
root causes of instability. In a time of growing global food insecurity and extremism, these programs need to be
expanded, not eliminated.
Food for Peace key to solving instability, terror – Empirics prove
SUP 3-22
[Sailors’ Union of the Pacific, “Food For Peace targeted by Obama Administration” March 22, 2013,
http://www.sailors.org/pdf/newsletter/wcs-mar-2013.pdf]
Food for Peace has served an essential role in the past helping to stabilize countries, support U.S. foreign
policy, and build trade in countries like India, Poland, Romania and Libya. • Life-sustaining food in bags
marked as gifts “From the American People” and bearing the U.S. flag are important symbols of our nation’s concern
and generosity to recipients, helping fight anti-American sentiment and quell terrorist breeding
grounds.
Food for Peace key to the economy – jobs, production
SUP 3-22
[Sailors’ Union of the Pacific, “Food For Peace targeted by Obama Administration” March 22, 2013,
http://www.sailors.org/pdf/newsletter/wcs-mar-2013.pdf]
Cutting Food for Peace is bad for American Jobs • Food for Peace is unique among foreign aid programs
because it is an important source of jobs for American farmers, shippers, processors, port workers,
and merchant mariners, providing employment for over 33,000 Americans in the transportation
sector alone. • The transportation and processing of Food for Peace cargoes, without considering
farm impacts, supports $1.9 billion in economic output for U.S. industries and $523 million in
household earnings.
More attempts at cutting Food for Peace in the future – Royce-Engel amendment proves
AMO 13
[American Maritime Officers, “House vote shows support for PL-480 Food for Peace”July 2013, http://www.amounion.org/Information~Page~201307-03.html]
On June 19, the
House of Representatives voted to reject a legislative amendment that - had it been approved and later
have cut deeply into shipments of domestically purchased U.S. food aid by imposing the Obama
administration's proposal to radically restructure the PL-480 Food for Peace program. Members of the House voted 203-220 on
passed into law - would
the amendment presented by Rep. Edward Royce (R-CA) and Eliot Engel (D-NY) to the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management
(FARRM) Act of 2013, legislation to reform and reauthorize U.S. agricultural programs through 2018, which was brought to the floor of the
House in June for consideration. However, the next day, the House of Representatives voted down the FARRM Act itself 195-234. If
the
House brings up the legislation again, further attempts to attach amendments harmful to the PL480 Food for Peace program may be made. "The House's rejection of the Royce amendment is a very
good sign, but is one of many battles that will be fought in what has become a multi-pronged assault
on PL-480 Food for Peace," said AMO National President Tom Bethel. "AMO will continue to work strenuously
with labor and industry allies, and with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, to maintain the proven and successful Food for Peace program.
Impact defense: Assistance Fails
The plan’s mechanism won’t solve – assistance programs are useless
Roberts 11, The Heritage Foundation's lead expert in economic freedom and growth is to produce the
Index of Economic Freedom, Roberts also studies economic and political issues in Latin America and
Europe, contributing to policy debates on issues ranging from development assistance, “Not All Foreign
Aid Is Equal”, 3/1/11, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/03/not-all-foreign-aid-is-equal//LA
Congress faces many tough choices as it responds to the national security threat posed by out-of-control
federal spending. However, the decision is easy in one area: foreign aid. Traditional development
assistance does not work, at least not if the goal is to foster sustainable development in poor countries.
Traditional efforts, such as those administered by the U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID), dole out billions of dollars each year despite evidence that these policies virtually ensure that
economic growth will be minimal or unsustainable. Other types of U.S. foreign assistance—including
security assistance, humanitarian assistance, and highly focused programs such as the President’s
Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR)—are capable of achieving specific or short-term goals. The
record of development assistance as a catalyst for long-term sustainable economic growth is abysmal.
Perhaps the only exception to this poor track record is the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC),
which requires countries to demonstrate foremost a commitment to good governance, sound economic
policies, and the well-being of their citizens.The MCC model holds recipient governments accountable
for results and requires them to make serious, sustained efforts to combat corruption. MCC programs also
encourage private-sector–led economic growth, strong protection of property rights, and the rule of law.
All of these set the table for domestically driven economic growth and development, which can never be
replaced by foreign assistance, no matter how well intentioned. As a part of its foreign aid approval
process, the MCC uses the trade freedom indicator in the Index of Economic Freedom,[1] published
annually by The Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal. The entire MCC approach is
consistent with the core values of the Index. As Congress considers ways to reduce the federal budget
deficit, cuts to USAID and its traditional aid programs should be near the top of the list. Other types of
assistance—such as military assistance, humanitarian assistance, and MCC grants requiring policy
reform—merit close scrutiny, but their past performance should justify continuing congressional support.
Official development assistance (ODA) from USAID and other Western donor governments has a poor
record of success in catalyzing economic growth and development. Since 1960, developed member
nations of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development have donated more than $2
trillion in development assistance,[2] but studies have shown that ODA failed to produce the desired
results of job creation and higher living standards through economic growth.[3] The evidence indicates
that this failure was preordained by the nature of ODA programs. Because ODA programs focus on
government-to-government transfers, they tend to promote statist approaches to development among their
recipients that enhance the power and size of recipient governments and create economic distortions in
recipient economies. They also promote a welfare-dependency mindset and create new opportunities for
corruption. With rare exceptions, traditional aid ultimately reinforces the problems that contribute to a
lack of development. Addressing such problems as illiteracy is important, but traditional development
assistance programs aimed at such problems are too small to solve them and insufficient in themselves to
overcome the policy impediments to economic growth. Some USAID programs have devolved into little
more than corporate welfare schemes for U.S. universities, nongovernmental organizations, and
development assistance contractors. Members of Congress have commonly earmarked development
assistance funds to benefit universities and contractors in their states. Traditional development assistance
is based on a world that no longer exists. In the 21st century, private financial flows from commerce and
investment dwarf ODA levels. Every day, millions of private individuals, corporations, and other groups
around the world demonstrate how the market creates the most efficient development strategies from
knowledge shared through person-to-person contacts, phone calls, e-mails, and blogs—and, most
important, from the technological knowledge and capital gained through trade and investment. Billions of
dollars in private aid also flow annually to developing countries from faith-based and other charitable,
academic, and humanitarian groups in developed countries. ODA cannot hope to compete. The key is to
facilitate these flows, not to compete with them. Private flows go where they can obtain the best return or
can circumvent policy hurdles. America should focus its development efforts on encouraging developing
countries to improve their policies. Development assistance allocated with this objective should require
far less funding while realizing far greater returns.
Internals: USAID Effective
[USAID works now]
Lane and Miles 3-21
[Bill Lane is the director of International Governmental Affairs for Caterpillar and Carolyn Miles is the president
and CEO of Save the Children. They are co-presidents of the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition. “Aid reform
delivering results” 3/21/13 http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/289691-aid-reform-deliveringresults]
Thursday in Washington we talk a lot about what doesn’t work, but finally there is a good story about one government agency
investing in reform and delivering results. Wednesday, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) released a progress
report on its three year old reform effort, USAID FORWARD, which in the words of Administrator Rajiv Shah has the ultimate
U.S. development and the
protecting our security, advancing our economic interests, and in
our values to the world. As the head of one of America’s largest non-profits and as a senior
goal of putting “ourselves out of business.” The two of us are strong believers in the power of
important role these programs play in
demonstrating
executive at one of our country’s greatest companies, we both know the importance of the bottom line – getting cost-effective
results on our investments.
Over the past decade, both Democrats and Republicans have worked to rebuild America’s civilian
capacity, gutted after the Cold War, to ensure we have the necessary tools to advance our national interests. The aim of
USAID’s
ambitious reform agenda is to ensure the Agency is delivering measurable results. The reforms include a
strengthened priority on country ownership of their own destiny to guarantee our contributions are sustainable, a robust monitoring
and evaluation system, enhanced transparency, and stronger partnerships with the private sector. We applaud the goals of
USAID FORWARD to modernize and strengthen U.S. development programs, and while every indicator in the report is
not perfect, the reforms are moving in the right direction. By measuring progress and evaluating programs, they are
learning what needs to be done to adapt and meet the challenges in today’s rapidly changing world, even
if that means cutting your losses and admitting that something isn’t working. That’s progress we can respect.
Our international
affairs programs, like all government programs, should be evaluated to make sure they are delivering the intended results. Efforts
such as the Foreign Assistance Dashboard do just that and allow taxpayers to see where their dollars are going, and if they are being
The focus on
innovations, science, and technology is to be commended as a critical way to lead to a costeffective impact on communities and economies in the developing world. Take for example mobile banking,
which reduces corruption by decreasing cash transactions and expands access to financial services. This allows
hundreds of thousands of people to receive their salaries and transfer money with their
fingertips in a safe, reliable way. And in Uganda, mobile phones are being used in rural health clinics to request
spent wisely. This introduces a transparency that frankly all federal agencies should take a cue from.
emergency transport and track maternal and child mortality. This goes along with a shift we have seen in how we look at
development.
From results-driven programming to leveraging the private sector, reforming the way we do development helps to
drive innovative solutions to global challenges. But resting on laurels will bring us right back to the old ways, which is why we need
to prioritize our efforts on what’s working and ensure the resources are in place to continue this commitment to reform.
While
we’re not there yet, our hats are off to the men and women of USAID for holding themselves and their work to a high standard to
ensure we are delivering cost-effective results critical to building a better, safer world.
*****Feed the Future*****
FTF on Chopping Block
Cutting Feed the Future now
Brennan 5-24
[Ted is responsible for Republican outreach to both the House and the Senate. Ted comes to ONE after
nearly three years of consulting and more than 12 years with the late Chairman Henry J. Hyde (R-IL) on the
House International Relations Committee and Rep. Cass Ballenger (R-NC). He also served as the staff
director of the Senate International Narcotics Caucus under Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA)., ONE, “Back
to the start with FY2014 budget battle” 5/24/2013, http://www.one.org/us/2013/05/24/back-to-the-start-withfy2014-budget-battle/]
With little break after last year’s spending challenges, ONE is once again gearing up for another major battle for the world’s most
vulnerable people. That’s right: it is time to begin work on the FY ’14 appropriations bill. This week, the House Appropriations
Committee announced how much they plan to make available or “allocate” in the FY 2014 spending bills. On Capitol Hill, these are
better known as 302(b) allocations. The allocation the Committee sets for the Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations and
Related Programs (SFOPS), will have an impact on the very programs we are fighting to preserve and protect. From what we have
The House is calling for deep cuts to most
non-Defense discretionary programs, including the International Affairs Budget. Although such cuts were not unexpected, their
impact on the poor is no less severe. Since the House is using a total discretionary spending level of $967 billion, or
seen, we can confirm that the budget tax will be heavy again this year.
$91 billion below what is permitted under the Budget Control Act for FY14, most allocations will also fall well below the
the spending bill that funds our core programs like PEPFAR, the Global Fund,
Feed the Future as well as all other international affairs programs, the 302(b) allocation calls for a
spending level of $40.6 billion or 19% ($9.5 billion) below current FY13 levels (post-sequestration). To put
Administration’s request. For SFOPS,
GAVI and
this in perspective, the other national security related accounts, the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security will see
increases of 5 percent and 3.3 percent respectively. So not only will these cuts affect the poorest around the globe, it will hamstring
it represents deeper
and more disproportionate cuts to accounts that fund the life-saving programs we fight to keep
funded. While this is not good news for us, we still have the chance to fight and win in the Senate. The Senate is expected
to adopt their allocations in the coming weeks. Unlike the House, the Senate 302(b) allocations for State and Foreign
a critical component of our national security strategy. ONE opposes the SFOPS allocation because
Operations should be considerably better because the Senate is using a total discretionary spending cap of $1.058 trillion, which is
far higher than the House’s $967 billion level. As usual, House and Senate appropriators would like to move their appropriations
bills through each chamber before the start of the new fiscal year on October 1st. However, for the past several years, it has often
been the case that not every appropriations bill makes it to the floor. Although neither chamber passed the State and Foreign
Operations bill last year, we still need to make our voices heard to ensure our programs continue to save lives. Given the low
allocation in the House, our fight will be in the Senate. As advocates, we need to urge our lawmakers on both sides of the Hill to
support the Senate allocations, so that the United States can continue a long, bipartisan legacy of life-saving leadership.
Impacts: Escalates (Food Wars)
Food insecurity sparks World War 3
Calvin ’98 (William, Theoretical Neurophysiologist – U Washington, Atlantic Monthly, January, Vol 281, No.
1, p. 47-64)
The population-crash scenario is surely the most appalling.
Plummeting crop yields would cause some powerful countries to try
to take over their neighbors or distant lands -- if only because their armies, unpaid and lacking food, would go
marauding, both at home and across the borders. The better-organized countries would attempt to use their armies,
before they fell apart entirely, to take over countries with significant remaining resources, driving out or starving their
inhabitants if not using modern weapons to accomplish the same end: eliminating competitors for the remaining food. This would be a
worldwide problem -- and could lead to a Third World War -- but Europe's vulnerability is particularly easy to analyze. The last
abrupt cooling, the Younger Dryas, drastically altered Europe's climate as far east as Ukraine. Present-day Europe has more than 650 million
people. It has excellent soils, and largely grows its own food. It could no longer do so if it lost the extra warming from the North Atlantic.
Extinction
Lugar 2k Chairman of the Senator Foreign Relations Committee and Member/Former Chair of the Senate
Agriculture Committee (Richard, a US Senator from Indiana, is Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, and a member and former chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee. “calls for a new green
revolution to combat global warming and reduce world instability,” pg online @
http://www.unep.org/OurPlanet/imgversn/143/lugar.html)
In a world confronted by global terrorism, turmoil in the Middle East, burgeoning nuclear threats and other crises, it is easy to lose sight of the
long-range challenges. But we do so at our peril. One of the most daunting of them is meeting the world’s need for food and
energy in this century. At stake is not only preventing starvation and saving the environment, but also world peace
and security. History tells us that states may go to war over access to resources, and that poverty and famine have often bred
fanaticism and terrorism. Working to feed the world will minimize factors that contribute to global instability and the
WMDs ] weapons of mass destruction. With the world population expected to grow from 6 billion people
today to 9 billion by mid-century, the demand for affordable food will increase well beyond current international
production levels. People in rapidly developing nations will have the means greatly to improve their standard of living and caloric intake. Inevitably, that means eating more meat. This will raise demand for feed
grain at the same time that the growing world population will need vastly more basic food to eat. Complicating a solution to this problem is a dynamic that must be better understood in the West: developing
countries often use limited arable land to expand cities to house their growing populations. As good land disappears, people destroy timber
resources and even rainforests as they try to create more arable land to feed themselves. The long-term
environmental consequences could be disastrous for the entire globe . Productivity revolution To meet the expected demand for
food over the next 50 years, we in the United States will have to grow roughly three times more food on the land we
have. That’s a tall order. My farm in Marion County, Indiana, for example, yields on average 8.3 to 8.6 tonnes of corn per hectare – typical for a farm in central Indiana. To triple our production by 2050, we will have to produce
an annual average of 25 tonnes per hectare. Can we possibly boost output that much? Well, it’s been done before. Advances in the use of
fertilizer and water, improved machinery and better tilling techniques combined to generate a threefold increase in
yields since 1935 – on our farm back then, my dad produced 2.8 to 3 tonnes per hectare. Much US agriculture has seen similar increases. But of course there is no guarantee that we can achieve those results again. Given the
proliferation of [
urgency of expanding food production to meet world demand, we must invest much more in scientific research and target that money toward projects that promise to have significant national and global impact. For the United States,
The United States can take a
leading position in a productivity revolution. And our success at increasing food production may play a decisive
that will mean a major shift in the way we conduct and fund agricultural science. Fundamental research will generate the innovations that will be necessary to feed the world.
humanitarian role in the survival of billions of people and the health of our planet.
Impacts: Biotech/Food Security
FTF is key to regulated global biotech and global food security
Bertram 2k13
(Rob Bertram, Director of the Office of Agricultural Research and Policy, Bureau for Food Security, USAID,
“How Science and Technology Can Help Us Feed the Future,” pg online @
http://www.feedthefuture.gov/article/how-science-and-technology-can-help-us-feed-future //um-ef)
Each year in June, the World Food Prize recognizes individuals who have made significant contributions
to global food security. We know that global food production will have to increase by at least 60 percent
to support the estimated world population of nine billion people by 2050, on less land and with fewer
natural resources like water. Advancements in science and technology—from drip irrigation systems to
conservation tillage to integrated pest management—have raised the efficiency and productivity of
agricultural resources over the last decade in both developed and developing countries and can
help us meet these challenges. This year’s World Food Prize focuses on biotechnology, which,
particularly in context of a changing climate and sustainability, has the potential to improve food
production by increasing yields on existing farmland, increasing nutritional value of crops, and boosting
climate, pest and disease resilience in agriculture. Feed the Future is investing in a broad range of
research and development activities within its research portfolio to support global food security.
This includes efforts—implemented with a broad base of public and private partners—to utilize
technology to solve major agricultural challenges and improve global food security, in some cases
including the development and use of genetically engineered (GE) crops. The use of GE is a decision
made by our host country partners as one of the options they can utilize as they work to improve food
security, but it is not a requirement of Feed the Future. This is underpinned by the Feed the Future’s
approach to support countries in determining their own food security priorities and plans. Feed
the Future also works with partner countries to build biotechnology regulatory capacity, helping
them develop their own ability to reach decisions that reflect sound science and best practice in managing
biotechnology. In all cases, our investments in biotechnology are led by some of the brightest scientists
working with our partner institutions. Scientists like Jimmy Lamo, of the National Agriculture Research
Organization in Uganda, who is working on the NEWEST (nitrogen use efficient, water use efficient, and
salt-tolerant) rice project. As the name suggests, this project is using biotechnology to develop NERICA
rice varieties that can grow with limited nitrogen and water or in high saline environments.
Turns Case: Leadership, Misc
Feed the Future key to U.S. Diplomacy
Murphy 3-19
[Tom, Humanosphere, “Feed the Future Survives for Another Day” March 19, 2013,
http://www.humanosphere.org/2013/03/feed-the-future-survives-for-another-day/]
“The world’s smallholder farmers, ironically, are some of the main recipients of food aid. Because of the neglect of agricultural
development efforts over the past three decades, these farmers struggle mightily to feed their families,” wrote author and Senior
Fellow at the Chicago Council, Roger Thurow, in response to the proposal. Shah described one of the successes of Feed the Future
during his testimony to the House Foreign Relations Committee in March 2012. “In
Kenya, Feed the Future has
helped over 90,000 dairy farmers, more than a third of whom are women, increase their total income by a combined
$14 million last year,” he said. Feed the Future was borne out of the US response to global food price increases during the end of the
Bush administration in 2007 and 2008. In July 2009, President Obama made a $3.5 billion pledge at the G8 Summit in L’Aquila,
Italy to undertake a new approach towards food security. That pledge in turn saw the inauguration of Feed the Future in May 2010.
The program builds off the outcome document of the L’Aquila Summit, the Rome Principles, that called for the development of
programs that worked with individual countries to determine their own strategies and investment plans to accomplish food security.
The programs would help to avoid large scale hunger crises like the one that followed in mid-2011 in the
wake of the drought in the Horn of Africa. 11.5 million people were in need of emergency assistance, but countries that had already
implemented food security programs like Ethiopia managed to deal with the drought relatively well. Southern Somalia failed poorly
and a famine was declared in the middle of July. “The President’s
Feed the Future initiative is designed to
partner with countries like Ethiopia and Kenya to develop their own agricultural industries,
helping them break free of the need for humanitarian food aid. Only through a long-term
sustained investment in their own food security can these countries escape the vicious cycle of
famine of food aid we’ve once again witnessed,” wrote Shah in a blog post at the time. The Administrator began talking
about the need to build resilience in the region so that individuals can handle the stress of drought. In a phone conversation this past
fall, Shah singled out Feed the Future as one of his favorite programs. “The goal is implement programs that reduce the number of
people who need humanitarian aid when bad things happen,” said Shah at the time. He stressed taking action and implementing
programs that provide results oriented development assistance. He spoke proudly of the smaller programs like Feed the Future and
the Child Survival Call to Action saying that they are ‘absolute priorities.’ It is a sentiment that alings with the remarks from
Thurow and Veillette. Feed the Future reached over 6.5 million households through direct programs and supported nearly 9 million
children with nutrition programs in 2011 alone. Early data on 2012 showed that Feed the Future expaned by reaching nearly 13
million households. An analysis of US global agriclutural development programs carried out by the Chicago Council showed
positive results when looking at the work of US agencies in Ghana, Bangladesh and Ethiopia. All three were determined to be focus
a whole-of-government approach helped to revitalize US
agriculture policy, said the report. “This substantial revival of U.S. policy represents a dramatic improvement compared to
the decades of neglect that prevailed before 2009.” It calls for further support of agriculture investment as
a way to ward off future disasters. The elimination of Feed the Future represents a lost
opportunity, say its defenders. “Morally. Eliminating Feed the Future would indicate that the U.S.
is abdicating its leadership role in a great humanitarian challenge, a role it once relished in the times of
the Marshall Plan and the Green Revolution,” argued Thurow. It is alive for now and looks to live for at least one
more year, but will it last?
countries for Feed the Future. Taking
That flips resentment and turns the case – solves all US objectives, democracy, anti-terror,
climate, leadership
Los Angeles Times 2k8
(“Food Diplomacy Works,” 6—9—08, www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-food92008jun09,0,6731763.story )
The United States cannot lead if it is hated. If Americans still aspire to remake the world as a more democratic, more
prosperous place with fewer terrorists and nuclear weapons states, if we seek global cooperation on issues ranging from counter-proliferation to
climate change, we must set about earning back the goodwill of nations. The tragic global hunger crisis ,
which has swelled the ranks of the world's most miserable, provides the U.S. with a golden opportunity to do good while rebuilding
its shattered global leadership credentials. We should seize the chance to win friends and confound our
enemies by showing the world that the United States is the sole superpower when it comes to generosity. At this
global influence game -- known in statecraft as "public diplomacy" -- the Bush administration has manifestly failed. That's frustrating, because despite its foreign policy shortcomings, in purely
humanitarian terms this administration has done many things right. President Bush has rejected the use of food as a political weapon, thrusting aid even on the loathsome regimes in North
Korea and Myanmar. He lavished funds on Africa to combat AIDS. As the dimensions of the food crisis came into focus this winter, Bush quickly announced generous donations to the World
Food Program. And the U.S. remains one of the largest donors to the World Bank, whose president, a Bush appointee, has made food a priority and sharply increased aid for agricultural
development. So why is it that in most places, the United States receives little or no credit for its generosity? This is particularly worrisome in Muslim countries, where dislike not just of the U.S.
government but of the American people has increased even though U.S. aid has burgeoned. This is partly because of the mixed record of foreign aid programs, which have sometimes done
more harm than good. It's also partly because no amount of aid will compensate for dreadful U.S. policies, such as the continued operation of the searingly symbolic detention center in
Guantanamo Bay.
Impacts: FTF k Biotech
And, Feed the Future is key to regulated global biotech and global food security
Bertram 2k13
(Rob Bertram, Director of the Office of Agricultural Research and Policy, Bureau for Food Security, USAID,
“How Science and Technology Can Help Us Feed the Future,” pg online @
http://www.feedthefuture.gov/article/how-science-and-technology-can-help-us-feed-future //um-ef)
Each year in June, the World Food Prize recognizes individuals who have made significant contributions
to global food security. We know that global food production will have to increase by at least 60 percent
to support the estimated world population of nine billion people by 2050, on less land and with fewer
natural resources like water. Advancements in science and technology—from drip irrigation systems to
conservation tillage to integrated pest management—have raised the efficiency and productivity of
agricultural resources over the last decade in both developed and developing countries and can
help us meet these challenges. This year’s World Food Prize focuses on biotechnology, which,
particularly in context of a changing climate and sustainability, has the potential to improve food
production by increasing yields on existing farmland, increasing nutritional value of crops, and boosting
climate, pest and disease resilience in agriculture. Feed the Future is investing in a broad range of
research and development activities within its research portfolio to support global food security.
This includes efforts—implemented with a broad base of public and private partners—to utilize
technology to solve major agricultural challenges and improve global food security, in some cases
including the development and use of genetically engineered (GE) crops. The use of GE is a decision
made by our host country partners as one of the options they can utilize as they work to improve food
security, but it is not a requirement of Feed the Future. This is underpinned by the Feed the Future’s
approach to support countries in determining their own food security priorities and plans. Feed the
Future also works with partner countries to build biotechnology regulatory capacity, helping them
develop their own ability to reach decisions that reflect sound science and best practice in managing
biotechnology. In all cases, our investments in biotechnology are led by some of the brightest scientists
working with our partner institutions. Scientists like Jimmy Lamo, of the National Agriculture Research
Organization in Uganda, who is working on the NEWEST (nitrogen use efficient, water use efficient, and
salt-tolerant) rice project. As the name suggests, this project is using biotechnology to develop NERICA
rice varieties that can grow with limited nitrogen and water or in high saline environments.
Impacts: FTF k Moral Ob
Cutting Food for Aid violates our moral obligation – funding key foundation for other
programs
Lee 6-15
[Katie Lee is the advocacy and policy coordinator for international development at InterAction[7], an alliance
of more than 180 U.S.-based NGOs, and formerly served on the Republican staff of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, Huffington Post, “While We Talk Reform, U.S. Food Assistance Is Under Attack” June
15, 2013, Pg Lexis]
This year's
federal budget and appropriations season has generated a lot of buzz and media around
reforming U.S. food assistance programs. But while some of us have been talking about improving aid delivery, others -- in high
cuts to food assistance programs altogether. Lawmakers in the U.S.
House of Representatives have proposed cutting the life-saving Food for Peace program by 20 percent.
That adds up to cutting food assistance to nearly eight million[1] people suffering from hunger in
places like the drought-prone Sahel and conflict-torn Syria. These cuts are not just numbers. We are talking about people going
hungry in a world where enough food is produced for everyone. On Thursday the House
places -- have proposed alarming
Appropriations committee adopted this drastically-low funding level[2], setting up a vote by the full House later this month.
Meanwhile, the Senate is expected to release its funding allocations next week and begin work on appropriations bills that will
determine funding for individual programs such as Food for Peace. We cannot remain silent on this. The Food for Peace program[3]
has helped more than three billion people in more than 150 countries since 1954 primarily through emergency food assistance. And
since 2008, this hallmark program has been cut by more than 30 percent, despite the fact that we are
living in a world where more people are displaced than at any other time in the past 15 years, and one in eight people -- 870 million
Another 20 percent hit is not just a step in the wrong direction -- it is a leap in the
wrong direction -- one that weakens our nation's stance as a moral leader helping those who need it
-- are hungry.
most. Ever since the president released his fiscal year 2014 budget proposal, and even before then, many of us who work on hunger
and nutrition issues have been trying to reform food assistance policies so that, with the same amount of resources, we can help
more people live healthy lives. InterAction and other NGOs agreed on a set of principles[4] to help guide efforts to reform food
assistance programs. These include ensuring that any reforms protect the core focus and effective elements of existing food
assistance programs, increasing the number of people helped, improving the flexibility of programs, and ensuring any reforms are
made in an open, transparent and inclusive process. While these reforms are important,
ensuring adequate funding for
food assistance is foundational. These programs are literally saving lives, as well as empowering families to provide better
opportunities for their children. Consider Lucia's story[5]. Her decision to join a food program in Guatemala with her 16-month-old
baby, Maria, changed her daughter's life. Her baby had been sick often, underdeveloped and inactive. After attending monthly
educational sessions taught in the local Q'eqchi language, Lucia started making healthier choices for her baby. This Mercy Corps
program, funded by Food for Peace, prevents malnutrition before it starts. We need to push ahead on reform, but we need to act now
to prevent drastic cuts that could affect people like Lucia and her daughter. Under the bill that the House Appropriations Committee
approved Thursday, Food for Peace programs would be funded at $1.15 billion -- a 19.9 percent or $285 million cut from fiscal year
2013 enacted levels. As Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA) said in the Appropriations Committee mark-up on Thursday, more than seven
million people could be denied food assistance as a result of the cuts -- that's the population of Los Angeles, Chicago, and
Tucsoncombined. What's more is that these cuts are disproportionate -- while the overall allocation for the agriculture bill in the
House is equal to last year's enacted funding levels, the amount for food assistance is being slashed. This is the definition of a
disproportionate cut. And hungry people around the world will be suffering for it. As Rep. Farr affirmed yesterday, " As
a super
power in this world we have a responsibility and a moral obligation to help those in need."
Congress should appropriate no less than $1.5 billion for Food for Peace programs in order to continue our country's moral
obligation to help the world's hungry feed themselves and pull themselves out of poverty. It is my hope that the Senate will provide
much needed leadership on this issue as it moves forward with its appropriations process and considers funding levels for U.S.
international food assistance programs. We should do all we can to urge our elected officials[6] to fully fund Food for Peace. The
world's hungry are counting on it.
Impacts: FTF solves Food Security
USAID's Feed the Future program is decreasing food insecurity.
USAID 6-28 ("FEED THE FUTURE”, USAID, June 28, 2013, http://www.usaid.gov/what-we-do/agricultureand-food-security/increasing-food-security-through-feed-future) // NVG
Almost 1 billion people across the globe go to bed hungry every night. To meet the needs of a world
population expected to reach 9 billion by 2050, agricultural production will need to increase by at least 60
percent. Given scarcity of resources, we will also have to be more efficient in how we meet this demand.
Ensuring that people have sufficient food requires aligning short-term assistance with a long-term
development strategy to help countries feed their own people. What is Food Security? Food security
means having, at all times, both physical and economic access to sufficient food to meet dietary
needs for a productive and healthy life. A family is food secure when its members do not live in hunger
or fear of hunger. Food insecurity is often rooted in poverty and has long-term impacts on the
ability of families, communities and countries to develop. Prolonged undernourishment stunts
growth, slows cognitive development and increases susceptibility to illness. USAID is advancing
global food security by helping to improve the most basic of human conditions: the need that
families and individuals have for a reliable source of quality food and sufficient resources to
purchase it. This, in turn, supports global stability and prosperity. Feed the Future is the U.S.
Government’s global hunger and food security initiative, which establishes a foundation for lasting
progress against global hunger. With a focus on smallholder farmers, particularly women, Feed the
Future supports partner countries in developing their agriculture sectors to spur economic growth
that increases incomes and reduces hunger, poverty and undernutrition. Feed the Future efforts are
driven by country-led priorities and rooted in partnership with governments, donor organizations, the
private sector and civil society to enable long-term success. Led by USAID, Feed the Future draws on
the strengths of agencies across the U.S. Government and leverages resources and efforts with
multilateral organizations, NGOs, the private sector, research institutions and other stakeholders
to accelerate inclusive agricultural growth. Working in partnership with U.S. Government and
multilateral agencies, partner countries, civil society, research institutions and the private sector, over five
years Feed the Future aims to reduce the prevalence of poverty by 20 percent and the prevalence of
stunted children under five years of age by 20 percent in the areas where we work.
Impacts: FTF k Famine
Feed the Future solves poverty, famine – empirics prove
McConnell 7-1
[Kathryn, IIP Staff Writer, “Feed the Future Reaches 9 Million Households” July 1, 2013,
http://geneva.usmission.gov/2013/07/02/feed-the-future-reaches-9-million-households/]
The U.S. Feed the Future program helped more than 7 million farmers in 19 countries adopt
improved agricultural technologies or practices in 2012, increased the value of commodity exports by $84
million, and helped bring almost 4 million hectares of farmland under better cultivation. Feed the Future
highlights these and other accomplishments in its progress report released June 28. Feed the Future is the
U.S. initiative created in 2009 to support global food security and nutrition by focusing on cost-effective
results and by aligning with country-led plans to generate economic growth. With a focus on small-holder
farmers, particularly women, Feed the Future engages the private sector, citizen groups and the
research community. The report notes that in 2012 Feed the Future forged more than 660 publicprivate partnerships to improve food security and generated $150 million in agricultural and rural
loans. Overall, the program has reached 9 million households through increased farm yields
and better nutrition. “Our efforts to date have put food security and nutrition back on the global
development agenda,” the report states. Looking ahead, the report says that in five years Feed the
Future aims to reduce poverty and child stunting by 20 percent. The program seeks to build
resilience to reduce the number of people who are vulnerable to food-price or climate shocks or who have
limited connections to local and regional markets that can provide them with sustainable incomes. It
works to make growth lasting by incorporating technology and innovation. “With our support,
smallholders are producing more food, are doing so more efficiently and are able to sell their produce at
better prices,” the report states. “These producers hold the key to agricultural growth and transformation.”
Feed the Future draws on the strengths of 10 administrative arms of the U.S. government. The U.S.
Agency for International Development provides the program with overall leadership. USAID also
contributes to the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP) administered by the World
Bank. The United States spearheaded the creation of GAFSP following the 2007–2008 spike in food
prices to help the world’s poorest farmers grow and earn more so they can lift themselves out of
poverty.The Department of State uses diplomacy to coordinate and increase resources from other donors
and to advance policy reforms. The Millennium Challenge Corporation supports country requests for
assistance with infrastructure improvement, land policy reform and business training. The Peace Corps
dedicates volunteers to support community economic development projects in agriculture, the
environment and nutrition. The U.S. Department of Agriculture supports agricultural research and
extension, and economic and market analysis. The U.S. African Development Foundation builds the
capacity of farmer and food processor associations and helps expand rural economies. The Department of
Commerce supports trade and investment in the 19 focus countries and provides weather and climate
forecasting. The Overseas Private Investment Corporation also supports investment through insurance,
debt financing and support for private equity funds. The other two agencies involved are the Department
of Treasury, which coordinates multilateral development bank support, and the Office of the U.S. Trade
Representative, which works on trade and investment policy. “Feed the Future was born of the belief that
global hunger is solvable,” Secretary of State John Kerry writes in the report’s introduction. “ We have
come a long way in a short time, but we must keep up the effort .” The report concludes: “By
catalyzing and enabling efforts of responsible national and local institutions, private organizations and
businesses and civil societies, we will succeed in making our generation’s legacy one in which
hunger, poverty and under-nutrition are replaced by shared prosperity and progress.” The
19 Feed the Future focus countries are Bangladesh, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guatemala, Haiti,
Honduras, Kenya, Liberia, Mali, Malawi, Mozambique, Nepal, Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania, Tajikistan,
Uganda and Zambia.
Impacts: Food Diplomacy
US food leadership spills over—key to success on energy and science cooperation
Lugar 2k8
(Dick Lugar, U.S. Senator, “Overcoming Hunger Should be Starting Point for Domestic, Foreign Policy,”
STATES NEWS SERVICE, 11—7—08,
www.usagnet.com/state_headlines/state_story.php?tble=IN2008&ID=846 )
As we contemplate the policies of the next administration and Congress in a time of extreme economic uncertainty, we must remind ourselves that hunger has its own timetable. It does not wait for convenient
political circumstances. In fact, it usually strikes when times are most difficult. Frequently, it arrives on the heels of drought, flood, war, or disease. But as we have experienced recently, it can also follow from
less dramatic economic circumstances that increase the price of food for those least able to afford it. We live in a world where nearly one billion people suffer from chronic food insecurity. The World Food
If we
fail in our response to hunger, numerous other priorities - both at home and abroad - are at risk. Hungry children learn less in school and are more
Program reports that 25,000 people die each day from malnutrition-related causes. Ensuring that people are fed, therefore, must be a baseline humanitarian imperative. But it is also a strategic issue.
vulnerable to a range of diseases. If young children suffer sustained malnutrition, they often develop serious cognitive deficiencies, with dire consequences for society’s future. In a global context, our diplomatic
efforts to maintain peace will be far more difficult wherever food shortages contribute to extremism and conflict. Our hopes for economic development in poor countries will continually be frustrated if
overcoming hunger should be one of the starting points for both U.S. domestic and
foreign policy. The growing urgency to achieve food security presents the United States with special responsibilities and unique
opportunities. We are the indisputable world leader in agricultural production and technology. A more focused effort on our part to join with other nations to increase yields,
improve food distribution, and broaden agricultural knowledge could contribute to a new era in U.S. diplomacy. In the best case, the cause of ending hunger
populations are unable to feed themselves. In short,
worldwide would become a pillar of U.S. foreign policy, and it would be recognized as such by nations around the world. Such an effort could build relationships with nations where, up to now, we have had few
It could help solidify our global image, improve our trade relations, and serve as a model for
similar efforts in the areas of energy and scientific cooperation.
mutual endeavors.
Science diplomacy is key to preventing resource wars
Federoff 2k8
(Nina V. Fedoroff, PhD. An Science and Technology Advisor, Secretary of State, Testimony before the House
Science Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, 4—2—08,
http://www.state.gov/g/stas/2008/105286.htm)
The welfare and stability of countries and regions in many parts of the globe require a concerted effort by the developed world to address the causal factors that render countries fragile and cause states to fail.
the
world faces common threats, among them climate change, energy and water shortages, public health emergencies, environmental degradation,
Countries that are unable to defend their people against starvation, or fail to provide economic opportunity, are susceptible to extremist ideologies, autocratic rule, and abuses of human rights. As well,
poverty, food insecurity, and religious extremism. These threats can undermine the national security of the United States, both directly and indirectly. Many are blind to political boundaries, becoming regional or
The United States has no monopoly on knowledge in a globalizing world and the scientific challenges facing
humankind are enormous. Addressing these common challenges demands common solutions and necessitates scientific
cooperation, common standards, and common goals. We must increasingly harness the power of American ingenuity in science and
technology through strong partnerships with the science community in both academia and the private sector, in the U.S. and abroad among our allies, to advance U.S.
global threats.
interests in foreign policy. There are also important challenges to the ability of states to supply their populations with sufficient food. The still-growing human population, rising affluence in emerging economies,
and other factors have combined to create unprecedented pressures on global prices of staples such as edible oils and grains. Encouraging and promoting the use of contemporary molecular techniques in crop
improvement is an essential goal for US science diplomacy. An essential part of the war on terrorism is a war of ideas. The creation of economic opportunity can do much more to combat the rise of fanaticism
than can any weapon. The war of ideas is a war about rationalism as opposed to irrationalism. Science and technology put us firmly on the side of rationalism by providing ideas and opportunities that improve
We may use the recognition and the goodwill that science still generates for the United States to achieve
our diplomatic and developmental goals. Additionally, the Department continues to use science as a means to reduce the
proliferation of the w eapons’ of m ass d estruction and prevent what has been dubbed ‘brain drain’. Through cooperative threat reduction activities, former weapons scientists
people’s lives.
redirect their skills to participate in peaceful, collaborative international research in a large variety of scientific fields. In addition, new global efforts focus on improving biological, chemical, and nuclear security
by promoting and implementing best scientific practices as a means to enhance security, increase global partnerships, and create sustainability.
Impacts: Food Turns Trade
US food shortages cause protectionism
Pollan ‘8
(BOOKS ARTICLESAPPEARANCESMEDIA PRESS KITNEWSRESOURCES TODAY’S LINK Farmer
in Chief By Michael Pollan The New York Times Magazine, October 12, 2008
The impact of the American food system on the rest of the world will have implications for your foreign and trade
policies as well. In the past several months more than 30 nations have experienced food riots, and so far one
government has fallen. Should high grain prices persist and shortages develop, you can expect to see the pendulum
shift decisively away from free trade, at least in food. Nations that opened their markets to the global flood of cheap grain (under
pressure from previous administrations as well as the World Bank and the I.M.F.) lost so many farmers that they now find their ability to feed
their own populations hinges on decisions made in Washington (like your predecessor’s precipitous embrace of biofuels) and on Wall Street.
They will now rush to rebuild their own agricultural sectors and then seek to protect them by erecting trade barriers.
Expect to hear the phrases “food sovereignty” and “food security” on the lips of every foreign leader you meet. Not only the Doha round, but the
whole cause of free trade in agriculture is probably dead, the casualty of a cheap food policy that a scant two years ago seemed like a boon for
everyone. It is one of the larger paradoxes of our time that the very same food policies that have contributed to overnutrition in the first world are
now contributing to undernutrition in the third. But it turns out that too much food can be nearly as big a problem as too little — a lesson we
should keep in mind as we set about designing a new approach to food policy.
Impacts: Food Security
Food insecurity causes worldwide instability and terror - empirics prove.
SPIEGEL 8 (SPEIGEL staff, “Global Food Crisis: The Fury of the Poor”, Spiegel Online, the 16th Issue, 2008,
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/global-food-crisis-the-fury-of-the-poor-a-547198.html) //
NVG
Food is become increasingly scarce and expensive, and it is already unaffordable for many people.
The world's 200 wealthiest people have as much money as about 40 percent of the global
population, and yet 850 million people have to go to bed hungry every night. This c alamity is "one of
the worst violations of human dignity ," says former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan.¶ (graphic omitted by NVG)
Consequences of the global food crisis¶ Should we be surprised that despair often turns into violence? The food crisis
afflicts the world's poor -- in Africa, South Asia and the Middle East -- like a biblical plague. Prices
for staples like rice, corn and wheat, which were relatively stable for years, have skyrocketed by over 180 percent in the last
three years. A bottleneck is developing whose consequences are potentially more severe than the
global crisis in the financial markets. With nothing left to lose , people on the brink of starvation are more
likely to react with boundless fury.¶
The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) addressed this global crisis at
a joint meeting last weekend. World Bank President Robert Zoellick warned that exploding
food prices threaten to cause
instability in at least 33 countries, including regional powers like Egypt, Indonesia and Pakistan,
where the army has had to be brought in to protect flour transports . The crisis is helping radical
Islamic movements gain strength in North Africa. There has been unrest in recent weeks in
Mauritania, Mozambique, Senegal, the Ivory Coast and Cameroon, where the violence has already
claimed about 100 lives.¶ There are several reasons for the food crisis:¶ The world population is growing
constantly, while the amount of arable land is declining.¶ Climate change is causing a loss of agricultural land, irreversible in some cases,
as a result of droughts, floods, storms and erosion.¶ Because of changing eating habits, more and more arable land and virgin forests
are being turned into pasture for livestock. The yield per acre in calories of land given over to pasture is substantially lower than that
of arable land.¶ The World Bank wants developing countries to introduce market reforms, including the abolition of protective tariffs, a move that
often causes massive damage to local agriculture.¶ Speculators are driving up the prices of raw materials. The resulting high oil price leads to
"energy crops" being cultivated instead of grain for food or animal feed. ¶ Millions
of people displaced by civil wars need
food, and yet they themselves are no longer capable of producing food.¶ What we are beginning to
face is not just an acute bottleneck, but a worldwide, fundamental food crisis. It affects most of all
the poor, who spend a disproportionately large share of their income on food and water . The crisis
is so dire that it is obliterating any progress made in recent years in fighting disease and starvation.¶
With too many people and not enough agricultural land, a struggle for the distribution of the best farmland is taking shape that could turn into a
new North-South conflict. "These days you hear a lot about the world financial crisis," wrote US economist Paul Krugman recently in his regular
column in the New York Times. "But there’s
people."¶
another world crisis under way -- and it’s hurting a lot more
*****USAID Bad*****
1NC Frontline
USAID is understaffed and dysfunctional
Frumin, 9-International Affairs Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations (Amy, “Diagnosing USAID”,
CFR, March/April 2009, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/64663/amy-b-frumin/diagnosingusaid)//JW
The former U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) administrators J. Brian Atwood, M. Peter McPherson, and Andrew Natsios
("Arrested Development," November/December 2008) explain that despite the U.S. government's having elevated the status of development to be
on par with defense and diplomacy, USAID has been so emasculated over the last several decades that it is not an effective member of the
triumvirate of U.S. national security strategy tools. The only solution the authors see is a wholesale reform of the institutions of foreign
assistance, including making USAID an independent department, creating a National Security Council position focused on foreign assistance, and
unifying all sources of foreign assistance under USAID.¶ Reform is needed. However, as a former USAID field officer in Afghanistan, I propose
a less Washington-centric reform strategy.
From Washington's political and strategic perspective, it does not
make sense to elevate the bureaucratic status of USAID when there is so little faith in the
organization to begin with. The authors themselves claim USAID is dysfunctional. Congress demonstrated its lack of
confidence in USAID by increasing the Department of Defense's allocation of official development assistance funds from 3.5 percent to 21.7
percent between 1999 and 2005. In that same period, USAID's
share of official development assistance decreased
from 65 percent to less than 40 percent.¶ Prioritizing bureaucratic reform in Washington also does not make sense from a
national security perspective. In a world of unconventional modern warfare, fragile states characterized by
corruption and poverty are now the enemy, and reconstruction and development are the tools to
combat them. Because USAID cannot carry out these tasks effectively, the military has been
charged with doing more of them. Piling another mandate that requires an entirely new skill set onto an overstretched military not
only distracts it from its main task of fighting wars but also underutilizes the organization established to address these issues: USAID. The United
States cannot afford to wait until Washington works through the political tangle of reforming foreign assistance to make USAID more functional
in the field.¶ After
decades of scrutiny and downsizing, USAID has become an anemic organization,
with a fifth the number of staff it had in the 1960s and a fraction of the agility and autonomy it had
when it was better funded. Reform should begin by giving USAID the human and financial resources it needs to succeed in the field.
Of course, political will is required to make these changes, and that will must come from the president's office.
USAID workers are overstretched-decreased work force and lack of skill and
knowledge
LOSEY, 10- Senior staff writer , Federal Times (Stephen, “Managers struggle to reverse
understaffing”, Federal Times, August 2, 2010,
http://www.federaltimes.com/print/article/20100802/PERSONNEL01/8020301/Managers-strugglereverse-understaffing)//JW
The federal government's latest survey of its work force appears to show growing concerns about
insufficient staffing and other resources and a work force that may not have the right knowledge
and skills to do the job.¶ And those problems are surfacing in different ways throughout the government.¶ At the Veterans Affairs
Department, senior officials are worried they can't lure enough specialized doctors such as oncologists to work in rural areas.¶ At the U.S.
Agency for International Development, some employees risk burnout by wearing two or three hats
at a time, while some important duties fall between the cracks.¶ And — reflecting both a cause and a
symptom of the understaffing problem — human resources officials are overstretched and
scrambling to meet their agencies' demands.¶ In the case of USAID, the problem stems from
insufficient work-force planning as the agency failed to hire new employees as experienced
employees retired. Now, USAID is hiring again, but it lacks midlevel officers who ought to have been developed over the last several
years.¶ "We've gone more than a decade without replacing attrition," Mary Beth Zankowski, USAID's senior adviser for strategic work-force
planning, said in an interview. "In a way, we're playing catch-up. The bill has come due."¶ A June report from the Government
Accountability Office found that USAID's work force dropped 2.7 percent — from 7,626 to 7,421 — between
2004 and 2009. Meanwhile, USAID's program funding nearly doubled to $17.9 billion as its missions have increased in places like Iraq,
Afghanistan and Sudan. USAID doesn't have data on work-force gaps, but a GAO review found that 66 of 546 authorized positions in six
countries were unfilled.¶ "Mission officials in each of these countries stated that it is not uncommon for positions to remain vacant for a lengthy
period," GAO wrote. "During this time staff may assume multiple responsibilities and accept additional workload, which present some challenges
in the agency's ability to manage and oversee its activities."¶ Zankowski said burnout is a real danger for employees who are asked to do several
jobs at once. What's more, the department's projects suffer. Contracts and approvals get delayed, staffers don't have time to conduct vital meetings
with the people working on the projects, and they don't travel to sites to oversee work as much as they should. If someone finishes the first phase
of a project and then is reassigned elsewhere, the second phase could languish because nobody is there to take up the project, she said.¶
USAID employees are so overstretched that the department can't even get a handle on how far
behind they are.¶ "Going out and asking each mission what their backlog is would be another burden," Zankowski said. ¶ To try to fix the
problem, Zankowski said USAID has brought in contractors and rehired former employees. Meanwhile, USAID is trying to develop junior
staffers as quickly as possible so they don't have to fill positions for which they aren't ready. ¶ In previous years, USAID threw inexperienced
officers "in over their head" by putting them in charge of overseas offices with multimillion-dollar budgets, said Bill Douglass, USAID's acting
development initiative coordinator. This led to a high failure rate, he said. But in 2008, USAID started the Development Leadership Initiative,
where officers are trained and mentored in Washington and overseas for up to three years, to ease them into higher positions. ¶ "They need
seasoning," Zankowski said. "If you put them in a position that is beyond their experience to perform, they're not going to be successful." ¶ At VA,
managers must recruit constantly to avoid vacancies as nurses, doctors, pharmacists, therapists and other medical staffers retire or otherwise leave
the agency, Chief Human Capital Officer John Sepulveda said.¶ The need for people with rare, high-demand skills, even in remote parts of the
country, is increasing along with the growing veteran population returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. And new regulations making it easier for
veterans to obtain treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder are certain to create even more hiring demands at VA, Sepulveda said. ¶ "We're
competing, even in this economy," Sepulveda said. "We're constantly looking to fill those positions."¶ VA is relying on recruitment, retention and
relocation incentives to draw talented medical staffers to its clinics. In 2008, VA spent almost $54 million on incentives, second only to the
Defense Department.¶ At the General Services Administration, contracting officers tasked with overseeing Recovery Act spending are
overburdened, due both to understaffing and a growing, high-pressure workload.¶ "I think the federal government has been historically
understaffed when it comes to contracting officers," GSA Inspector General Brian Miller said in a June meeting with Federal Times. "Now they
need to hire quickly. Just gearing up the human resources people to hire new people, get them trained, get them experience and to find them —
those are factors in terms of hiring the contracting officers."¶ But HR offices are facing a crunch of their own, especially at USAID.¶
GAO
said USAID's chief operating officer last year found the agency's HR office was "barely meeting its
current workload demands with its existing staff of 86 and will not be able to meet the demands
generated by the agency's human capital initiatives and planned growth."¶ Zankowski said the downsizing of
the late 1990s took a devastating chunk out of the government's HR specialists, and offices are still suffering as a result. She said her office hears
complaints about poor customer service, and said the office probably needs about 120 people to properly function. ¶ "Rebuilding that cadre is
extremely important," Zankowski said. "If we want to retain our work force, we have to have a robust, vibrant HR office that can provide services
to employees."¶ And Zankowski, a 35-year federal employee, worries about what will happen to her office when she retires in December. ¶
"There's no one behind me when I leave," Zankowski said.
USAID failed to train workers-failed to implement improvement recommendations
Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), 3/5 – progressive economic policy
think-tank (“Another Inspector General Audit, Another Failing Grade for USAID in Haiti
“, 3/5/2013, Center for Economic and Policy Research, http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/relief-andreconstruction-watch/another-inspector-general-audit-another-failing-grade-for-usaid-in-haiti)//JW
The U.S. Agency for International Development Inspector General (IG) last week released an audit of a program to provide loans to businesses in
Haiti (available here). The audit is just the latest report from the IG to find significant problems with USAID’s programs in Haiti, following
previous findings regarding cash-for-work programs, shelter provision, food aid and USAID’s largest contractor, Chemonics. The Associated
Press’ Trenton Daniel reports that:¶ An audit of a U.S. Agency for International Department program that aimed to boost Haiti's economy by
providing loans to businesses has found that the program failed to award loans to intended targets, train workers and keep accurate records.¶ The
aim of the audit released in late February by USAID's Office of the Inspector General was to see whether a USAID loan program was indeed
introducing lending practices to overlooked areas and borrowers, particularly in the areas of agriculture, construction, tourism, handicrafts and
waste management. Most of the loans were supposed to go toward women, first-time borrowers and small- and medium-sized enterprises.¶ The
loan program provided some $37.5 million in guarantees, of which just over $19 million in guarantees have been extended. According to publicly
available data, only about a quarter went to woman-owned businesses, less than 30 percent went to first-time borrowers, and 75 percent were
concentrated in the West department, though these numbers likely overstate the reality on the ground. In addition to many other problems, the
audit found that “the key monitoring data was outdated, incomplete, or inaccurate,” for example, information on whether the recipient was a firsttime borrower was “recorded incorrectly 41 percent of the time.” ¶ The focus of the audit, Daniel reports, was the four largest of the seven
guarantees, “worth $31.5 million,” of the $37.5 million total. Of these Daniel notes that two were made after the 2010 earthquake:¶ They were a
Haitian bank named Sogebank, a Haitian development finance institution named Sofihdes that USAID helped create in 1983 and an agriculturefocused outfit named Le Levier Federation.¶ The audit found that few women and first-time borrowers received loans and lenders didn't make
much effort to work with them.¶ And while the loans were intended to target “development corridors,” Daniel notes, ¶ Instead they stayed in the
Port-au-Prince area.¶ Ninety percent of Sogebank's loans were confined to the capital and the bank didn't give loans to other parts of the country.
Some 81 percent of the Sofihdes loans were in Haiti's capital.¶ Other problems included that,¶ The
USAID office in Haiti failed to
properly train workers who make the loan guarantee coverage decisions. Lenders didn't always
understand or carry out program goals and didn't always adjust lending practices to meet the
goals.¶ And¶ The loans weren't supposed to go to enterprises that appeared on a list of "prohibited
businesses" that supported law enforcement activities, surveillance, gambling, tobacco,
pharmaceuticals, and alcohol and jewelry. Loans, however, went to some of these businesses
because, the audit said, "lenders didn't have effective practices in place and because USAID didn't
periodically review the loans."¶ The loan program sought to expand financial services to underserved areas but most borrowers
already had relationships with at least one of the lenders. More than a quarter of the Sofihdes and Sogebank borrowers interviewed by auditors
said they could qualify for a loan elsewhere.¶ Many of the problems found by the IG revolve around the lack of oversight provided by USAID,
which allowed the problems detailed above to occur. As we have previously noted, USAID's increasing reliance on contractors has affected
As was the case with
previous audits conducted by the IG, the report includes a number of recommendations for USAID
on how to improve the program. While USAID agreed to all the recommendations, the agency has a
record of failing to implement IG recommendations. A report released today by the U.S. House Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform notes that USAID has over 1,200 “open and unimplemented” recommendations. The report notes that the
USAID IG, “disclosed numerous unimplemented recommendations related to vast overpayments
and suggested recoveries of unsupported or ineligible costs,” incurred by contractors. ¶ The lack of
implementation is tied to the absence of permanent leadership in the IG offices at USAID and other
agencies. The Project on Government Oversight, which tracks IG vacancies, notes that, “a permanent IG has the ability to set a long-term
efforts to provide greater oversight, implement procurement reform and improve the efficacy of U.S. aid in Haiti. ¶
strategic plan for the office, including setting investigative and audit priorities. An acting official, on the other hand, is known by all OIG staff to
be temporary, which one former IG has argued “can have a debilitating effect on [an] OIG, particularly over a lengthy period.” Senator Charles
Grassley (R-IA) has echoed that sentiment, saying “Even the best acting inspector general lacks the standing to make lasting changes needed to
improve his or her office.Ӧ USAID has been without a permanent IG for 507 days.
USAID programs empirically fail and do not take steps to improve-Afghanistan
GAO, 10- audit, evaluation, and investigative arm of the United States Congress (“AFGHANISTAN
DEVELOPMENT:¶ Enhancements to Performance Management and Evaluation Efforts Could Improve
USAID's Agricultural Programs¶ “,U.S. Government Accountability Office, Jul 14, 2010¶ ,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-368)//JW
Eighty percent of Afghans are dependent on agriculture for their livelihoods. Agricultural assistance is a key U.S. contribution to Afghanistan's
reconstruction efforts. Since 2002, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has awarded about $1.4
billion for agricultural programs to increase agricultural productivity, accelerate economic growth, and
eliminate illicit drug cultivation. This report (1) describes the change in U.S. focus on agricultural
assistance since 2002, (2) assesses USAID's performance management and evaluation of its
agricultural programs, (3) analyzes the extent to which certain programs met targets, and (4)
addresses efforts to mitigate implementation challenges. GAO reviewed USAID documents; analyzed program data; and
interviewed program implementers and USAID officials in Washington, D.C., and Afghanistan. GAO has prepared this report as
part of its ongoing efforts to monitor key aspects of U.S. efforts in Afghanistan.¶ The United States' focus in
providing agricultural assistance to Afghanistan shifted from food security programs in 2002 to counternarcotics-related alternative-development
programs in 2005. This focus on providing farmers with alternatives to growing opium poppy lasted through 2008. In 2009, the Administration
shifted the focus of its agricultural strategy in Afghanistan from counternarcotics to counterinsurgency, noting that economic growth and new job
creation were critical to U.S. efforts in Afghanistan because they provide alternatives to narcotics- and insurgent-related activities. USAID's
Automated Directives System established planning, monitoring, and evaluation procedures that USAID was expected to follow in Afghanistan.
USAID planning efforts prior to 2009 largely follow these procedures. However, since the end of 2008, USAID has operated without a required
Mission performance management plan for Afghanistan. In addition, USAID
did not approve all implementing partner
monitoring plans for the eight USAID agricultural programs, which represented about 75 percent
of all USAID agricultural awards since 2002. USAID also did not assure all indicators had targets.
USAID undertook efforts to monitor agricultural programs, but due to security concerns could not consistently verify reported data. USAID did
not consistently analyze and interpret or document program performance for these eight programs, active between 2007 and 2009, on which our
review focused.
In the absence of this analysis, USAID did not document decisions linking program
performance to changes made to the duration or funding of programs. USAID conducted one evaluation
covering three of the eight programs, but the extent to which or whether USAID used the evaluation to enhance current or future programs is
unclear. We found that the eight agricultural programs we reviewed did not always establish or achieve their targets for each performance
indicator. USAID requires implementing partners to submit information on indicators, targets, and results. We measured performance for the
Six of the eight
programs did not meet their performance targets in the most recent year for which targets were
reported. For the two programs that met all their targets, we found they failed to establish targets
for several indicators and, thus, we could not fully assess performance for those indicators. We also
eight programs by comparing annual results against annual targets and determining the extent to which targets were met.
found that the three longest-running programs in our review showed declines in performance from fiscal years 2006 to 2008. USAID
faces
several challenges to implementing its agricultural programs in Afghanistan, such as the security
environment, and has taken steps to mitigate other challenges, such as working to improve Afghan
government capacity. However, while USAID's lack of documentation and high staff turnover have
hampered USAID's ability to maintain institutional knowledge, the agency has not taken steps to
address this challenge. GAO recommends that the USAID Administrator take a number of steps to enhance performance planning,
monitoring and evaluation, and knowledge transfer procedures. USAID agreed with our recommendations, highlighted ongoing efforts to
improve in these areas, and noted the high-threat environment in which they are operating.
Business partners worry about USAID’s decentralized structure
Global Development Alliances (GDA), 08- (“EVALUATING GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT
ALLIANCES: ¶ AN ANALYSIS OF USAID’S ¶ PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS FOR ¶
DEVELOPMENT “, USAID, 10/29/08,
http://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1880/GDA_Evaluation_reformatted_10.29.08.pdf)//J
W
Business partners expressed concerns about the approach that USAID uses to fund GDAs.
Concerns ¶ were raised about USAID’s decentralized structure, its ability to encourage replicability,
and the likelihood of ¶ sustainability. ¶ Business partners expressed concern that funding and
responsibility for GDA partnerships is now ¶ decentralized and might be in the process of becoming
even more so, and about the need to engage in ¶ (often) unique negotiations at the Mission-level in
every country of potential interest. Company ¶ representatives understand that a decentralized model helps to ensure alignment
with Mission priorities and ¶ through them with local needs and objectives. Nevertheless, there is significant concern that such
a ¶ decentralized funding system sometimes means that thprocess weighs USAID interests more
heavily than ¶ partners’ interests. Business interviewees suggest that the parties seek a compromise, one which establishes ¶ some
degree of up-front centralized support. One business interviewee notes that “while we should need ¶ some sort of buy-in from the mission,
projects shouldn’t necessarily need funding from the mission if the ¶ model has proven successful. With limited funding, the goal of GDA should
be to establish a beachhead for ¶ projects and then to get missions to pick them up.” ¶
funding model encourages replication and scalability. One ¶ business interviewee notes that: “It would be better if USAID funded the projects that
show success. We ¶ should be able to go ‘back to the well’, show proven success, and then take projects to scale. This is now the ¶ focus of the
better philanthropic programs and GDA should mirror this approach.” Headquarters-level ¶ business partners also express concerns about their
GDA funding is becoming more decentralized and thus more
liable to changes in budgets, in foreign policy ¶ or in Missions’ interests. ¶
concerned that USAID might be reducing its focus on multi-year projects. Companies find ¶ that it is easier (for
ability to take successful alliances to scale given that ¶
them) to give staff time and resources to multi-year, well-funded projects, which ¶ ultimately leads to better functioning alliances and greater
impact. Business partners also assert that since ¶ alliances not only take significant time and energy to get going, but also can require several years
to get the ¶ “right” local actors directly involved and vested in the partnership, multi-year funding should be the GDA ¶ model’s standard
approach. One business interviewee commented that longer-term project timelines allows ¶ for greater private sector flexibility. In this case, a 5year initial project term freed the company from yearly ¶ reapplication for funding, which allowed a slightly looser timeline to develop. This in
turn, allowed more ¶ time for partner relationship and trust building, and delivered enormous benefits to the project activities of ¶ the alliance. ¶
The time it takes to establish global alliances creates challenges for business partners. Corporate ¶ headquarters
staff noted that
too much time elapses from initial conversations to the formal establishment of a ¶ DC-based global
relationship. Corporate staff with responsibility for global public-private partnerships ¶ expressed a general sentiment of frustration with the
alliance establishment process: one interviewee ¶ commented “GDA needs to concentrate less on talking and more on moving forward and
addressing the ¶ central issue of doing something for people.” Business partners suggested that the process for establishing ¶ GDA partnerships
should be streamlined and clarified since the current slow pace impedes their ability to ¶ make an effective case for funding to their executive
teams. (This point also has implications, and is expanded ¶ upon, in the Roles and Responsibilities section).
Security assistance is different than economic and social assistance
Cutshall et al, 09-Democracy and Governance Advisor, USAID (Charles, “Integrating USAID and ¶
DOS: The Future of ¶ Development and ¶ Diplomacy”, INSCT, June 2009, http://insct.syr.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2013/02/Integrating-USAID.pdf)//JW
S ECURITY ASSISTANCE SHOULD B E DIFFERENT THAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL¶
ASSISTANCE¶ The blanket term “foreign assistance” encompasses many different types of direct ¶
aid: military, economic, and social, among others. Military aid is an important ¶ function of the US
government, providing increased security measures for fragile or ¶ needy governments unable to
meet their requirements without assistance. NATO ¶ Partnership for Peace training missions, provision
of arms and supplies to the ¶ African Union, and surveillance assistance to Pakistan are all examples of
military ¶ aid. In most instances, however, it would be inaccurate to describe what the ¶ military tactically
terms “foreign assistance” as development. ¶ Foreign assistance directed at the reconstruction of
markets, schools, hospitals, ¶ roads, wells, and other vital social infrastructure should be organized,
planned and ¶ delivered by civilian agencies as it is a much different type of aid. Security versus ¶
economic or social aid requires different approaches, skills for delivery, and work to ¶ achieve goals
incomparable to one another.
USAID is dysfunctional
Carothers, 09 - vice president, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (Thomas, “Revitalizing ¶ U.S.
DemocRacy ¶ aSSiStance ¶ the challenge of USaiD”, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2009,
http://carnegieendowment.org/files/revitalizing_democracy_assistance.pdf)//JW
The causes of USAID’s troubled performance in the democracy and ¶ governance field are hardly
mysterious. They are part and parcel of the ¶ debilitating institutional deficiencies that plague the agency as a
whole. ¶ As is unfortunately all too well-known, over the last two decades USAID ¶ has sunk to a
low state—dysfunctional in fundamental ways, demoralized ¶ internally, marginalized within the
U.S. government, and disrespected in ¶ many quarters at home and abroad. This deterioration is the
result of an ¶ interlocking series of basic ills, including but not limited to: ¶ ƒ An unproductive relationship with
Congress that ¶ involves, among other things, excessive budgetary ¶ earmarking, onerous reporting
practices, episodic ¶ interest and support, and deep-seated mutual distrust;¶ ƒ An uneasy and often
tense relationship with the ¶ State Department (both before and after the 2006 ¶ reorganization putting
USAID more fully under State ¶ Department direction) in the field and in Washington; ¶ ƒ The lack of a clear,
stable development mandate;¶ instead, shifting priorities, often imposed from outside ¶ the
agency;¶ ƒ Repeated bouts of weak leadership;¶ ƒ A badly outdated legislative foundation for
foreign ¶ assistance consisting of a 48-year-old original law ¶ overlaid with multiple amendments, often
overlapping ¶ or contradictory;¶ ƒ Requirements for tying aid (requiring that aid funds ¶ be spent on U.S. goods and
services) that inflate costs, ¶ undercut local ownership, and lessen impact;¶ ƒ A long-running pattern of
outsourcing the substantive ¶ side of USAID’s work to contractors and reducing the ¶ technical
capacities of the agency itself, resulting in ¶ a hollowed-out organization more preoccupied with
carnegie endowment for international peace ¶ revitalizing u.s. democracy assistance 21¶ administration and
management than the substance of ¶ development work;¶ ƒ Rigid, insensitive internal human resources
practices¶ that have contributed significantly to a serious depletion ¶ of the agency’s human
capital; and¶ ƒ Custodianship of major aid relationships between the ¶ United States and various key security
partners in which ¶ assistance is treated not as a serious developmental ¶ engagement but rather a reward for strategic
loyalty.¶ Many of these ¶ overarching maladies ¶ hurt the agency’s ¶ democracy and ¶ governance
work in one ¶ way or another. The ¶ heavy congressional ¶ earmarking of USAID’s ¶ budget, for example, ¶ tends
to favor certain ¶ socioeconomic issues, ¶ such as child health or ¶ education, resulting in a ¶ relatively small pool of ¶
non-earmarked funds ¶ from which democracy ¶ and governance ¶ programs can draw. ¶ The agency’s abysmal human
resources practices militate against attracting ¶ or keeping the best and brightest in the ranks of the agency to work
on ¶ democracy and governance programs. The tensions between USAID ¶ and the State Department
sometimes result in blockages or lack of clear ¶ direction.
USAID has eroded and there is no expertise
Cohen et al, 09- former senior fellow, New America Foundation (Michael A., “Revitalizing U.S. ¶ Democracy
Promotion: ¶ a Comprehensive Plan ¶ For Reform”, New America Foundation, April 2009,
http://www.newamerica.net/files/Revitalizing_US_Democracy_Promotion.pdf)//JW
The capacities of USAID have been significantly and fundamentally eroded over the past two
decades. While this ¶ has been the result of a bipartisan effort, no decision, in ¶ our view, has done more damage to
the agency than its ¶ incorporation into the State Department in the mid-1990s ¶ and the ongoing conflation of the
responsibilities of these ¶ two agencies. The State Department and USAID have very different missions and core
competencies. While the State Department ¶ must take into account short-term and urgent policy concerns, USAID’s
mission is (or at least should be) based on ¶ a very different time horizon. The integration of USAID ¶ into
State Department has led to staff cuts, a loss of technical expertise, and flagging morale. ¶ In 2008,
USAID had just over 2,200 employees, compared ¶ to 12,000 at the height of the Vietnam War. The agency’s ¶
diminished staff has made it almost completely dependent ¶ on NGOs and for-profit contractors to
carry out its work—¶ so much so that Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) complained last ¶ year that “USAID has
become a check writing agency for a ¶ handful of big Washington contractors and NGOs .…”5¶ In
recent years, there has been a raging debate in Washington ¶ about the appropriate balance between private
contractors ¶ and NGOs. While contractors argue that they are better ¶ positioned to carry out democratization work,
can ramp up ¶ capacity more quickly, and are more accountable to U.S. ¶ policymakers, questions have arisen about
the propriety of ¶ companies providing democracy assistance at a profit. ¶ Conversely, the lack of competition among
NGOs that rely ¶ on U.S. funding, along with their political clout, which protects their funding streams, has raised
concerns. There is ¶ a fundamental disagreement about the need for contracts ¶ that compel performance and include
metrics by which to ¶ judge success versus grants or cooperative agreements that ¶ offer NGOs the sort flexibility and
creativity they prize.¶ We are generally sympathetic to the notion that grantbased programs give NGOs needed
autonomy and help ¶ de-politicize U.S. aid. We also recognize that contractors ¶ bring important skills and
capabilities to the table, which ¶ cannot necessarily be matched by the nonprofit sector. ¶ However, we worry that this
debate may be clouding a ¶ larger and more important concern: namely, the loss of ¶ internal capacity at USAID for
direct implementation of ¶ democracy and development initiatives.¶ USAID is losing its ability to provide
essential technical ¶ assistance to emerging democracies—which is precisely ¶ the type of assistance that can be
most effective in promoting democratic rule. Today, the agency employs only ¶ a dozen economists and a handful of
engineers. For an ¶ organization whose mandate it is to provide technical andeconomic assistance to developing
countries, these are ¶ shockingly low numbers. The agency’s ability to oversee ¶ and manage the
contractors and grantees that operate in ¶ its name or more effectively tailor such assistance to the
¶ needs of recipient countries is seriously compromised by ¶ this lack of technical staff.
USAID basic operating procedures cause a dysfunctional bureaucratization
Carothers, 09 - vice president, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (Thomas, “Revitalizing ¶ U.S.
DemocRacy ¶ aSSiStance ¶ the challenge of USaiD”, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2009,
http://carnegieendowment.org/files/revitalizing_democracy_assistance.pdf)//JW
USAID’s basic operating procedures—a term used here as shorthand ¶ for the rules, regulations,
and procedures that underpin the agency’s ¶ programming—are a major cause of the lamentable
patterns of ¶ inflexibility, cumbersomeness, lack of innovation, and mechanical ¶ application that
hobble much of its democracy and governance ¶ work. These basic operating procedures are a study in
dysfunctional ¶ bureaucratization. Some career professionals at the agency liken them to ¶ an enormous
accumulation of barnacles on the hull of a ship. They are ¶ attached one by one over the years by Congress or the
agency itself in ¶ response to some particular incident or concern, but then they are never ¶ removed or rationalized
over time, and the accumulated mass threatens to ¶ eventually sink the ship.These basic operating procedures are
much more intrusive and ¶ constraining than just “normal” government bureaucracy. They reflect ¶ years of trying to
spend billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars on assistance ¶ programs carried out in difficult foreign contexts under the
constant ¶ fear that even a scrap of evidence that any money has been misspent will ¶ trigger howls of righteous
protest in Congress. Over time this pressure ¶ produces an institutional culture of paralyzing risk avoidance, leading
to ¶ ponderous controls and deadening requirements, as well as the pervasive ¶ mistrust noted above between the
agency and the recipients of its funding.¶ The highly problematic nature of USAID’s basic operating
procedures ¶ manifests itself at every stage of programming. The work involved in ¶ preparing
requests for proposals or requests for assistance and then ¶ negotiating and finalizing contracts or
grants is extremely burdensome. ¶ It greatly slows the development of new programs, encourages
the use ¶ of cookie-cutter approaches that have already paved a path through the ¶ procurement
jungle, and limits the number and range of organizations ¶ that compete for and take part in the
assistance programs.¶ The procedures relating to the implementation of programs are ¶ similarly
troublesome. USAID’s implementing partners reserve some of ¶ their harshest criticism for this part of the
assistance process. They describe ¶ the role of USAID officers overseeing their programs as often being ¶
petty, unhelpful micromanagement in service of a thicket of regulatory ¶ and procedural
complexities that make even simple actions, like hiring a ¶ short-term consultant or arranging a
training seminar, slow and difficult. ¶ They lament that basic elements of the implementation process make it ¶
a struggle to be nimble, to innovate as learning occurs, or to adapt easily ¶ when basic circumstances change.
*****Aff Answers*****
Uniq: Overstretch Now
USAID budget overstrech now – sequestration and security concerns
Biron 13
[Carey Biron, Inter Press Service, “Abrupt U.S. Cuts Could “Devastate” Overseas Development
Programmes” February 22 2013 http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/02/abrupt-u-s-cuts-could-devastateoverseas-development-programmes/]
WASHINGTON, Feb 22 2013 (IPS) - With just a week to go before massive, indiscriminate spending cuts
kick in across the U.S. government, policymakers and humanitarian groups are becoming
increasingly anxious about the enduring impact the cuts would have on the communities across
the globe assisted by U.S.-funded development and aid programmes. “[W]e fear that the U.S.agencies
that oversee humanitarian response will be put in an impossible position, choosing between
saving lives in one country over another,” 40 humanitarian groups wrote in an open letter to policymakers this week.
“We also ask that any additional resources not come from other critical poverty fighting accounts within the International Affairs
budget, which will also be under pressure.” The groups warn that costs for international humanitarian needs have
already become “overstretched” due to security concerns in Syria, Mali, Congo and Sudan, as
well as ongoing food security issues across the Sahel. In Syria alone, they note, humanitarianrelated costs are estimated at 1.5 billion dollars just through June, double the figure since
September. Driving these concerns is the suddenly real possibility that a piece of compromise legislation signed into law in
August 2011, aimed at forcing Republicans and Democrats to agree to a long-term deal to bring down the country’s foreign debt,
could be enacted starting Mar. 2. Known here as the “sequester”, the process stipulated that if such a deal were not agreed upon by
the end of last year, budgets across the federal government would be summarily slashed by 85 billion dollars this fiscal year and 1.2
trillion dollars over a decade. Most frustrating to economists and other observers is that the sequester does not cover most
healthcare-related spending, the source of much of the country’s soaring deficit. Yet because the legislation would become law
partway through the current fiscal year, all cuts would have to be done on an expedited basis to meet deadline requirements. While a
minor last-minute agreement was struck in late December, it merely pushed off a decision on the sequester. Meanwhile, Democrats,
led by President Barack Obama, are insisting that the debt problem needs to be solved by raising additional tax revenue, while
Republicans maintain that the money needs to come solely from lowering government spending. Importantly, the sequester
cuts were crafted to be “dumb”, in that neither policymakers nor agency heads would be
allowed to aim the cuts at waste or areas of lesser priority. The cuts are also purposefully painful to both
Democrats, who typically favour social programmes, and Republicans, who typically favour defence spending. For these reasons,
most observers had expected that legislators couldn’t possibly allow the sequester to go through. Analysts, after all, are forecasting
an economic contraction of up to 0.6 percent, with ramifications for essentially all U.S.citizens. However, barring further lastminute deals – and Congress is currently on a 10-day break – agencies throughout the states and federal government are currently
forced to scramble to plan for what could be one of the most destabilising moves the country has ever inflicted on itself. Cuts cost
lives No exemption will be made for overseas spending, despite constituting less than one percent of overall federal spending.
Indeed, as reported in a new public poll released Friday by the Pew Research Center, U.S. respondents preferred cutting “aid to the
world’s needy” more than any of 18 other budget options. According to information released this week by John Kerry, the new
secretary of state, the State Department and USAID, the country’s main overseas aid agency, would need to cut around
2.6 billion dollars from this year’s budget. That would entail chopping 200 million dollars in
humanitarian assistance and 400 million dollars in global health programmes. That would
include a reduction of 300 million dollars in the budget of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS,
Tuberculosis and Malaria – this year alone. “Such a reduction would hinder our ability to provide life saving food assistant
to 2 million people and USAID would have to cease, reduce, or not initiate assistance to millions of disaster affected people,” Kerry
wrote to legislators. He also noted that the cuts would “gravely impede” efforts at reducing AIDS-related and child deaths. “The
important thing to understand is that these cuts will cost lives,” said Jeremy Kadden, senior legislative manager with InterAction, an
alliance of U.S. NGOs working in developing countries. “We’ve made very significant progress over the past 10 years, with real
people improving their lives, and this would set that process back enormously, devastating actual people on the ground.” Sequester
cuts would lead to some three million children losing access to the basic education they’re currently receiving, Kadden says. Two
million people would also see reductions or outright cuts in food aid, while 600,000 children would lose nutrition assistance. (The
group is offering more figures here and here.) According to InterAction estimates, the United States has helped some 400 million
people get out of extreme poverty over the past two decades. Last year alone, U.S. food aid reached around 70 million people. New
baseline Despite the fact that the sequester was never meant as policy, its impact would
reverberate for years. According to a new article by Tony P. Hall, a former U.S. ambassador to the World Food Programme,
the current budget negotiations could prove to be “the most far-reaching for the next decade”. Pointing to the long-term
ramifications of even temporarily halting basic education, nutrition or health programmes, including vaccines, Kadden likewise
warns that the impact would be “enormous”. Further, this newly reduced funding could constitute baseline
budgets in the future. “If the budget in use at the end of fiscal year 2013 is, say, 5 percent lower
than in previous years, and that’s the basis for subsequent years, we’re talking about millions of people who
don’t have access to the food, vaccines or basic education they need,” Kadden says. “There are so many places around the world
right now that need help, and we need to ensure, first, that we do no harm. Unfortunately, that seems to be the direction we’re
heading in at the moment.”
Uniq: Mexican Aid Increasing
Foreign aid to Mexican development is increasing
Casey 12, correspondent at the Wall Street Journal, (Nicholas, “U.S. Shifts Mexico Drug Fight”, 9/17/12,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443720204578000463890865962.html) //LA
MEXICO CITY—Secretary of State Hillary Clinton meets her Mexican counterparts at a security summit
in Washington Tuesday to discuss the next phase in the drug war: how to train the judges and prosecutors
that will be trying suspected drug lords. The Merida Initiative, the U.S.'s $1.9 billion assistance program
to Mexico, began mostly as a means to buy military hardware like Black Hawk helicopters for Mexico.
But over the past two years, it has entered a new phase, in which purchases for the Mexican military are
taking a back seat to measures to mend the branches of Mexico's civilian government. The former
director of Colorado's penitentiary system has trained more than 5,000 Mexican prison officials in recent
years. Mexican jurists are running mock trials with visiting American judges to prepare for a transition to
oral hearings that will replace Mexico's enigmatic closed-door meetings where sentences are handed
down. "Different things have come to the fore at different times, but strengthening the rule of law in
Mexico is the area that's crucial right now," says Roberta Jacobson, the Assistant Secretary of State for
Western Hemisphere Affairs. Officials in both countries increasingly believe the root of Mexico's
problem lies in creating an honest police force, professional judges and a prison system comparable with
that in the U.S. The challenges are harder to measure but will take center stage at the so-called HighLevel Consultative Group on Tuesday, where Mrs. Clinton will be joined by Deputy Secretary of Defense
Ashton Carter, Attorney General Eric Holder and top officials from Mexican President Felipe Calderón's
cabinet. The two sides will also discuss topics ranging from border security to seizing assets of drug
cartel members in the U.S. "Our efforts to confront transnational crime on both sides of the border
benefited from a clear understanding that we had to multitask," says Mexican Ambassador to the U.S.
Arturo Sarukhán. While Mexico has had success at catching criminals, it's had less luck in putting them
behind bars—the country has a meager 2% conviction rate for most crimes. A new test came just last
week with the capture of Jorge "El Coss" Costilla, the alleged boss of Mexico's powerful Gulf Cartel. He
is the 23rd in Mexico's "37 Most Wanted" list to have either been killed or captured under Mr. Calderón;
after six years of fighting, the original heads of Mexico's drug gangs are mostly gone. That reality is
being reflected in how U.S. aid is being spent in Mexico. Assistance to the Mexican military has nearly
collapsed, with counternarcotics and security aid falling from a height of around $529 million in 2010 to
$67.5 million planned for next year. Meanwhile money meant for strengthening institutions from law
schools to prisons doubled in the last year, to $201.8 this year from $105 million in 2011. Training
Mexico to handle its own struggle could be more cost-effective for the U.S.—total aid this year to Mexico
is at $330 million, less than half its number 2010—in large part because training police and prosecutors is
less expensive than financing a military with big purchases like helicopters. One example both sides are
touting has to do with Mexico's courts, which are undergoing a radical overhaul. Unlike the U.S., most
trials in Mexico take place in closed proceedings where judges aren't present nor even meet the defendant.
Attorneys and witnesses gather in a cubicle where a clerk takes notes and prepares a file, later sent to the
judge for a decision. There are no juries.
New aid is coming
Additional aid is being supplied to Syria
Richter 13, correspondent at the Los Angeles Times, (Paul, “U.S. to give $100 million more to aid
displaced Syrians”, 5/8/13, Los Angeles Times, http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/08/world/la-fg-wnus-aid-displaced-syrians-20130508) //LA
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration is providing an additional $100 million for humanitarian
aid for displaced Syrians, officials said Wednesday, bringing to $510 million the total U.S. aid
commitment since the civil war began more than two years ago.¶ ¶ The new aid, which Secretary of State
John F. Kerry will announce Thursday during a visit to Rome, will help support 1.4 million civilians
trapped by violence within Syria’s borders, as well as refugees who have fled to camps in neighboring
Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey, they said.¶ ¶ ¶ The decision is not linked to White House deliberations over
whether the U.S. should provide weapons and ammunition to rebels fighting the government of President
Bashar Assad or to growing suspicions that Syrian forces used chemical weapons.¶ ¶ The administration
provides some nonlethal aid to the rebels, such as communications equipment, military-style rations and
bandages. But U.S. officials fear that arming the insurgents could wind up strengthening extremist
militias, including factions linked to Al Qaeda.¶ ¶ The additional aid will help the Obama administration
deflect criticism that it is not doing enough to deal with a conflict that has killed nearly 80,000 Syrians
and threatens to engulf the broader Mideast region.¶ ¶ The money will be administered by United Nations
agencies to help provide food, shelter and healthcare at refugee camps. The aid also will include some
cash payments to civilians in Syria. The United States is the largest donor of humanitarian relief for
Syrians.
Obama signs off new aid to Syria
Labott 13, CNN correspondent, (Elise, “White House signs off on new aid for Syrian rebels”, 4/9/13,
CNN, http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/09/world/us-syria-aid) //LA
Washington (CNN) -- President Barack Obama has signed off on a new package of nonlethal aid for
Syrian rebels, U.S. officials tell CNN, signaling his administration is cautiously wading further into the
conflict.¶ Officials said the White House approved the package at a meeting of the National Security
Council last week.¶ The move reflects what officials describe as a ramped-up effort to change the military
balance on the battlefield in Syria.¶ It follows a decision by Obama last month to send food and medicine
to the rebels, the first direct U.S. support for the armed opposition.¶ Syrian antiquities looted for gun
money Rape as a tool of war in Syria 6,000+ killed in Syria's deadliest month¶ Other agencies have not
been briefed on the final elements of the package, which is expected to be detailed at a White House
meeting this week.¶ "We have no new decisions on assistance to announce at this point and continue to
review every possible option that could help end the violence and accelerate a political transition," said
Caitlin Hayden, a National Security Council spokeswoman.¶ Officials said it is expected to include
equipment such as body armor, night vision goggles and other military equipment that is defensive in
nature, but could be used to aid in combat by Syrian rebels battling forces loyal to President Bashar alAssad.¶ The package being discussed, however, still falls short of the heavy weapons and high tech
equipment sought by the rebels.¶ Obama's national security team and members of Congress have
repeatedly urged the president to increase the direct aid for the rebels.¶ They argue such a step would
strengthen the hand of moderate members of the opposition and make them less reliant on well-armed
extremist elements within their ranks.¶ Secretary of State John Kerry has pushed for more aggressive U.S.
involvement in Syria since taking office in February.¶ The move comes as Britain and France are leading
efforts to lift a European Union arms embargo on Syria. Both have suggested they are prepared to join
nations like Qatar is providing the rebels with weapons and are urging the United States to do the same.¶
A push last summer from CIA, Pentagon and State Department leaders was rejected by the White House.
At least for now, it remains opposed to arming the opposition, fearing that U.S.-provided weapons could
wind up in the wrong hands.¶ The Obama administration has funneled $385 million in humanitarian aid to
Syria through international institutions and nongovernmental organizations.¶ In addition, Washington has
provided more than $100 million to the political opposition and has pressed them to establish a leadership
structure.¶ But the Syrian Opposition Council, the main Syrian opposition group, has roundly criticized
the United States for refusing to provide badly-needed support to organize a transitional government and
broaden its support inside Syria.
Foreign aid is already going to Egypt
Plumer 13, Plumer is a reporter at the Washington Post writing about domestic policy, particularly
energy and environmental issues, “The U.S. gives Egypt $1.5 billion a year in aid. Here’s what it does.”,
7/9/13, Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/)wp/2013/07/09/the-u-sgives-egypt-1-5-billion-a-year-in-aid-heres-what-it-does///LA
The biggest policy debate roiling Washington right now is whether to continue America’s annual $1.5
billion aid package to Egypt. After all, Egypt just had a coup in which the military ousted the country’s
elected president, Mohammed Morsi. Doesn’t that warrant a response?The Obama administration says it
prefers to keep aid flowing to Egypt for now — for stability’s sake. “It would not be in the best interests
of the United States to immediately change our assistance program to Egypt,” said White House
spokesman Jay Carney. Yet some key members of Congress are calling for a cutoff. “We need to suspend
aid to the new government until it does in fact schedule elections and put in place a process that comes up
with a new constitution,” said Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.).¶ So here’s a quick primer on the situation —
what we actually give Egypt, why we send so much aid, and under what circumstances we might cut it
off. What do we actually give to Egypt? Between 1948 and 2011, the United States has given Egypt about
$71.6 billion in bilateral military and economic aid. That’s more than we’ve given to any other country
over that time frame save for Israel.¶ A recent report (pdf) from the Congressional Research Service lays
out the details. The biggest chunk is military aid, averaging about $1.3 billion per year since 1987, with
much of that military equipment. For instance, Egypt plans to acquire 1,200 M1A1 Abrams Battle tanks
from the United States. The components are jointly manufactured in both countries and shipped to Egypt
for final assembly. This year, the United States is also shipping 20 F-16 fighter jets overseas. Plus there’s
money for border security along the Sinai Peninsula.¶ Egypt also gets a few special financing provisions,
says CRS, including the ability to deposit its funds at an interest-bearing account at the Federal Reserve
Bank of New York. The nation also gets to engage in cash-flow financing to pay for military equipment, a
special provision not available to most recipients, and one that allows Egypt to negotiate bigger arms
purchases.¶ On top of that, Egypt received about $250 million last year in economic aid, money that goes
toward health, education, as well as democracy programs. (In past years, the United States also funded big
USAID infrastructure projects in sanitation, communications, and so forth. But that was scaled back in the
1990s.)¶ Obligatory pyramids shot. (Simon Denyer/The Washington Post)¶ Can you put those numbers in
context? In fiscal year 2011, the United States handed out about $49 billion in military and economic aid
all told. Egypt got about $1.5 billion — the fourth-largest recipient after Israel ($3 billion), Iraq ($2.1
billion), and Pakistan ($1.7 billion).¶ On Egypt’s end, the assistance plays an out-sized role in the budget.
No one knows the exact numbers, but by one one count, “U.S. military aid covers as much as 80% of the
Defense Ministry’s weapons procurement costs.” (In 2011, a Cornell economist estimated that U.S. aid
made up one-third of Egypt’s broader military budget.) Why do we give Egypt so much aid? Since the
late 1970s, U.S. policymakers have justified the aid as a way to stabilize the region and promote its
interests. Here’s CRS laying out the official line: “Interests include maintaining U.S. naval access to the
Suez Canal, maintaining the 1979 Israel-Egypt peace treaty, and promoting democracy and economic
growth within Egypt, the region’s largest Arab country.” More recently, the Obama administration has
insisted that aid to Egypt is crucial to avoiding broader problems. “A hold up of aid might contribute to
the chaos that may ensue because of their collapsing economy, said Secretary of State John Kerry in
January. “Their biggest problem is a collapsing economy.” (If it seems odd that military aid would be so
crucial to Egypt’s economy, consider this: The Egyptian military is utterly gigantic, one of the largest in
the world, “controlling between 10 and 30 percent of the economy and employing hundreds of thousands
of Egyptians.”) Is Egypt’s economy really in such bad shape? Yes. For more on that, read this interview
with Caroline Freund, who notes that Egypt’s economy isn’t growing nearly fast enough to provide jobs
for everyone. That’s certainly not the whole reason for Egypt’s crisis. But without big structural reforms,
it’s hard to see turmoil in the country from subsiding. Have lawmakers ever wavered on giving aid
before? Yes. In 2012, after Egypt elected Mohammed Morsi, who hailed from the Muslim Brotherhood,
some lawmakers started to worry that Egypt would no longer see eye-to-eye with the United States,
especially on topics like Israel. The relationship “has never been under more scrutiny,” said Rep. Kay
Granger (R-Tex.), a key lawmaker in charge of foreign aid funds. In the end, Congress put a few
conditions on further aid. The 2012 appropriations bill, for instance, included language specifying that
Egypt wouldn’t receive any aid until the Secretary of State certified that the country was living up to its
end of its 1979 treaty with Israel. Isn’t the United States supposed to cut off all military aid after a coup?
In theory, yes. The Foreign Assistance Act, first passed back in 1961, says so quite clearly: “None of the
funds appropriated or otherwise made available pursuant to this Act shall be obligated or expended to
finance directly any assistance to the government of any country whose duly elected head of government
is deposed by military coup or decree.” But the U.S. government has long been flexible on this provision.
As my colleague Max Fisher detailed at length, “while the U.S. often does follow this law, it tends to
ignore or bypass it when it sees key national security interests at stake – which may well apply in
Egypt.”For instance, the Obama administration was slow in cutting aid to Honduras in 2009 after a coup
there. And George W. Bush got a waiver to reinstate aid to Pakistan in 2001, even though then-leader
Pervez Musharraf had pretty clearly come to power in a military coup.So what’s the debate now? On the
one hand, there are experts and politicians who don’t think the United States should be in the business of
backing a military coup. “Morsi was a terrible president,” said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) “Their
economy is— is in terrible shape, thanks to their policies, but the fact is the United States should not be
supporting this coup and it’s a tough call.” On the other, there are those worried that severing military aid
to Egypt will create instability. “Cut off all aid immediately and you will take an economy that is already
floundering and probably drive it into chaos, and that is not in anyone’s national security interests,” said
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) At this point, the White House is still declining to call what happened in
Egypt a “coup.” “I’ll be blunt — this is an incredibly complex and difficult situation,” said Carney. Many
political scientists have said what happened in Egypt is clearly a coup, but the White House is trying to
avoid cutting off aid. What would happen if we did cut off military aid? Probably not much at first.
Military aid to Egypt for 2013 was already disbursed back in May, and there likely wouldn’t be another
round of funding until next spring. But cutting off aid would certainly reshape the U.S.-Egypt relationship
— and mark a big break from the past 65 years.
Aid is ineffective
USAID is ineffective – it lacks human and financial resources
Frumin 09, Fellow of International Affairs for the Council on Foreign Relations, (Amy B., “Diagnosing
USAID”, April 2009, Council on Foreign Relations, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/64663/amy-bfrumin/diagnosing-usaid) //LA
The former U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) administrators J. Brian Atwood, M.
Peter McPherson, and Andrew Natsios ("Arrested Development," November/December 2008) explain
that despite the U.S. government's having elevated the status of development to be on par with defense
and diplomacy, USAID has been so emasculated over the last several decades that it is not an effective
member of the triumvirate of U.S. national security strategy tools. The only solution the authors see is a
wholesale reform of the institutions of foreign assistance, including making USAID an independent
department, creating a National Security Council position focused on foreign assistance, and unifying all
sources of foreign assistance under USAID. Reform is needed. However, as a former USAID field officer
in Afghanistan, I propose a less Washington-centric reform strategy. From Washington's political and
strategic perspective, it does not make sense to elevate the bureaucratic status of USAID when there is so
little faith in the organization to begin with. The authors themselves claim USAID is dysfunctional.
Congress demonstrated its lack of confidence in USAID by increasing the Department of Defense's
allocation of official development assistance funds from 3.5 percent to 21.7 percent between 1999 and
2005. In that same period, USAID's share of official development assistance decreased from 65 percent to
less than 40 percent. Prioritizing bureaucratic reform in Washington also does not make sense from a
national security perspective. In a world of unconventional modern warfare, fragile states characterized
by corruption and poverty are now the enemy, and reconstruction and development are the tools to
combat them. Because USAID cannot carry out these tasks effectively, the military has been charged with
doing more of them. Piling another mandate that requires an entirely new skill set onto an overstretched
military not only distracts it from its main task of fighting wars but also underutilizes the organization
established to address these issues: USAID. The United States cannot afford to wait until Washington
works through the political tangle of reforming foreign assistance to make USAID more functional in the
field. After decades of scrutiny and downsizing, USAID has become an anemic organization, with a fifth
the number of staff it had in the 1960s and a fraction of the agility and autonomy it had when it was better
funded. Reform should begin by giving USAID the human and financial resources it needs to succeed in
the field. Of course, political will is required to make these changes, and that will must come from the
president's office.
USAID commits fraud – Haiti proves that it withholds funds meant for development
assistance
Marion 13, correspondent for the International Committee of the Fourth International ICFI, (John,
“Report exposes fraud of US aid to Haiti”, 7/2/13, ICFI,
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/07/02/hait-j02.html) //LA
On June 18, the US Government Accountability Office released a report criticizing USAID’s handling of
aid to Haiti in the more than three years since 2010‘s catastrophic earthquake. Of the $1.14 billion of aid
approved by the US Congress in the 2010 Supplemental Appropriations Act, $651 million was allocated
to projects run by USAID (the United States Agency for International Development). The GAO audit
found that, as of March 31, 2013, USAID had disbursed only $204 million (31 percent) of these funds and
obligated $89 million more for various projects. In other words, 55 percent of the original $651 million is
still sitting in US government coffers. Among the underfunded USAID projects is the construction of new
homes for Haitian workers. Out of 15,000 that were planned, only 2,649 have been built. USAID blames
the shortfall, in part, on the Haitian government’s insistence that the new houses have flush toilets, instead
of more “traditional” waste systems. In its response to the audit, USAID did not explain why it won’t
spend additional money on houses or why it didn’t plan for adequate sanitation in a country which has
been wracked by cholera. As of the end of May, the cholera epidemic introduced into Haiti by UN troops
had killed 8,100 people and sickened more than 650,000. The epidemic, which fluctuates in intensity, is
likely to get worse during this summer’s rainy season. Of the reduced number of houses built, the GAO
states bluntly that officials “noted that USAID would commit no further funds to housing construction.”
The United States government as a whole has disbursed far less aid money than it pledged after the
earthquake. In February, the Center for Global Development reported that the US had disbursed $2.25
billion of its total pledges of $3.85 billion, or less than 60 percent. The CGD report went on to state that
“with very little data and few evaluations, it is nearly impossible to track who has received the $2.25
billion that the US government has disbursed.” A February 2013 interview with author Jonathan Katz by
NPR offered a partial answer to the question: after the earthquake, “the Pentagon [was] writing bills to the
State Department to get reimbursed for having sent troops down to respond to the disaster.” The USAID
funds were intended all along to bolster the interests of international capital. The three projects audited by
the GAO were the housing construction program, an industrial park for garment manufacturers near the
northern city of Cap HaÏtien, and a new port to ship goods manufactured there. According to the GAO
report, fully 33 percent (5,000 out of 15,000) of the houses planned by USAID were to be built near Cap
HaÏtien. The remainder were to be in Port-au-Prince and the coastal city of St. Marc, just to its north. Of
the 2,649 houses that were actually built, nearly 1,800 are near the Caracol Industrial Park (CIP), which in
turn is situated near Cap HaÏtien. According to the GAO audit: “in part, USAID’s program aimed to
support the Haitian government’s goal of decentralizing economic growth outside of Port-au-Prince by
increasing the housing stock in communities near the industrial park planned for northern Haiti.” On this
same note, a January 2011 State Department strategy document—released less than a year after the
earthquake killed more than 300,000 people—stated that the “changing distribution of Haiti’s population
may offer a window of opportunity to develop new development corridors.” Furthermore, according to
the strategy document, “the USG has elevated development alongside diplomacy and defense as core
pillars of American power.” The industrial park is expected to provide one million square meters of
factory space, most to be used in the manufacture of textiles, paint, and clothing. The State Department’s
strategy document bemoaned the decline in underpaid Haitian textile jobs after the 1994 coup against
Jean-Bertrande Aristide and the subsequent economic embargo of Haiti: “in the late 1980s, the industry
employed an estimated 80,000 urban residents, mostly women; today its workers number only about
25,000.” Undaunted, the State Department writes that “Haiti’s proximity to the US market is
complemented by a competitive labor force and trade preferences that make Haiti an attractive sourcing
location for garments.” It notes that, in 2009, clothing exports accounted for 10 percent of Haiti’s GDP.
Most workers at the new industrial park “are projected to receive the minimum wage,” according to the
GAO. It estimates 37,000 permanent jobs earning in aggregate $150 million per year, or $4,054 per
worker. It is hard to imagine how such a wage would pay even a subsidized rent or mortgage for a new
house. In addition, those fortunate enough to get a house will be dependent on either the CIP or the new
port for jobs. USAID blames cost overruns in the home construction program on the Haitian
government’s request for flush toilets and bigger houses than originally planned. As planned, each house
was to be 275 square feet, with Haiti asking for 450. Because of the drastic cut in the number of homes
actually built, the number of people to be housed was reduced dramatically. USAID originally expected
between 75,000 and 90,000 people to live in the new houses, but now estimates that only between 13,200
and 15,900 will fit into those actually built. Using the low end of this range, 13,200 people in 2,649
houses results in an average of five per house. A 250 square foot house would give each of these people a
space equal to five by ten feet. The electric infrastructure built so far with USAID funds is also
inadequate. GAO found that, as of 3/31/13, the 10-megawatt power plant for the industrial park was 89
percent complete, while planned infrastructure for residential distribution was only 10 percent complete.
It also found that the US government is reluctant to share the garment industry’s profits with the Haitian
government. In response to a Haitian proposal to charge a $260 fee on each container coming into the
country—with the proceeds to be used for social programs—USAID’s “port feasibility study concluded
that such a government surcharge would make the project financially infeasible. In its audit, GAO takes
USAID to task for arrogance and incompetence, noting the lateness of its congressionally-mandated
reports and the fact that of all USAID funds spent so far, the cost category with the highest disbursement
rate is “Operating and Other Expenses;” that is, overhead. Of the industrial center’s planned port, which
has not gotten past the stage of a Feasibility Study, GAO reports that “according to USAID officials,
USAID has not constructed a port anywhere in the world since the 1970s, and USAID does not have a
port engineer or port project manager among its direct-hire staff.” No explanation is offered for why the
project wasn’t assigned to an agency with more experience.
USAID lacks proper oversight and wastes millions
Krepp 13, homeland security, transportation, and energy expert who began her career as an active duty
Coast Guard officer in 1998. After September 11th, Ms. Krepp was part of the team that created the
Transportation Security Administration and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (Denise,
“USAID - Waste and Mismanagement Exposed”, 7/8/13, The Maritime Executive, http://www.maritimeexecutive.com/article/USAID--Waste-and-Mismanagement-Exposed-2013-07-08/)//LA
The U.S. Agency for International Development does not have the oversight capability to implement the
Administration's proposed changes to the current food aid program. The agency has been repeatedly
criticized by numerous inspector generals for mismanagement. This mismanagement has cost the
American taxpayer millions of dollars. The Administration should focus its attention of fixing existing
problems instead of changing the current international food aid distribution structure and giving USAID
more money to lose. During a visit to a Dakar, Senegal food security expo last month, President Obama
told attendees that U.S. taxpayer money used for food aid was not being wasted; rather, it was being used
to help feed families. He then thanked USAID Administrator Raj Shah for all the great work he has done.
The President's comments came a day after the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction
blasted USAID for “ineffective program oversight.” Special Inspector General John Sopko initiated an
investigation into the USAID Southern Regional Agricultural Development program in 2012 after he
received numerous complaints. In August 2011, the agency awarded a $70 million cooperative agreement
to a non-profit organization to implement the agricultural program. The Special Inspector found several
instances of waste and mismanagement. As a result of this poor oversight, U.S. taxpayer dollars were
spent on unnecessary costs and equipment that may have been unused or stolen.The Government
Accountability Office has also expressed concerns about USAID's management skills. The agency was
tasked in 2010 with providing technical assistance and training to Afghan civil servants. In a 2011 report,
GAO determined that success of the program couldn't be determined because of “weaknesses in USAID’s
performance management frameworks, such as lack of performance targets and data (that) prevent
reliable assessments of its results.” GAO recommended that USAID clean up its management processes.
On June 7, 2013, the USAID Office of Inspector General released a report regarding the agency's partnercountry and local organization assessments program. The OIG found that the agency did not sufficiently
establish oversight roles for the assessment process. In addition, the OIG criticized the agency's Chief
Financial Officer's Risk Management Team for little quality control and recommended that the CFO
become more involved in the program. USAID disagreed with this recommendation stating that direct
oversight should come individual in-country missions rather than the CFO in Washington, DC. An
agency's CFO is a very important person. This individual is responsible for ensuring that agency funds are
properly expended. In the case of USAID, the Associated Press reported earlier this year that the agency's
former CFO and General Counsel are under investigation by its IG and the Department of Justice. The
January 24th article also states that a USAID IG memo revealed evidence that the USAID Deputy
Administrator may have interfered with the investigation. Before taking on any additional responsibility,
USAID Administrator Shah should clean up the internal workings of his agency. This process should
include improving oversight over existing programs such as those in Afghanistan and other war torn areas
of the world. Cleaning up these programs will minimize waste and fraud. These changes will also
maximize taxpayer resources – something, no one will disagree with.
USAID suffers ridiculous delays
Brookland 12, Brookland is a Devex global development reporter based in Washington, DC. She has
worked as a humanitarian reporter for the United Nations and as an investigative journalist for News21.
Jennifer holds a bachelor's in foreign service from Georgetown University and a master's in journalism
from Columbia University and in international law and diplomacy from the Fletcher School. She also
served for four years as an Air Force office. (Jennifer, “In USAID procurement, a game of stop-and-go”,
8/29/12, Devex, https://www.devex.com/en/news/in-usaid-procurement-a-game-of-stop-and-go/79023)
//LA
When Betsy Bassan created the Panagora Group a year and a half ago, she envisioned her small business
playing an active role in addressing health and development problems worldwide. She had all the
necessary experience, as vice president at a major development company, project director at a large
nongovernmental organization and president of a leading professional association for aid practitioners. In
the previous eight years, Bassan had won five large global health contracts with the U.S. government and
more than a dozen other awards for the company she worked for. Now she was striking out on her
own.And she had nothing to do. None of the six contracts she bid on last spring have been awarded.“As a
new business that’s really, really hard,” Bassan said. “And as a small business, it’s a killer.” Delays in
awarding contracts and grants don’t just cause headaches for small NGOs and consultancies, but also
large implementing partners. And it is having a real impact on development, both at headquarters and in
the field, as aid groups risk losing money, talent and even credibility, and needed programs get canceled
or never get off the ground. For years, the U.S. Agency for International Development has been known
for its particularly cumbersome procurement process and frequent delays in awarding field work. But
over the past few years, delays have become worse, some implementers say. In wide-ranging interviews
with executives of small and large nonprofit and for-profit implementing partners of USAID — several of
whom spoke to Devex on the condition of anonymity out of anxiety for their ongoing business with the
U.S. government — concerns were raised that USAID Forward, the agency’s ambitious reform project
meant, among other things, to streamline procurement, might actually be exacerbating the problem, at
least in the short run. USAID officials we spoke with, including Deputy Administrator Don Steinberg,
acknowledged procurement delays but insisted that USAID Forward is not to blame. As Devex has
previously reported, many implementing partners question USAID Forward’s controversial initiative to
provide more funding directly through local companies and NGOs — a fact that may cloud some of the
debate around procurement delays. Whatever the reason, USAID now takes more than 1.5 years to award
its largest and most complex programs via what is called an indefinite quantity contract. Its goal is to
reduce procurement action lead time to 268 days for overseas contracts, agreements and D.C.-based IQCs,
and to 327 days for more complex IQCs.
By comparison, it takes the Australian Agency for International Development an average of 166 days to
award a tender valued above 500,000 Australian dollars (about $526,000) and 120 days for a competitive
grant, according to an AusAID spokesperson. The Japan International Cooperation Agency takes 75 days
to award large-scale projects and 45 for small ones. The U.K. Department for International Development
has pledged to award contracts within 120 days except in the most complex cases.Procurement speed
varies by country and project, of course, and USAID has awarded some contracts quite swiftly. But as
fiscal 2012 draws to a close and the agency rushes out huge amounts of money at the last minute,
questions have grown loud again about funding delays and whether USAID is able to ensure an orderly
rollout of aid projects.What causes procurement delays? Every bilateral donor must deal with the cyclical
game of waiting for funding to be allocated and then trying to spend it all responsibly and in a timely
fashion. Procurement delays throughout the year often give way to an outpouring of money at the end of a
fiscal cycle, as government officials try to avoid giving the impression that they might as well have made
due with a smaller budget. That’s especially true in Washington. The U.S. Congress has become so
partisan that lawmakers struggle to pass annual appropriations bills, instead opting for short-term
extensions of the existing budget. The budget is supposed to be passed by Sept. 30, the last day of the
fiscal year. But that hasn’t happened in a while, and for fiscal 2012, Congress did not pass a budget until
mid-December, after passing five temporary budget extensions. The delay gave USAID less time to
develop acquisitions strategies, solicit bids and proposals, evaluate responses and award funding,
according to Alan Chvotkin, executive vice president and counsel at the Professional Services Council,
which advocates for U.S. companies pursuing global development business. After Congress appropriates
money, it falls upon the White House Office of Management and Budget to make the funds available — a
second potential holdup. And then there’s USAID.The agency is still understaffed, most observers say —
even after hiring more than 105 new contracting officers in the past few years. And with several large
IQCs coming to an end in the past year, USAID procurement officers have been under a lot of pressure to
find ways to spend foreign aid dollars. Adding to that pressure is the new training that’s needed to get
staff up-to-date on procurement reform and new reporting requirements for the agency’s partners in the
field. The learning curve is particularly steep for USAID’s young recruits — 60 percent of field staff, for
instance, has been on the job for five years or less, according to Steinberg — even though the agency tries
to match them with more seasoned colleagues. All of them, though, have to adapt to reforms that are part
of USAID Forward, including the need to update acquisition and assistance plans every quarter and,
starting in October, to catalog online some of the 40 steps that are part of a standard procurement.
Although USAID officials deny that these reforms have caused delays — they are meant to streamline
procurement and reduce lead time, after all — implementing partners are not so sure. “I think they are in a
very difficult situation,” Plan USA President Tessie San Martin said about USAID. “They are asked to
redesign the procurement rules and processes and not slow down procurement actions. It’s hard to do
both.” The end-of-the-year rush. Funding appropriated by the legislature usually must be spent by a set
date, typically the end of the fiscal year, which for the U.S. government is Sept. 30. As a result, USAID
and other agencies tend to rush out procurements in the last quarter of the fiscal year, making August the
busiest month for proposal writers and recruiters in Washington. But USAID has other options for
handling leftover funds. The agency may extend or expand certain existing agreements, for instance — a
practice that “happens every year,” according to one procurement expert with nearly three decades of
experience. “Who wants to go back into the general kitty when you could dump it in a contract and hold
it?” she said. “I’ve had $11 million dumped into a contract before, with no work plan and no budget, just
to hold it.” The agency might also waive the competitive bidding process, a move that requires
justification. Some recent waivers have been for relatively small amounts of money, but others are
significant, and USAID appears to have considerable leeway — regulation allows the agency to “award
without competition when it is critical to the objectives of the foreign assistance program,” when an
organization has unique capabilities or relationships within a partner country, or when it’s for a small
grant that won’t last more than one year. It can also “limit competition to a selected group of applicants
when it is necessary for [the] sake of efficiency.” Extensions to existing agreements can be awarded
without justification. For critical priority countries like Pakistan, Iraq and Sudan, this means up to $20
million can be awarded without competition. There seems to be little debate in Washington aid circles
about such funding extensions — unsurprising, perhaps, since the money tends to go to experienced
USAID implementers inside the beltway. And although a case can be made for extending successful
projects, the agency may miss out on innovative partnerships beyond the usual suspects.Another way for
USAID to award funding is through cooperative agreements, which can’t be protested and, some
implementers argue, are easier to write, faster to award and require less monitoring.
USAID officials deny relying increasingly on cooperative agreements. The agency had “no bias one way
or the other,” Steinberg said. USAID decides which vehicle to use based on the underlying intent,
Steinberg insisted: A contract is supposed to directly benefit the U.S. government, while an agreement or
grant should transfer value to the recipient. Since cooperative agreements prohibit the exchange of fees,
for-profit companies tend not to bid and these projects tend to go to nonprofit organizations. But several
for-profit implementing partners we spoke with argue that some cooperative agreements the agency has
solicited would have been better suited as contracts. USAID awarded a $400 million Afghanistan
infrastructure project with a small development component as a cooperative agreement to nonprofit
International Relief and Development in 2007, for example. The debate between for-profit and nonprofit
USAID implementing partners stretches back decades, and the pendulum has swung back and forth with
successive administrations. But some procurement experts we interviewed insisted that the reliance on
cooperative agreements is on the rise because of their relatively less onerous award process. The number
of health sector RFPs was about the same as the number of RFAs in 2009, and the amount spent on grants
and cooperative agreements was within 5 million of the amount spent on contracts. Those numbers have
since diverged sharply. Last year, $2.77 billion worth of work was awarded in health under assistance
grants, and just $216 million under acquisition contracts, according to Bassan. “A cooperative agreement
gives much, much, much less work in terms of the actual approval actions, so that is a very attractive
mechanism,” Bassan said. The effect on implementers: Whatever USAID Forward is to blame or not, the
consequences of the agency’s current procurement sluggishness are not insignificant. Delays affect NGOs
and businesses which must respond to a slew of solicitations at once, forced to eschew some opportunities
or put in a less-than-best effort on several at a time. In turn, USAID suffers from less competition, or
lower-quality proposals. It also has less time itself to do an effective quality review and selection process,
especially if the fiscal year deadline to award funds is looming. When USAID publicly forecasts a bid,
potential partners often take the time and money to travel to the country, conduct interviews and connect
with local organizations, gather a team of experts and recruit key personnel. That can cost more than
$60,000, according to one longtime development practitioner familiar with private-sector development
consultancies. If solicitations that were based on expiring funds are not awarded by the end of the fiscal
year, they will be canceled — ho harm, no foul, one might say. But because it isn’t made public which
agency funds are due to expire and which can carry over into the next year, bidders take all those pains to
prepare for projects they’ll never implement. When an award takes much longer than expected, research
grows outdated, conditions in the field change, and staff is lured away by more concrete offers. After
repeated delays, consultants and local staff might become hesitant to work with partners who seem to
string them along, preferring more reliable employment. One expert recently demanded to be put on a
development contractor’s payroll for one year as a precondition to signing on for a project, a proposal
recruiter told Devex. He was sick of being hired for projects that never got off the ground and turning
down other work in the meantime. This story illustrates the challenges aid groups face in times of funding
delays. Organizations lose credibility when the programs they prepare for don’t come to fruition. Often,
they must watch talented local staff leave in search of more reliable opportunities — especially painful if
the organization had already invested in training. “We have to scramble around to find cash to pass to our
sub-organizations so they can keep their doors open because they don’t have that kind of money
available,” said one business development expert. “The local organizations that are getting direct funding
do not have the resources to wait these kinds of things out.” Larger nonprofits that have alternative
funding sources sometimes take the risk of going ahead with work on the assumption that USAID’s
money will come through. But several aid practitioners told Devex that it’s not unheard of for projects
funded solely by USAID to be delayed so long that no one can cover the gap between awards, and work
has to come to an abrupt stop. The future of USAID procurement: Despite its best intentions to speed
things up and streamline the procurement process, improvement may not be in the immediate forecast.
Actually, it could get worse, according to Chvotkin of PSC. The next fiscal year begins Oct. 1 and
Congress has yet to pass appropriations for foreign affairs, including USAID and the Millennium
Challenge Corp. USAID will likely be under a continuing resolution for at least a few months, allowed to
spend money at the same rate as fiscal 2012, but not in a good position to make long-term funding
decisions. The results of this year’s presidential election could prove significant. If Mitt Romney is
elected, analysts expect the new president to try to cut foreign aid and reshape the way USAID does
business. Finally, there is the possibility of mandatory across-the-board federal government spending cuts
later this year — the so called “sequestration” — which was enacted as part of last year’s debt ceiling
compromise. This sequestration would likely see USAID’s budget slashed by around 8.5 percent,
according to InterAction President Samuel Worthington. The Office of Budget Management will report to
Congress by Sept. 8 on the actual amount due to be cut. Unfortunately, the people who make development
happen won’t know the situation until it’s upon them, if authors who wrote a white paper for the
American Bar Association’s Federal Procurement Institute are correct. They wrote that, “Individual
contracting officers and their customers, the program managers, will generally be among the last to know
what funds will be available for what programs.”
Aid is ineffective and experiences structural programs
Garvelink and Tahir 12, Ambassador William J. Garvelink is a senior adviser with the Project on U.S.
Leadership in Development at the The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in
Washington, D.C. Farha Tahir is program coordinator and research associate with the CSIS Africa
Program.( William and Farha, “Getting the Right Response to Food Shortages in the Sahel”, 7/16/12,
http://www.hunger-undernutrition.org/blog/usaid/)//LA
A bleak narrative of 16 million people on the brink of starvation in West Africa’s Sahel region has
captured headlines. But the brewing food crisis has been overstated, and the headlines fail to identify the
core causes of food insecurity and malnutrition in the region. The international community has been and
seems again to be content to provide massive amounts of food aid and deal with the symptoms rather than
address the underlying cause of this crisis: lack of community resilience. The real crisis in the Sahel is
one of persistently high rates of acute malnutrition, an issue that has affected the region’s residents for
decades and cannot be addressed with emergency food assistance alone. It’s true that the picture is not a
good one: poor harvest, higher food prices, and malnutrition are in fact evident in certain areas. While all
experts agree that some targeted food assistance is required, food aid should be minimized, realizing that
it plays only a palliative role and could disrupt markets. Food aid fails to address the fundamental
problems. Agricultural production in the Sahel is on the increase and markets are functioning. While
inadequate rainfall distribution did delay harvests and create some production deficits, the Famine Early
Warning Systems Network (FEWS NET) estimates that this year’s production will be sufficient to meet
the region’s food requirements.¶ The more pressing issue is a resilience deficit, the same issue that loomed
during the 2005 crisis when the international community focused on food distribution. That decision
disrupted local markets and failed to prevent what we’re seeing today. The causes of this resilience deficit
range from matters of cultural practice to larger development challenges, including lack of access to safe
water, inadequate health care and nutrition, and poor sanitation. Chronic malnutrition in children is region
wide, affecting an estimated 40 percent of those under five years of age. In fact, the Sahel has some of the
highest child mortality rates and the highest child acute malnutrition rates in the world. Placing the
current situation in this context demonstrates that it is not an aberration but a larger development
challenge.¶ The situation in the Sahel is about chronic food insecurity that requires a focus on long-term
food production and malnutrition rates. The classification of an emergency, therefore, looks very different
in the Sahel than in other parts of the world.¶ The source of the overcompensation in the Sahel is clear.
The international community was severely criticized last year for what were deemed inadequate efforts to
combat the drought/famine in the Horn of Africa, particularly for its delayed response. But the Sahel is
not Somalia. And the Sahel is not facing a famine. Responding late to one crisis and responding
inappropriately to the next suggests that something is broken. Something is wrong with the international
response networks that have been designed to facilitate appropriate responses to food emergencies. The
international community hesitated when FEWS warned in 2010 of a famine in Somalia, and tens of
thousands suffered. Today, despite cautions by FEWS and others, donors and NGOs are again
considering tactics that will not resolve the problem. The challenges of the Sahel suggest the time is right
for a reexamination of how the international community makes assistance decisions about the world’s
food crises.
Energy Aid Increasing (Aff)
Energy aid trades off with national security – energy aid will increase by 14.3 million
Rogers 12, REPRESENTATIVE MIKE ROGERS (R-AL)Rep, (Mike, “Hearing of the State, Foreign
Operations and Related Programs Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee Subject: "FY
2013 Budget for the State Department" Chaired by: Representative Kay Granger (R-TX) Witness:
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Location: 2359 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C.
Time: 10:00 a.m. EST Date: Tuesday, February 29, 2012, Federal News Service,
http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/ //LA
REP. ROGERS: From the instability in the Middle East to the economic crisis in Europe, to the evolving challenges
in the Asia- Pacific region, there's no question that you're serving during a very critical period of history. World
events often remind us that our country, our freedom, our way of life remain at constant risk. In recent years we've
also seen a different kind of threat to our independence, emerging in our escalating fiscal crisis here at home. This
committee has been front and center and been given the chore of addressing the very real security threat, as the
former chairman of the Joint Chiefs described it, posed by out-of-control Washington spending and trillion-dollar
deficits now four years in the running. Last year -- last calendar year -- this committee worked to restore
transparency, austerity, tough oversight to the appropriations process and we succeeded in reducing discretionary
spending by some $95 billion compared to fiscal year '10. That's not happened since World War II, and I'm very
proud of our committee's work in that respect. A tough chore. While I share your interest in supporting key national
security priorities, I am concerned that the State and foreign operations request of 54.7 billion (dollars) is an increase
of nearly 2.6 percent above fiscal '12. Even while the proposed Department of Defense budget is being reduced by
the administration, State and USAID continues to rise in their request. In addition to the many valid budget
concerns expressed by Chairwoman Granger and Nita Lowey, I would also like to add our shared concern about our
country's energy security to that list. Even though the State Department has said, quote, "Energy security is vital to
U.S. national security," quote, "The department continues to rattle off excuses for delaying the Keystone Excel
pipeline." While the State Department is pushing back on a viable energy option that would also create jobs in the
U.S., the budget proposes to bump up funding by $5.4 million for the newly created Bureau of Energy Resources,
and to increase aid to other countries by 14.3 million (dollars) to help them address their energy challenges. I find
that a bit ironic in view of the decision on the pipeline here.
AT PEPFAR
No trade-off – USAID budget doesn’t include PEPFAR
CCGA 11
[Chicago Council on Global Affairs, May 2011, “Strengthening USAID: A Timeline of Recent Events”
http://www.thechicagocouncil.org/UserFiles/File/GlobalAgDevelopment/Report/GADI_Occasional_Pape
r_Strengthening_USAID.pdf]
May 31, 2011 - Agricultural development has historically been a significant component of U.S. foreign aid. While in the 1980s 25 percent of U.S.
foreign aid went to agriculture, that number dropped to six percent by 1990 and was a meager one percent by 2008.1 As U.S. support for
agricultural development has declined, so has the capacity of USAID to deliver agricultural assistance. In 1997, USAID ceased to be an
independent agency with the Administrator reporting to the President and was folded into the State Department.2 In 2006, the Secretary of State
created a Foreign Assistance Bureau within the State Department (State/F) to more closely align the USAID budget and activities with the State
Department’s diplomacy objectives, ending USAID’s budget autonomy. While President G.W. Bush increased the foreign aid
budget significantly, the aims of USAID’s development work were anchored in the President’s National
Security Strategy. Furthermore, President Bush’s signature development initiatives, such as President’s
Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), were
placed outside of USAID.
PEPFAR has pushed out more important health programs and is the root cause of status
quo overstretch
O’Hanlon 9
[Barbara O’Hanlon, Hewlett Foundation, April 2009, “USAID’s Funding Decisions on Reproductive
Health and Family Planning” http://www.hewlett.org/uploads/files/USAID_FPRH_Funding_Decisions__OHanlon_April_2009.pdf]
Many USAID staff interviewed for this paper described the negative impact of PEPFAR on its other health
programs. As one USAID staff person interviewed stated, “PEPFAR has had a tsunami effect across the Agency” (direct
communication). First, PEPFAR funds have overwhelmed other health programs like RH/FP, child survival and
maternal heath. The great sums of PEPFAR funds have further skewed USAID’s and Missions’ budgets,
creating dramatic funding imbalances (see Figure 5). Second, the management and reporting requirements for
PEPFAR, for example the annual Country Operating Plans, have become the dominate focus of USAID staff both at
headquarters and in the field. Moreover, USAID staff must spend their time on PEPFAR program management to the
detriment of their other programs.
Reform Fails
Reform won’t go far enough fast enough
Frumin 9
[Amy Frumin, International Affairs Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations, “Diagnosing USAID” March/April
2009, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/64663/amy-b-frumin/diagnosing-usaid]
The former U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) administrators J. Brian Atwood, M. Peter McPherson, and Andrew Natsios
("Arrested Development," November/December 2008) explain that despite the U.S. government's having elevated the status
of development to be on par with defense and diplomacy, USAID has been so emasculated over the last
several decades that it is not an effective member of the triumvirate of U.S. national security strategy
tools. The only solution the authors see is a wholesale reform of the institutions of foreign assistance,
including making USAID an independent department, creating a National Security Council position
focused on foreign assistance, and unifying all sources of foreign assistance under USAID. Reform is
needed. However, as a former USAID field officer in Afghanistan, I propose a less Washington-centric reform strategy. From
Washington's political and strategic perspective, it does not make sense to elevate the bureaucratic status
of USAID when there is so little faith in the organization to begin with. The authors themselves claim
USAID is dysfunctional. Congress demonstrated its lack of confidence in USAID by increasing the Department of
Defense's allocation of official development assistance funds from 3.5 percent to 21.7 percent between 1999 and 2005. In that same period,
USAID's share of official development assistance decreased from 65 percent to less than 40 percent. Prioritizing bureaucratic reform in
Washington also does not make sense from a national security perspective. In a world of unconventional modern warfare, fragile states
characterized by corruption and poverty are now the enemy, and reconstruction and development are the tools to combat them. Because USAID
cannot carry out these tasks effectively, the military has been charged with doing more of them. Piling another mandate that requires an entirely
new skill set onto an overstretched military not only distracts it from its main task of fighting wars but also underutilizes the organization
established to address these issues: USAID. The United States cannot afford to wait until Washington works through
the political tangle of reforming foreign assistance to make USAID more functional in the field. After
decades of scrutiny and downsizing, USAID has become an anemic organization, with a fifth the number of staff it
had in the 1960s and a fraction of the agility and autonomy it had when it was better funded. Reform should
begin by giving USAID the human and financial resources it needs to succeed in the field. Of course, political will is required to make these
changes, and that will must come from the president's office.
DOS control and agriculture are alt causes to USAID success
CCGA 11
[Chicago Council on Global Affairs, May 2011, “Strengthening USAID: A Timeline of Recent Events”
http://www.thechicagocouncil.org/UserFiles/File/GlobalAgDevelopment/Report/GADI_Occasional_Paper_Str
engthening_USAID.pdf]
May 31, 2011 - Agricultural development has historically been a significant component of U.S. foreign aid. While in the 1980s 25 percent of U.S.
foreign aid went to agriculture, that number dropped to six percent by 1990 and was a meager one percent by 2008.1 As U.S. support for
agricultural development has declined, so has the capacity of USAID to deliver agricultural assistance. In 1997, USAID ceased to be an
independent agency with the Administrator reporting to the President and was folded into the State
Department.2 In 2006, the Secretary of State created a Foreign Assistance Bureau within the State
Department (State/F) to more closely align the USAID budget and activities with the State Department’s
diplomacy objectives, ending USAID’s budget autonomy. While President G.W. Bush increased the foreign aid budget
significantly, the aims of USAID’s development work were anchored in the President’s National Security Strategy. Furthermore, President
Bush’s signature development initiatives, such as President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and the Millennium Challenge
Corporation (MCC), were placed outside of USAID. Yet the events of the past two years show that the tide may be turning. On the agricultural
assistance front, President Obama’s inaugural promise - “To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms
flourish…” - launched a renewal of the global agricultural development agenda. This assurance has translated into a series of policy actions: at
the G-8 meeting in L’Aquila, Italy, in July 2009, the United States pledged to invest $3.5 billion in food security and agricultural development
over three years; the initiative to fulfill this pledge, Feed the Future, was formally launched by the Secretary of State in May 2010 and was
highlighted as a signature program when President Obama issued the first-ever Presidential Policy Directive (PPD) for Global Development in
September 2010. Simultaneously, the resurgence of attention to agriculture has been echoed with calls to strengthen USAID’s capacity to serve as
an innovative development enterprise. In the aforementioned PPD, the President reaffirmed the nation’s “moral obligation and national security
interest in providing assistance” to the hungry and designated USAID as the lead development agency.3 The first Quadrennial Diplomacy and
Development Review (QDDR) reiterated this designation. Since these announcements, USAID has launched significant internal shifts and
changes, including the USAID FORWARD reform effort and the formation of two new Bureaus, one for Policy, Planning and Learning (PPL)
and another for Food Security (BFS). The breadth and depth of these changes have been impressive. Likewise, the pace of change has been
remarkable. When The Chicago Council released its Renewing American Leadership in the Fight Against Global Hunger and Poverty report in
2009, the picture was dismal. As an agency, USAID was still grappling with its new State Department mandated
priorities to promote “peace and security” – with the goal of “reducing widespread poverty” added in as a
result of complaints from the development community.4 This coincided with a decline in staffing for USAID in general, as illustrated by the
decline in total U.S. personnel direct hires from about 7,000 in 1965-1970 to just above 2,000 in 2000-2005. To reverse this negative trend and
improve USAID’s ability to deliver agricultural development assistance, The Chicago Council made two specific
recommendations: restore the leadership role of USAID and rebuild USAID’s in-house capacity to
develop and administer agricultural development assistance programs. The study’s Leaders Group warned that if
USAID’s leadership role in agricultural development was not restored, other initiatives and efforts were
likely to falter. Now, since 2009, it appears that many of the report’s recommendations—including the prioritization of agricultural
development funds, improved leadership and staff capacity at USAID, and improved interagency coordination—have been incorporated into the
Administration’s international development plans and policies.
Reform is slow – Feed the Future and Congressional backlash
CCGA 11
[Chicago Council on Global Affairs, May 2011, “Strengthening USAID: A Timeline of Recent Events”
http://www.thechicagocouncil.org/UserFiles/File/GlobalAgDevelopment/Report/GADI_Occasional_Pape
r_Strengthening_USAID.pdf]
As mentioned at the outset of this paper, the aforementioned developments should be commended, but they should also
serve as a reminder that overall USAID reform and Feed the Future have only just begun. According to
Administrator Shah, "At the end of the day, what we’re trying to do is create kind of commercially viable agriculture sectors in these countries to
eliminate the fact that every time prices do spike a little bit, it creates a lot of unrest and a lot of human suffering."29 Creating
commercially viable agriculture takes time, and Feed the Future is a program designed for long-term
results; its full impact may take a decade or more to bear fruit. Sustaining Congressional enthusiasm
through changing political environments will likewise be a challenge. In Administrator Shah’s testimony to the House
Foreign Affairs Committee on March 16, 2011, he noted that the Administration’s FY 2012 budget outlines significant cuts by eliminating
bilateral development assistance in 11 countries and closing USAID missions in three, cutting development assistance for at least 20 countries by
half, and reallocates funding and staff toward priority countries and initiatives.30 He also justified the funds requested for Feed the Future, “For
the $1.1 billion we are requesting for bilateral agricultural development programs, we will be able to help up to 18 million people in up to 20
countries—most of them women—grow enough food to feed their families and break the grips of hunger and poverty.” Less than a month
after these FY 2012 discussions, Congress passed the FY 2011 budget, which cut Foreign Operations
funds to $31.3 billion - a $3.5 billion reduction from FY 2010 and a $5.1 billion reduction from the FY 2011 request.31 State/USAID
Development Assistance funding will continue at roughly the same level as FY 2010 – however the actual FY 2011 numbers reflect a 15 percent
cut to what the President put forward in his FY 2011 request. The change in House leadership and the federal budget
deficit situation make prospects for increases to U.S. foreign assistance funding uncertain. Is USAID
sufficiently reinvigorated and strengthened to carry out the Administration’s ambitious development
agenda? Only partially, but efforts over the past two years have been a promising start. As early as November 2010, Administrator Shah
expressed optimism about changes within USAID. “I'm happy to say the tide is turning; USAID has reestablished a policy bureau, introduced a
new science and technology division, and ramped up its hiring of development professionals to levels we haven't seen in over a decade.”32
Administrator Shah has also indicated that Feed the Future is a flagship effort for USAID and a key plank in the
administration’s global development strategy, but, “We have to be honest about the stakes involved…Our credibility
rests on its success.”33 Feed the Future and USAID are faced with high expectations and high stakes.
USAID is underfunded and most of the funding gets drained into the military and
emergencies
Tomkins 10
[Jenny Tomkins, member of the In These Times Board of Editors, “Reforming Foreign Aid” August 4 2010,
http://inthesetimes.com/article/6201/]
The ‘three pillars’ theory The U.S. development community is optimistic that substantial changes to America’s aid system are at hand. And for
good reason: President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have both been explicit about the need for reform and commissioned
comprehensive reviews of U.S. development policies and practices. Clinton has repeatedly stated her commitment to making
defense, diplomacy and development “three equal pillars” of U.S. foreign policy, recognizing that they
must work in concert if they are to serve U.S. interests. “Development was once the province of humanitarians, charities, and
governments looking to gain allies in global struggles,” Clinton said in January. “Today it is a strategic, economic and moral imperative–as
central to advancing American interests and solving global problems as diplomacy or defense.” Under the Bush administration, critics say
USAID lost its capacity to undertake and monitor major projects, most of which were farmed out to private-in some cases for-profit–
organizations. To strengthen the agency, Clinton has requested increases to USAID’s budget and increased the agency’s staffing. And in July
2009, she instituted the first-ever State Department Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR), intended “to define the
capabilities we need and then match resources with priorities.” The review is expected to be released early this fall. Obama, meanwhile, has
pledged to double U.S. foreign assistance and modernize it. He promised to “elevate, streamline and empower a 21st century U.S. Development
Agency,” and last year began a cross-governmental review of development policy, the Presidential Study Directive on Global Development. He
tapped National Security Advisor James Jones and National Economic Development Council Director Lawrence Summers to oversee the effort.
Strikingly absent from this cross-governmental panel was the director of USAID, because at the time there wasn’t one: Rajiv Shah wasn’t
confirmed as the agency’s administrator until January 7. Although the lateness of Shah’s appointment may have damaged the impetus for
development reform, critics regard his eventual confirmation as another good omen. Reform advocates admire Shah’s commitment to
development and his experience outside the beltway. A medical doctor, Shah came to USAID from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, where
he was in charge of agricultural development programs. Reform vs. reality But some observers think Shah will have a hard time
preventing development assistance from being subsumed by emergencies, such as Haiti, and the
exigencies of national security. (Just days after his confirmation, Clinton assigned Shah to oversee the country’s Haitian earthquake
response.) Despite recent intimations of significant changes, the reality of longstanding U.S. spending habits
is daunting. First, there is the challenge of making the three equal pillars concept a reality. Many consider
Clinton’s pillars talk merely a rhetorical flourish, given that the United States currently spends 12.5 times
more on defense ($688 billion for the Department of Defense in 2010) than on diplomacy and development combined.
Even if Congress approves the proposed budget increase to $56.8 billion for the State Department and foreign assistance, much of the
development portion will go to support wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and to buttress military operations
in Pakistan. Another source of inequality is that USAID is not a cabinet-level agency (like the Defense Department) but instead
resides within the State Department. Also, any current or future strengthening of USAID has to be understood in the
context of just how weak the agency has become. Under the Bush administration, it saw its share of the country’s “official
development aid” (ODA) budget shrink from 60 to 40 percent. Congress, meanwhile, has routinely overwhelmed its budget
with earmarks and disperses foreign aid among a dizzying array of government departments, agencies and
offices. Finally, USAID continues to operate under the antiquated Foreign Assistance Act (FAA), which dates
back to USAID’s founding under President John F. Kennedy. The FAA is a source of frustration and anger among
development experts, and reforming it is the central goal of the Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network (MFAN), which brings together
development professionals and organizations, and lobbies to change how Washington conceives of and delivers foreign aid. According to former
USAID directors, the FAA burdens USAID with excessive and meaningless reporting. It also contains “buy
American” provisions that are costly, and cumbersome, development professionals say. Congress is beginning to act. In
April 2009, Reps. Howard Berman (D-Calif.), chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) introduced the Initiating
Foreign Assistance Reform Act of 2009. More than 120 legislators are now co-sponsors. Meanwhile, Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Richard
Lugar (R-Ind.) advanced the Foreign Assistance Revitalization and Accountability Act out of committee in November 2009. It has more than 20
co-sponsors, but has not yet been scheduled for debate on the Senate floor. While conceding that USAID won’t secure a cabinet-
level appointment any time soon, MFAN is working to make sure that what it calls “the Grand Bargain” becomes part of
development reform. MFAN member Nora O’Connell, of Women Thrive Worldwide, says this would require Congress to agree to have less say
in crafting development agency budgets. In return, USAID and other agencies would become more accountable for project outcomes. “This is
hard for the political system” says O’Connell, because it doesn’t fit with political needs or timelines, and would also entail authorizing more longterm projects. What MFAN co-chairs Rev. David Beckmann of Bread for the World and Dr. George Ingram, former deputy assistant
administrator of USAID, last year called the “unprecedented momentum created at all levels of government” has yet to crystallize into actual
change.
Reform Bad
USAID Forward makes things worse – delays funding process
Maeder 12
[Anina Maeder, MicroDinero, “USAID: delayed funding and current reforms” September 3 2012,
http://www.microdinero.com/index.php/english/nota/5242/usaid-delayed-funding-and-current-reforms]
Aid practitioners have been criticizing USAID, the U.S. Agency for International Development, for its severe delays in
the funding process. There are concerns that the current reform project, USAID Forward, will exacerbate the problem.
According to investigations of the international development social enterprise Devex, USAID may take up to 1.5 years to award
its most complex funding via an IQC (indefinite quantity contract). These procurement delays are a serious issue for various
reasons: First of all there is the real world impact on development. Programs get cancelled or not even started. This makes
organizations lose credibility, personnel and of course resources—not only the lost USAID award, but also
the capital invested in the bidding process and project preparation. Delays can also change conditions in
the field and leave research outdated. The 2011 reform project USAID Forward aims to improve the speed of procurement. It
emphasizes new partnerships, innovation and a persistent focus on results. The reform states: "It gives USAID the opportunity to transform its
agency and unleash its full potential to achieve high-impact development." However, USAID partners are concerned that the necessary
staff training of the agency to familiarize them with the reformed procedures will lead to more delays and
complications in the process. It is hard to redesign a process without slowing it down at the same time.
Misc
- this could be a solvency advocate for a conditions cp as well
US aid is useless unconditionally – Pakistan proves only fuels corruption, disincentives
democracy and funds are ineffective
Ibrahim 09, Belfer Center Discussion Paper, International Security Program, Harvard Kennedy School,
(Azeem, “US Aid to Pakistan – US taxpayers have funded Pakistani corruption”, Harvard Kennedy
School, July 2009, http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/Final_DP_2009_06_08092009.pdf) //LA
There is widespread agreement that aid to Pakistan has not been spent effectively over the past decade.
There is less agreement over how to fix it. This paper contributes to the debate in two ways. First, it
provides the most comprehensive survey of the publicly available information on U.S. aid to Pakistan
since 2001 to provide an evidence base on which recommendations can be based. Second, it suggests
three ways to improve aid to Pakistan, by proposing three principles which should underlie any conditions
which are attached to future aid. They are:1) Cooperate to Reduce Obstruction, Sanction to Reduce
Opposition—Conditions should only be imposed to prevent clear harm to explicitly expressed U.S.
intentions (such as Pakistan spending funds on nuclear weapons). Other outcomes, however desirable,
(such as requiring Pakistan to shut madrassahs which encourage extremism), should be achieved through
cooperation, not conditionality. 2) First, Do No Harm—It will be counterproductive to use conditions to
micromanage specific positive outcomes by institutions beyond U.S. control—that would be to invite
failure. Rather, conditions should focus on preventing harm (i.e. preventing Pakistan moving in the wrong
direction, such as reducing civilian oversight over the military budget, for example).3) Put Conditions
Only on How the Aid is Spent—Pakistan and its electorate are acutely sensitive to the perception that the
country may be being bullied or bribed. Some argue that this speaks to the necessity of not imposing any
conditions. This is equivalent to arguing that Pakistan’s sensitivity licenses it to more years misspending a
large proportion of U.S. aid money. A more logical response is to draw a distinction between how
Pakistan spends the aid funds and general Pakistani actions which do not directly relate to how Pakistan
spends U.S. aid. The most important aspect of this paper is the recommendation that conditions should
only be tailored to the actual use of the funds themselves (apart from conditions preventing Pakistan from
moving in the wrong direction). The funds should not be used as leverage to impose positive collateral
requirements on Pakistan. Underlying these conditions is the recognition that conditions will never be
effective unless Pakistani sensitivities to them are properly understood and taken into account. After all,
they will determine how Pakistan reacts. The United States must also recognize that conditionality is only
part of the solution; conditions are not an appropriate means to achieve all the outcomes which the United
States seeks. For each, Congress should look into the various options, excluding sanctions, which it has
available to it, in a hard-headed way. The United States must not provide Pakistani institutions with
incentives to act counter to U.S. foreign policy objectives in the future. It has done so in the past. But
until the spring of 2009, no comprehensive overview of the full funding to Pakistan was possible as the
figures were kept secret. Those figures, as well as a full analysis of what is known about how they were
spent, can now be evaluated. The available information paints a picture of a systemic lack of supervision
in the provision of aid to Pakistan, often lax U.S. oversight, and the incentivization of U.S. taxpayer–
funded corruption in the Pakistani military and security services. The author believes that this is the first
attempt to present an overview of U.S. aid to Pakistan since 2001, evaluate it, and present
recommendations on how to ensure that mistakes are not repeated and lessons are learned.163U.S. Aid to
Pakistan—U.S. Taxpayers Have Funded Pakistani Corruption Since 1951, the United States has given
significant funding to Pakistan. Since September 11, 2001, U.S. funding has been intended for the
following five purposes: to cover the extra cost to Pakistan’s military of fighting terrorism; provide
Pakistan with military equipment to fight terrorism; to provide development and humanitarian assistance;
covert funds (such as bounties or prize money); and cash transfers directly to the Pakistani government’s
budget. Pakistan one of only four countries to receive direct cash transfers. Between 2002 and 2008, this
“thank you” to Pakistan for help in fighting terrorism cost the U.S. taxpayer $2,374,000,000. By its
nature, these cash transfers became Pakistani sovereign funds, precluding U.S. oversight. Since 2001,
there have been significant concerns over the funding: • The United States has not been transparent about
the funds. Until 2009, information has been either hidden from the public or released in a form too
aggregated to allow for effective public oversight. Those who have seen the agreements on how funds are
to be spent say they have lacked concrete benchmarks, sometimes even concrete figures, and were too
vague to be effective.• The United States misused development funds. Operating costs were high, too
much of the aid was ineffective, and United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
programs have been hampered by insufficient resources and security concerns.• There was a lack of
agreed strategy for use of funds. Aims for the military aid were poorly defined, and many of the
agreements on how funds were to be spent were inadequate.• The United States had inadequate
procedures for checking how Pakistan spent the funds. U.S. Embassy staff in Pakistan were not required
to check how the Pakistani military actually spent U.S. funds, the Pakistani army insisted that the
Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA)—where much of the money was to be spent—were too
dangerous to visit, making sustained oversight there impossible; the United States has not been able to
check Pakistani army records on how the money was being spent; the procedures in place to check how
Pakistan spent the money were inadequate, and the decision to give Pakistan funds in the form of
reimbursements made adequate oversight impossible.• U.S. funds disincentivized democratization by
giving the military a disincentive to submit to civilian control, increasing its independence from
government, and ignoring evidence of profiteering from military budgets. • The Pakistani military did not
use most of the funds for the agreed objective of fighting terror. Pakistan bought much conventional
military equipment. Examples include F-16s, aircraft-mounted armaments, anti-ship and antimissile
defense systems, and an air defense radar system costing $200 million, despite the fact that the terrorists
in the FATA have no air attack capability. Over half of the total funds—54.9 percent—were spent on
fighter aircraft and weapons, over a quarter—26.62 percent—on support and other aircraft, and 10 percent
on advanced weapons systems. • There is also clear evidence of corruption within the Pakistani army. The
United States provided $1.5 million to reimburse Pakistan for damage to Navy vehicles which had not
been used in combat, $15 million for the Pakistani army to build bunkers for which there is no evidence
that they exist, and about $30 million for Pakistani road-building for which there is no such evidence
either. Fifty-five million dollars was provided for helicopter maintenance for the entire national helicopter
fleet which was not performed. Pakistan continued to receive around $80 million per month for military
operations during ceasefire periods when troops were in their barracks. U.S. officials visiting the FATA
found Pakistani 164U.S. Aid to Pakistan—U.S. Taxpayers Have Funded Pakistani Corruption Frontier
Corps units poorly equipped, one reporting that he saw members of the Corps “standing… in the snow in
sandals,” with several wearing World War I–era pith helmets and carrying barely functional Kalashnikov
rifles with “just 10 rounds of ammunition each”. At one point, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf
himself complained that Pakistan’s helicopters needed more U.S. spare parts and support, despite reports
from U.S. military officials that the United States had provided $8 million worth of Cobra parts over the
previous six months.“The great majority” of the Coalition Support Funds given by the United States to
reimburse Pakistan for counterterrorism operations was reportedly diverted to the Ministry of Finance,
with only $300 million reaching the Army in the financial year ending 2008. This is evidence of
corruption at the highest level. The result is that, after eight years of funding, many Pakistani troops in the
FATA lack basic equipment such as sufficient ammunition, armored vests, and shoes. For many years,
U.S. officials ignored clear evidence that the military was not using U.S. funds to further U.S. foreign
policy objectives. • Pakistani counterterrorism failed until 2009. During the years 2001 to mid-2009,
significant parts of the FATA were under Taliban control, and according to the 2007 National Intelligence
Estimate, al Qaeda has reconstituted a safe haven in the FATA. Tellingly, when the Pakistani army did
launch an effective operation in Malakand in mid-2009, it was primarily in response to public pressure
within Pakistan, not U.S. aid. Sadly, it seems that Pakistan’s military and security services have for many
years been a black hole for U.S. funds. They have enriched individuals at the expense of the proper
functioning of Pakistani institutions and the country’s ability to fight its extremist enemies and provided
already kleptocratic institutions with further incentives for corruption. Many of the incentives for
Pakistani army corruption are longstanding, institutional, and remain in place today. Preventing this
performance from recurring will require changes to the oversight system such as the use of experts and
the creation of a dedicated monitoring group as described below. But that will not be sufficient. It will
also require an understanding that conditionality is just one of the items in the toolbox available for
getting aid right and an understanding of how and when it should be used, to which this paper contributes.
Conditional aid is the only effective mechanism to see reform
Ibrahim 09, Belfer Center Discussion Paper, International Security Program, Harvard Kennedy School,
(Azeem, “US Aid to Pakistan – US taxpayers have funded Pakistani corruption”, Harvard Kennedy
School, July 2009, http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/Final_DP_2009_06_08092009.pdf) //LA
Finally, conditionality is essential if the humanitarian aid is to reach its intended recipients. The fact that
aid for education and “worldly”, as opposed to religious, comprehensive study programs can help to
mitigate the spread of militancy among younger generations is widely acknowledged among U.S.
policymakers. But too much of the aid allocated to this purpose over the previous eight years has not been
effective. There are various reasons for this, such as security concerns hampering the ability to target the
aid correctly, the use of foreign contractors resulting in enriching neighboring countries, and a misguided
focus on tangibles such as school buildings at the expense of intangibles such as better quality teaching.81
Given this, it is essential to put a coherent distribution mechanism in place for non-military aid. Even
regarding this as a condition is misleading. It is a precondition for its being worthwhile to give the aid in
the first place.
Uniq: Border Security Now
US assists Mexico border through Merida Initiatives - Mexican Border Security is
receiving 234$ million
Seelke and Finklea 13, Clare Ribando Seelke is a Specialist in Latin American Affairs and Kristin M.
Finklea is Analyst in Domestic Security, (Ribando and Finklea, “U.S.-Mexican Security Cooperation:
The Mérida Initiative and Beyond”, 6/26/13, Congressional Research Service,
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/210921.pdf) //LA
Brazen violence perpetrated by drug trafficking organizations and other criminal groups is threatening
citizen security and governance in some parts of Mexico, a country with which the United States shares a
nearly 2,000 mile border and $500 billion in annual trade. Although the violence in Mexico has generally
declined since late 2011, analysts estimate that it may have claimed more than 60,000 lives between
December 2006 and November 2012. The violence has increased U.S. concerns about stability in Mexico,
a key political and economic ally, and about the possibility of violence spilling over into the United
States. U.S.-Mexican security cooperation increased significantly as a result of the development and
implementation of the Mérida Initiative, a counterdrug and anticrime assistance package for Mexico and
Central America first funded in FY2008. Whereas U.S. assistance initially focused on training and
equipping Mexican counterdrug forces, it now places more emphasis on addressing the weak institutions
and underlying societal problems that have allowed the drug trade to flourish in Mexico. The Mérida
strategy now focuses on (1) disrupting organized criminal groups, (2) institutionalizing the rule of law,
(3) creating a 21st century border , and (4) building strong and resilient communities. As part of the
Mérida Initiative, the Mexican government pledged to intensify its anticrime efforts and the U.S.
government pledged to address drug demand and the illicit trafficking of firearms and bulk currency to
Mexico. Inaugurated on December 1, 2012, Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto has vowed to continue
U.S.-Mexican security cooperation, albeit with a shift in focus toward reducing violent crime in Mexico.
Peña Nieto has begun to adjust the process and priorities of U.S.-Mexican efforts, adjustments which
President Obama has pledged to support. The Interior Ministry is now the primary entity through which
Mérida training and equipment requests are coordinated and intelligence is channeled. The Mexican
government is requesting increased assistance for judicial reform and prevention efforts, but limiting U.S.
involvement in some law enforcement and intelligence operations. As the Peña Nieto government fleshes
out its security strategy, Mérida programs are likely to be adjusted in order to support those efforts that
align with U.S. priorities. The 113th Congress is likely to continue funding and overseeing the Mérida
Initiative and related domestic initiatives, but may also consider supporting new programs. From FY2008
to FY2012, Congress appropriated $1.9 billion in Mérida assistance for Mexico, roughly $1.2 billion of
which had been delivered as of April 2013. The Obama Administration asked for $234.0 million for
Mérida programs in in its FY2013 budget request and $183 million in its FY2014 request. Congress may
wish to examine how well the Mexican government’s security strategy supports U.S. interests in Mexico.
Congressional approval will be needed should the State Department seek to reprogram some of the
funding already in the pipeline for Mérida, or shift new funding to better align with Mexico’s new
priorities. Should disagreements occur between Mexican and U.S. priorities, Congress may weigh in on
how those disagreements should be resolved. Congress may also debate how to measure the impact of
Mérida Initiative programs, as well as the extent to which Mérida has evolved to respond to changing
security conditions in Mexico. Another issue of congressional interest involves whether Mexico is
meeting the human rights conditions placed on Mérida Initiative funding.
Misc
Christy and Moore 13, Patrick Christy and Evan Moore are senior policy analysts at the Foreign Policy
Initiative (Patrick and Evan, “Don’t Let Sequestration Cut Foreign Aid”, 2/27/13, US News and World
Report, http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2013/02/27/dont-let-sequestration-cutforeign-aid) //LA
Much attention has focused on how looming sequestration cuts will harm national defense, but few people
understand how sequestration's March 2013 onset will also hurt U.S. foreign assistance programs that
advance America's security, prosperity, and global leadership. Under sequestration, spending on
international affairs (a major component of which is U.S. foreign assistance) will be slashed not only by
roughly 5.3 percent in fiscal year 2013, but also by as much as $50 billion over the next decade—roughly
what the United States spends on diplomacy and development in a single year. It's important to remember
that America's commitment to foreign assistance reflects not only the nation's moral character, but also its
strategic and economic interests. First, foreign assistance promotes national security by helping to fight
the causes of terrorism, stabilize weak states, and promote regional-level security and global stability. To
take a key example, foreign assistance is playing a crucial role in America's larger struggle to combat
conditions that can spawn terrorism—namely, poverty, weak institutions, and corruption—by promoting
economic development, good governance, and transparency in the Middle East and South Asia. Second,
foreign assistance promotes prosperity and self reliance by encouraging economic development and
private enterprise in aid-recipient countries, as well as opening and developing international markets for
the United States. For example, South Korea—which was a leading benefactor of U.S. foreign assistance
after having been devastated in the Korean War—is now America's seventh largest trading partner, a
vibrant democracy, and a significant donor of foreign assistance. Third, foreign assistance advances
America's moral values and humanitarian interests by saving lives, fighting poverty and hunger,
combating infectious diseases like HIV/AIDS, promoting education, and bolstering democratic
institutions. For example, President George W. Bush launched the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS
Relief (PEPFAR) in 2003 to battle the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa. In conjunction with the Global
Fund to Fight AIDS, Malaria, and Tuberculosis, PEPFAR has achieved real and objective results. Foreign
assistance—properly understood—is neither national bribery nor altruistic charity, but rather strategic
investment. As Paul D. Miller, a former director for Afghanistan in the National Security Council under
Presidents Bush and Obama who earlier served as an Army reservist in Afghanistan, wrote: Foreign aid
helps countries whose interests align with our own increase their capacities. The United States gives
money to help select countries—not the entire world—improve specific abilities, like their ability to
provide public security, defend their borders, or buy and sell goods.... Aid is hard power. It is a weapon
the United States uses to strengthen allies [and partners] and, thus, ourselves. To be clear, the goal of
results-driven foreign assistance is to help America's partners become self reliant. While it is true that
certain development programs faced challenges in the past, Washington has increasingly embraced new—
and arguably revolutionary—reforms over the last decade to make foreign assistance even more
transparent, accountable, and more effective. Yet, despite significant reforms, foreign assistance is still
frequently misunderstood. As Sen. Marco Rubio has noted, even though foreign assistance comprises
roughly 1 percent of total U.S. government spending,… there's this urban legend out there that somehow,
if we just eliminated foreign aid, we'd have all the money we need to wipe out our debt. Foreign aid is
very small. It's a significant number of dollars, no doubt about it, and one dollar of waste is too
much. But if you wiped out all the foreign aid in the world, you wouldn't notice it in terms of the debt
conversation. However, if you completely wiped out U.S. foreign assistance, you would notice the severe
and likely irreparable damage to America's security, prosperity, and global leadership. In addition to
harming U.S. diplomacy and international development, sequestration cuts will further undermine
America's ability to address the challenges of the 21st century. That is because current law will slash $500
billion—in addition to the $487 billion that is already being cut by the Obama administration—from
defense spending over the next decade. Indeed, Pentagon leaders have repeatedly warned that near-term
budget reductions will severely restrict the military's ability to adequately protect America's economic and
security interests. This will have a major impact on global security. As Marine Corps Commandant
General James F. Amos recently warned in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee: [A]
fiscally driven lapse in American leadership and forward engagement will create a void in which old
threats will be left unaddressed and new security challenges will find room to grow. There should be no
misunderstanding …[S]equestration will have a deleterious effect on the stability of global order, the
perceptions of our enemies, and the confidence of our allies. If the United States is to remain a global
leader in the 21st century, then it is critical that leaders in Washington work to sustain investments in
foreign assistance, diplomacy, and national defense. As the ongoing French intervention in Mali has
demonstrated, unstable territory can quickly become a safe-haven for extremist groups. The truth is that a
robust and strategically-applied foreign assistance budget—in conjunction with a strong military—can
bolster America's capacity to respond to critical global events. Allowing sequestration to occur, however,
would undermine both America's strategic interests and its values.
Thumpers
Thumper – General
2014 budget makes trade-offs inevitable
NPQ 13
[Nonprofit Quarterly, Rick Cohen, “The Nonprofit Significance of U.S. Foreign Assistance in the USAID
FY2014 Budget” May 2 2013, http://www.nonprofitquarterly.org/policysocial-context/22225-thenonprofit-significance-of-u-s-foreign-assistance-in-the-usaid-fy2014-budget.html]
The twelve accounts that comprise the humanitarian and development assistance budget of USAID will
be $20.4 billion if the President’s FY2014 budget is approved as-is. Out of a $3.77 trillion dollar budget, foreign
assistance of this sort would be slightly more than 0.5 percent of the total budget of the federal government. Together, the Department of State
and USAID would get a total of $47.8 billion, down from $51.1 billion in the FY2013 Continuing Resolution, again a piddling share of the total
budget, roughly 1.3 percent.
To the President’s credit, there are some areas of increased funding in foreign aid and some notable areas of cuts:
·A small increase in global health funding to $8.3 billion, up from $8.1 billion in FY2012, with significant attention
to malaria ($670 million for the President’s Malaria Initiative)
·A mix of commitments for work through international organizations—an increase in the U.S. payment for the United
Nations budget to $617 million, up from $568 million in FY2012; an increase in funding for the InterAmerican Development Bank from $75 million to $102 million; but a cut from $30 million to $24 million
for the African Development Foundation
·Nearly a doubling for international disaster assistance to $2.04 billion
·A decline in economic development assistance, from $6.14 billion in FY2012 to $5.45 billion in FY2014
·A cut in economic assistance to the troubled Palestinian areas of Gaza and the West Bank from $395
million to $370 million, and a cut of $43 million in aid to sub-Saharan Africa
·A new commitment of $580 million for a new Middle East and North Africa Incentive Fund to
“support…political reform, free and fair elections, democratic institutions, transparent and accountable government, transitional justice, open
markets, and inclusive growth”
The Millennium Challenge Corporation is slated to get $898.2 million if President Obama’s budget is approved. Within
that number, $676.2 million is slated for MCC compacts with Liberia, Morocco, Niger, Sierra Leone, and Tanzania, but the MCC staff
acknowledge that total isn’t enough to fund all five in addition to Benin, El Salvador, Ghana and Georgia, all in the midst of developing their
compacts, and at least three of them slated to suffer cuts from sequestration, notwithstanding whatever gets approved in the FY2014 budget.
Thumper – Haiti
Haiti thumps
Cassata 6-25
[Donna Cassata, Associated Press, June 25 2013, “Report finds USAID spending on aid and housing in
Haiti is 30% of what was promised” http://canadahaitiaction.ca/content/report-finds-usaid-spending-aidand-housing-haiti-30-what-was-promised]
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. government had ambitious plans to help earthquake-ravaged Haiti where more than
three-fourths of the population lives on less than $2 a day - construction of 15,000 homes in the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere.
Disputes over land rights, inaccurate estimates and higher costs have forced the U.S. Agency for
International Development to drastically scale back those plans and left members of Congress questioning whether American
tax dollars are delivering the help first promised after the Jan. 12, 2010 earthquake. The Government Accountability Office, in a report released
on Tuesday, found that as of March 2013 the agency had disbursed only 31 percent of $651 million despite the government's insistence that it was
committed to Haiti's reconstruction. The GAO also found that "a substantial amount of progress on project activities
remains to be completed." Instead of 15,000 homes for 75,000 to 90,000 beneficiaries, the agency plans to build 2,649 homes for some
13,200 to 15,900 beneficiaries. In fact, the agency is expected to build 906 houses and non-government agencies and other partners are on tap to
construct 1,743 homes. Among the problems causing delays and cost increases was acquiring the land titles to
build as well as the Haitian government's demand that the homes have flush toilets. One difficulty was that before
the January 2010 earthquake, Haiti had no wastewater treatment plants. Since then, a temporary facility has been constructed at
one location and a permanent plant built near the capital city of Port-au-Prince though it's unclear whether the facilities can serve the homes. The
earthquake displaced some 2 million people, killed about 230,000 and injured 300,000. Congress voted to provide $1.14 billion in
reconstruction funds, including $651 million for the agency, which provides U.S. economic and humanitarian assistance
worldwide.
Thumper – Pakistan
USAID in Pakistan thumps – expenditures will continue to grow
Mahmood 12
[Javed Mahmood, Pakistan Observer, “USAID to spend $800m in 5 Pak major sectors from next year”
November 15 2012, http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=182399]
Thursday, November 15, 2012 - Islamabad—The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) would spend about
$800 million in different development projects in Pakistan in the financial year 2013 that has started from the 1st
of Oct 2012. The USAID has targeted five major sectors — economic growth, energy, education, health and community infrastructure
development, with the mission to promote stability and prosperity in the country. Jock Conly, Mission Director of the USAID
Programme in Pakistan, disclosed this in an interview to Pakistan Observer. Virginija Morgan, Country Head of the
USAID Programme facilitated the Pakistan Observer’s interview in the USAID’s office in the US Embassy. Ms Morgan and Matthew Boland,
Deputy Spokesperson of the US Embassy, Islamabad, were also present during the interview. Below is the detail of the interview. Q: For how
long you have been in Pakistan and heading the USAID programme? A: I came to Pakistan in June this year to work with the USAID Programme
as the Mission Director. Q: What motivated you to head the USAID programme in Pakistan and how is your experience of working in this
country? A: I am here to make efforts to achieve the key goals of the US Congress of making Pakistan a stable, peaceful and prosperous country.
Pakistan is a key ally of the United States because of its strategic location in the region. Stability, prosperity and peace in Pakistan are essential
for the United States so that this country could play its role in the regional development, peace and security. In 1989-90 I had been working in
Pakistan. In 2012 my boss (global head of the USAID Programme) asked me to join the programme in Pakistan and I happily accepted this offer.
Q: How do you see the culture and people of Pakistan? A: The people and the culture of Pakistan are very nice. I like the people of Pakistan and
their hospitality. Q: What are the key objectives of launching the USAID projects in Pakistan? A: The United States want to see peace, prosperity
and stability in Pakistan. That’s why the US government had engaged the USAID in Pakistan and allocating millions of dollars every year for
different development projects. To achieve these goals, we have targeted five major areas _ economic growth, energy development, health,
education and community infrastructure. These are the areas that need proper focus and financial support for development. Q: How much
amount is being spent in a year on the USAID projects in Pakistan? A: We are seeing an increase in the
amount of expenditure on the USAID projects as several projects are at an advanced stage of completion
that require more expenditures. In Financial Year 2013, a huge amount of $800 million would be utilized
for the development of the USAID projects in Pakistan. Earlier, the annual quantum of expenditures on
the USAID project was less than this amount. Q: Any new sectors/areas being included in the upcoming projects? A: We have
short-listed five key sectors in the USAID programme that I have mentioned earlier. We select a new project from within these five areas after
consulting the stakeholders. Once the new project gets all the mandatory approvals, we start work on it immediately.
to protect borders; ensure the safety of transportation systems; protect critical
infrastructure; identify persons who would do harm; and respond to prevent,
mitigate, react to and recover from acts of terror.¶ Our increased investment in homeland
security really isn’t much of a departure from Raytheon’s focus prior to 9/11, but it represents a strategy to
accelerate our growth by applying a commercial model for product development and solution delivery.
Our focus has always been to support those who defend us, so support of our military and security
agencies remains at the core of Raytheon’s mission.¶ Many technologies and solutions we have
developed for use by the military have also proven to be very functional in the
homeland security environment. We build and integrate systems for persistent surveillance,
command and control, target detection and tracking, intelligence collection and analysis, and effects for
the physical and cyber battlefields of our defense customers. We are increasing our focus on applying
those core competencies to the hardest problems of homeland security agencies, and we are bringing
them to market in a one-to-many business model. Respecting they are often moving rapidly, dealing with
a swiftly evolving threat, and are budget constrained, we model, simulate and visualize solutions for each
customer, offering off-the-shelf components that are quickly tailored to their needs and built with open
standards.¶ Among the priorities of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security are
cybersecurity and critical infrastructure protection. How has Raytheon stepped up its
presence in these areas, and what do you see the future holding in these key arenas? ¶ We certainly
have stepped up the pace of our investment, development and acquisitions in the
cybersecurity domain. In history, some of the greatest revelations in science have come from
“outsiders” – those not constrained in their thinking by a discipline’s or an industry’s standard
paradigms.¶ I am proud of and excited by the innovations being developed and brought to the
cybersecurity market by Raytheon engineers – brilliant technologists not constrained by the paradigms of
the information technology industry. Their way of thinking – about sensors, effects, command and control
– has produced amazing results on Raytheon networks and computing devices.¶ I can say little about the
newest of these solutions at this time because intellectual property protections are still being enacted, but
suffice it to say we have compelling offerings for the U.S. Comprehensive National Cyber Initiative. And
our investment has been steady, as illustrated by our acquisitions of BBN Technologies, Telemus
Solutions, SI Government Solutions, and Oakley Networks; mixing the DNA of these cyber firms with that
of Raytheon’s legacy intelligence and information systems capabilities has produced an exciting range of
opportunities for us and our customers.¶ In fact, much of your professional background over the past more
than 20 years has been in information technology systems. How does your own IT background fit in with
Raytheon’s strategy, and the integration of IT systems? ¶ Prior to joining Raytheon, I spent several years
working with government agencies to re-engineer operations using commercial-off-the-shelf software and
managed services. At Raytheon, I am working with our businesses to apply similar commercial business
models to bring our superior technical capabilities to a wider range of customers. We’ve also applied
concepts from business process engineering to help security agencies develop solutions using the right
mix of policy, processes, people and technology.¶ IT is always a part of those solutions. The “rubber meets
the road” at the level of the men and women who are charged with the protection of our country and our
people; the engine that powers them is information, and IT is the key to giving them the right information
at the right time. ¶ Let’s focus, if we may, on border security. What specifically is Raytheon doing in the
border security arena, and, if you can, could you please provide a bit of a glimpse into the future?¶ For
years, we’ve been known for border security capabilities including radar and other
persistent, mobile and re-deployable air, ground and maritime surveillance
systems such as RAID [Rapid Aerostat Initial Deployment]. Our radar systems are
deployed in the air and on the sea, protecting the aerial and maritime routes to our
shores and borders. Many of our systems are deployed and in use by our military
forces overseas as well as in the United States.¶ We also produce and integrate
intelligence capabilities, aerial platforms, communications interoperability and
even nonlethal force protection systems, such as our directed energy systems
known as Active Denial and Silent Guardian. We enable the rapid integration and
risk assessment of passenger, visa applicant or cargo data. We enable the
identification of radiological isotopes in a container. And we enable actionable
intelligence and force multiplication through command and control systems, such as
Athena for maritime and Border View for land borders.¶ We are growing our border security business in
more of our solutions for lower cost repeatability and a one-toBy growing our international business.¶ We recognize that it is the operators, those who have lived the
challenges of securing our nation’s borders, who are the experts in the principles, strategies and tactics of
their missions, but we also understand that they don’t always have the best and most recent information
and awareness regarding the technological “art of the possible.” Scientists and engineers invent,
design and create the “art of the possible,” yet they are constantly seeking a greater
understanding of the mission requirements so that they might develop and deploy
the right tools more quickly to make the job of the operator safer and more
effective.¶ In order to close these “knowledge gaps” as quickly as possible,
Raytheon has brought together experts from the operational environment and
joined them with our scientists and engineers. We are improving our connectivity and
information-sharing efforts with the men and women “on the line,” and we are seeking to continue to
open new opportunities for dialogue. Our commitment is to improving our own understanding of realworld mission requirements while simultaneously informing, educating and updating operators on
existing and developing capabilities.¶ We do not assume that technology is the starting point, or even the
final answer to meeting the requirements of a border security mission, particularly in a country that may
be just beginning the process of developing a border security force. Border security, in the domestic or
international markets, requires a mix of capabilities that take into account operational challenges, threats
and the organizational maturity of agencies charged with the mission. While certain solutions may include
tactical infrastructure such as fences and roads, a trained and well-equipped workforce, facilities, vehicles,
intelligence and technology, in the end our job is to partner with the customer to determine the best mix
of these capabilities and to facilitate the deployment of that mix to achieve mission success.¶ In the future,
you will see us bring to market more solutions precisely fitted to the operational constraints of border
security agents – solutions intended to enable them to reconcile sometimes contradictory objectives, such
as moving passenger vehicles through a port of entry in seconds while scanning every vehicle for hidden
personnel and contraband. ¶ Raytheon obviously recognizes the importance of events such as the Border
Security Expo, to be held this year April 28 and 29 in Phoenix, with Raytheon serving as corporate event
sponsor. How can functions such as the Border Security Expo play a role in bringing together the efforts
of public and private sector?¶ The Border Security Expo in Phoenix is an outstanding example of an
opportunity for border security agencies and industry to communicate and learn from one another. I
believe the key to the real success of these types of events is open dialogue that goes beyond the formal
speeches and seminars and opens informal opportunities for industry and government to “compare
notes.Ӧ At the upcoming event, I would encourage industry to have its engineers and scientists attend
along with their business development teams. The engineers and scientists will benefit from listening to
the government agency representatives explain their missions, strategies, tactics and challenges, and they
should seek opportunities to ask direct questions about operational requirements and what the operators
believe they need to accomplish their goals.¶ Frequently, when questioned about functional needs, an
operator may indicate he or she wants a particular tool, but when an open dialogue uncovers the
underlying operational requirement behind the requested tool, engineers are just as frequently able to
offer superior suggestions based on new capabilities. This usually results in an exchange of ideas that
leaves both parties better informed and more likely to develop and deploy the right tools for the job. ¶ I
would also encourage government and agency representatives in attendance to stay beyond the limits of
their specific assignment or speeches, visit exhibits and make themselves available for informal
conversations. I encourage agencies, to the degree possible within their operational constraints, to send
some of their field operators to the events in addition to the agency leadership. ¶ When visiting the display
booths, operators shouldn’t feel that they have to simply pass through the vendor booths and look at the
products on display. They should ask industry representatives to provide views of what is on the horizon,
and they should feel encouraged to suggest changes or adaptations to existing products to meet specific
mission needs. Again, it’s about discovering the art of the possible. ¶ It has definitely been a privilege to
have this opportunity to chat with you, and I look forward to seeing you in April in Phoenix. Is there
anything else you would like readers of Maritime & Border Security News to know concerning your views
on the topics we’ve discussed?¶ Just that I feel honored to have the opportunity to work in an industry that
was built upon defending and protecting America. I’ve had the opportunity throughout my
career to work with some of the finest and most dedicated people in the world in
the public service as well as private sectors. I believe that serving and protecting our country
and its people is an honorable and exciting mission, and I’m energized every day by the possibility that
what we are doing will save lives and will protect our way of life.