PUBLIC POLICY UPDATE October 14, 2011 WASHINGTON UPDATE Letters to Deficit Reduction Committee Detail Potential Costs

to International Affairs The highest ranking Democrats on House committees all submitted their proposals to the Joint Select Committee (JSC) on Deficit Reduction this week, with the letters from Rep. Berman (DCA)ranking member of the Committee on Foreign Affairsand Rep. Dicks (D-WA)ranking member of the Appropriations Committeebeing of particular interest to the InterAction community. First, Rep. Bermans letter (http://www.democraticleader.gov/pdf/ForeignAffairs101311.pdf) makes the case that international affairs spending has already borne a disproportionate share of the cuts. It warns that further cuts, such as those in the House FY2012 bill would mean decimating our famine relief efforts in the Horn of Africa, losing the window of opportunity to support democratic reforms as a result of the Arab Spring, and complicating our militarys plans for withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. It notes the regular polls that show how the public vastly overestimates the amount of the federal budget that goes to foreign assistance, discusses the importance of trade for economic recovery, and notes the proposals for reform of our aid architecture in his draft bill. Perhaps most importantly, it takes on fiscal concerns head-on, observing that short-term savings through further cuts to our international affairs budget are likely to increase long-term costs, both financial and human. Our children cannot be safe when deadly diseases run rampant and the global environment is degraded. Our jobs will not grow if people in other countries cannot afford to buy the products we make. And our budget deficit will not shrink if we are called to respond with military force to national security threats that could have been addressed with less costly preventive measures. Rep. Dicks letter (http://www.democraticleader.gov/pdf/Appropriations101311.pdf) focuses on the estimated effects of the automatic spending cuts that would take effect if the JSC failed to produce a proposal for Congress or if Congress failed to pass what the JSC recommended; the letter gives the details for defense, homeland security, public safety, protection of financial markets, international affairs, education, health, and safety net programs. The international affairs section goes into considerable detail, listing among the likely effects of sequestration during FY2013 (if the cuts were applied across-the-board) the following costs: 8 million people denied treatment or interventions for malaria 43,000 denied treatment for TB, resulting in 12,000 deaths 3,500 mothers dying 40,000 children under 5 put at risk 900,000 undernourished children deprived of nutrition interventions 1

8.5 million women denied access to family planning services, leading to 2.5 million additional unintended pregnancies, resulting in 1.2 million more abortions, 28,000 additional newborn deaths, and 4,000 additional maternal deaths. 223,000 new HIV/AIDS infections that would otherwise have been prevented 1.1 million patients losing access to life-saving drugs, resulting in an additional 191,000 children being orphaned. 2.5 million people losing access to emergency food assistance, while a major famine grows in the Horn of Africa. These estimates are based on calculations from the Congressional Budget Office (available at http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12414) estimating that if sequestration kicks in to create the full additional $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction required, that would result in about a 7.8% or $39 billion reduction in FY2013 for non-defense discretionary spending. Note that this estimated reduction would apply to the overall non-defense discretionary spending allocation. How it would be distributed within that large category would be up to the Appropriations Committees. The JSC continues to meet in closed meetings, with five and a half weeks now before the November 23 deadline it faces for voting out a recommendation. UPCOMING HEARINGS Hearing: Final Report of the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan Committee: Senate Armed Services Committee Witnesses: Frank Kendall, principal deputy undersecretary for acquisition, technology and logistics, U.S. Dept. of Defense Air Force Lt. Gen. Brooks Bash, director for logistics (J4), Joint Staff Dov Zakheim, commissioner, the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan Katherine Schinasi, commissioner, Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan When: Wednesday, October 19, 2:30 p.m. Where: 232-A Russell Senate Office Building Contact: 202-224-3871 http://www.armed-services.senate.gov Hearing: The G20 and Global Economic and Financial Risks Committee: Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee Witnesses: Lael Brainard, undersecretary for international affairs, U.S. Dept. of Treasury Uri Dadush, senior associate and director of international economics program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace When: October 20, 2:00 p.m. Where: 538 Dirksen Senate Office Building Contact: 202-224-7391 http://banking.senate.gov

HEARING SUMMARIES The Future of National Defense: Perspectives of Former Chairmen of Committee on Armed Services House Armed Services Committee October 12, 2011 Witnesses Duncan Hunter, former chairman, House Armed Services Committee John Warner, former chairman, Senate Armed Services Committee Ike Skelton, former chairman, House Armed Services Committee Opening Statements Chair Buck McKeon (R-CA) U.S. successes in the global war on terror are lulling the nation into a false confidence of the September 10th mindset, but security threats remain. Department of Defense (DoD) has already experienced a half-trillion dollar cut. o If Congress Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (JSC) does not succeed in reaching an agreement on deficit reduction, DoD will experience an additional and automatic half-trillion cut. What Congress must address is how to make sure the DoD is a good steward of taxpayers dollars without increasing the risk to U.S. national security. Ranking Member Adam Smith (D-NJ) U.S. faces enormous challenges on the budget front but also continues to face security threats. o Devastating cuts to the defense budget affect how the U.S. will meet these threats. This is not to say DoD must be exempt from budget cuts, but rather Congress must strategically decide where these reductions will come from. The challenge ahead is for Congress to agree on a proposal for reduction of the deficit, or else DoD will be subject to across-the-board cuts that take away any budgetary discretion by DoD. Duncan Hunter The budget cuts to DoD that will occur if the JSC do not find cuts elsewhere will badly damage U.S. national security in the short and long term. Today, the U.S. is still fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, while Iran is proceeding apace in development of nuclear weapon and China is building its national security capability. o At a time when the U.S. must meet these threats, DoD is being subject to massive budget cuts. In the Western Pacific, budget cuts will deprive the U.S. Navy of preeminence and security in that theater. o Proposed budget cuts will start U.S. on a declining road in military dominance in the Western Pacific opposite a China that is surging in its warfighting ability. Ike Skelton A degradation of U.S. capabilities would limit power projection capability, make allies and partners question U.S. commitment to them, and give China a free hand in the Western Pacific. 3

Significant defense cuts could also compromise U.S. ability to keep and train excellent officers. o U.S. military advantage comes foremost from the unparalleled and professional training of service members. Congress must demonstrate a continued commitment to professional military education programs if the U.S. hopes to be able to adapt to the ever-changing nature of warfare. John Warner Draconian budget cuts to DoD would send signal to both U.S. allies and enemies that U.S. is beginning to withdraw from its responsibilities in the world. U.S. is a stabilizing force in the world. o A U.S. military drawdown might cause other states to see arms build-up as necessary, thus launching another arms race. Questioning Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) 1. Given your experience from the Cold War era, can you put these budget cuts in perspective? Skelton: o In terms of caliber and training, U.S. did not then have a military that can compare to what we have today. We have well-trained personnel who carry a positive attitude and understand duty, and who are very good at what they do. o U.S. cannot lose this advantage by subjecting this well-trained personnel and military education programs to draconian budget cuts. Hunter: o These personnelcreative, smart, and with enormous experience know how to win wars, and a lot of great talent is going to be jettisoned by proposed cuts. Warner: o These warfighters must have in their hands the most modern weapons available in order to face array of future challenges, and budget cuts will affect this necessity. Ranking Member Adam Smith (D-WA) 1. Based on your experiences, what do we need to do going forward to have a better and less wasteful acquisition procurement process? Warner: o Congress needs to exercise stronger oversight. o Congress must not fear cancelling the contract if the case merits it. Hunter: o The labyrinth of bureaucratic regulations does the acquisition process a disservice. o Congress needs to streamline the bureaucracy and remedy the disconnect that exists between the bureaucracy here and those in the field that might need quick acquisition. Skelton: o In both 2009 and 2010, acquisition reform bills were passed in an effort to solve many of the problems already discussed.

What this committee needs to do now is follow through with these bills to determine whether they have been effective.

Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA) 1. If the panel had to issue one warning in terms of where we are today for us to share with our colleagues, what would that warning be? Skelton: o One thing to worry about is always-present uncertainty about national security. One cannot tell what is around the corner, and the U.S. military must be ready for future contingencies. Warner: o The strength of the U.S. economy is equally as important as strength of U.S. weapons. o Thus, it is of the utmost importance for the U.S. government to strike an effective balance between reducing the budget deficit and maintaining its ability to address global responsibilities. Hunter: o U.S. must revive its industrial base, which is tied to U.S. national security. Rep. Robert Wittman (R-VA) 1. What risks will the U.S. face in the future should this budget scenario come to pass? Warner: o U.S. is an island nation, dependent on the sea lanes of the world for the trade that supports U.S. economy. o Prime mission of U.S. Navy is to operate and protect these sea lanes. In order to effectively do this, U.S. must retain replacement and modernization cycle to ensure capability of U.S. Navy to do this. Hunter: o Being unable to offset China in the Western Pacific would relegate U.S. to being a subservient force in that region. Skelton: o U.S. may see global trends, but we really do not know where next shoe will drop. Hence, steps must be taken to ensure that budget cuts do not eliminate a strong intelligence network. Rep. Susan Davis (D-CA) 1. Can the panel provide any additional insight into the oversight problems? Hunter: o With respect to costs and deterring overrun budgets, there is no more compelling force than competition. o U.S. must reinvigorate competitive bidding on contracts. 2. The issue of the cost of benefits to military personnel comes up time and time again. What is the panels opinion on this issue? Should military benefits be on the chopping block? Skelton: o No. Without sufficient benefits for the military, retention and recruitment go down, leaving behind a second-class military.

U.S. must allow personnel to provide for themselves and their families, or they will be forced find another position outside the military to make more money.

Rep. Colleen Hanabusa (D-HI) 1. How do we offset coming dominance in Western Pacific by China? Hunter: o Chinese strategy in the Western Pacific is heavily reliant on missiles that can exterminate U.S. Navy in the region. To stop missiles, U.S. must build a missile defense. o U.S. must also revive its industrial base by putting fairly strong tariffs on Chinese goods, as well as punishing the Chinese governments manipulation of the Yuan. Markup of H.R. 2829 To promote transparency, accountability and reform within the UN system House Foreign Affairs Committee Oct. 13, 2011 Opening Statements: Chair Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) Last year, the U.S. contributed $7.7 billion to the United Nations (UN), a 21% increase on 2009. o The UN budget has grown exponentiallyit must start cutting its costs. In funding the UN, we are supporting the Durban process. o Anti-Israel sentiments abound in the UN. We must take a stand and support our close ally and friend. Why do we carry the burden of the UN? o China pays just 3% of the total UN budget. Reform of the UN desperately needed. o Our funding must be used as leverage to bring about this change. Best performing UN agencies are those that are funded voluntarily. o UNICEF is a prime example. o Reforms could move UN funding in this direction. Ranking Member Howard L. Berman (D-CA) The so-called reform legislation we are discussing today has been marketed as an attempt to put an end to anti-Israel campaigning in the UN. o This is false advertising. In reality, this bill will end the U.S.s role in the UN and deal a fatal blow to the entire UN system. The premise of the bill appears to be that by withholding funds, we gain leverage. o Previous such attempts have been wholly unsuccessful and in fact undermined our diplomacy as well as damaged progress towards transparency reform in the UN. Current U.S. laws already require the withdrawal of U.S. funding from UN bodies that recognize Palestine before it has attained statehood. o For example, this is a real possibility with UNESCO. Should not penalize the entire UN system for the way several of its members vote.

A more effective way of influencing members voting would be withholding of funding from those specific member countries.

Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle (R-NY) Must dispell the notion that previous U.S. attempts at gaining leverage within the UN threatening by withholding funding were unsuccessful. o U.S. successfully prevented the PLO from gaining membership in the 1980s with this exact tactic. o Smart withholding is vital for U.S. interest. o Money is, unfortunately, often the only thing the UN and its members will listen to. Rep. Donald M. Payne (D-NJ) The UN has played, and will continue to play, a vital role in global security. o Examples: Horn of Africa, Haiti, Libya, and Sudan. It is more important than ever to keep up U.S. global responsibilities. o Building peace multilaterally is much more cost-effective than responding unilaterally to conflict once it has developed. o UN is our most effective diplomatic tool for building peace in this way. Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN) The UN is no friend of the United States. o U.S. is supporting an organization that is giving positions of responsibility to our enemies. o Cuba assumed the presidency of the Council on Disarmament, followed by Syria. I do not understand why the U.S. gives the UN anything at all. o The UN never has been, is not currently, and never will be, a good friend of the United States. Rep. Gary L. Ackerman (D-NY) The UN is certainly not always successful in providing peace. However, it is easily the best thing we have. A shift to make the UN voluntarily funded would be highly misguided. o It would inevitably lead to a reduction in U.S. influence at the institution. The UN is not supposed to be our friend or an arm of government. o It represents all nation-states; The U.S. cannot expect UN members to vote in a way that is entirely consistent with U.S. policies. Being an active member of the UN is the only way we can properly support Israel. o Reducing our support and influence would only harm Israels interests. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) Anti-U.S. sentiment is widespread within the UN. o The American people will be very supportive of this bill, particularly in these difficult financial times. Our contributions to the UN should be on a voluntary basis. o The UN is not a sovereign body and has no legitimate right to request a tax from the American people. The current UN system, putting gangsters in positions of power, is wrong. o We cannot continue this level of deficit spending, and the first step we must take is to stop funding those who hate us.

Rep. Eliot L. Engel (D-NY) I completely understand the frustrations with the United Nations that have been aired by various committee members today. o These countries must get their own houses in order before assuming chairmanships of these committees. At its prime, the UN is the strongest multilateral institution the world has seen. o However, when the UN rewards bad behavior, its reputation is sullied. The U.S. has a duty of care in the peacekeeping missions of the UN. o The U.S. must help stop abuses of power by these peacekeepers that have made the headlines recently, and work to rectify the reputation of the UN. Rep. Theodore E. Deutch (D-FL) Issues surrounding peacekeeping, transparency, and the Durban process need to be addressed urgently. o However, it is only through U.S. involvement at the UN that we have seen real change take place. o The U.S. has had a significant impact through the UN Security Council. o The U.S. kept Iran and Syria from gaining seats on the Security Council. Nothing could hurt our interests more than reducing our support to the UN. o Another state could question our true commitment to the UN, and by extension the U.S. Security Council permanent seat and power of veto. HR 2829 passed by a 23-15 party-line vote. ARTICLES AND REPORTS The Atlantic Oct. 13: Americans Support U.N. Engagement An overwhelming majority of voters, 86% to be precise, support U.S. involvement in the United Nations, according to a bipartisan poll released on Thursday. The poll results come as the House Foreign Affairs Committee prepares to mark up comprehensive anti-U.N. legislation that could cut off 50% of Americas contribution to the U.N. Development Program. BBC Oct. 11: Votes counted in Liberian election Votes are being counted in Liberias second presidential since the conclusion of the civil war in 2003. Election officials said Tuesdays vote was peaceful, with no violence reported. President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, first elected in 2005, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize last week. Oct. 13: Aid workers kidnapped near Somalia border Gunmen have kidnapped two Spanish doctors working for the medical charity Medecins Sans Frontieres near Kenyas border with Somalia. The two were seized from the Dabaab refugee camp. New York Times Oct. 12: Congress ends 5-year standoff on Free Trade Agreements Congress passed three long-awaited free trade agreements on Wednesday, ending a political standoff that has stretched across two presidencies. The approval of the deals with South Korea, Colombia and Panama are the first of their kind to pass Congress since 2007. 8

Oct. 13: Thailandflooding worsened by human impact Human causes, such as deforestation, overbuilding in catchment areas, the damming and diversion of natural waterways, urban sprawl, and the filling-in of canals, have been blamed for turning the recent heavy monsoon season into the worst flooding Thailand has experienced in half a century. Washington Post Oct. 11: WHO tighter nutritional standards in food aid The World Health Organization announced on Thursday that it plans to recommend tighter nutritional standards in food aid for young children. The improved formulas will be more effective at reducing moderate malnutrition in children under the age of 5. The new guidelines are the first time a high-level body has confirmed that the aid delivered to many of the worlds hungry lacked necessary nutrients.

Disclaimer: Articles linked in the Update are intended to provide a dashboard view of newsworthy and topical issues from popular news outlets that will be of interest to readers of the Update. The articles are an information sharing vehicle rather than an advocacy tool. They are in no way representative of the views of InterAction or the U.S. NGO community as a whole.