Reminding them of the last Administration’s initiatives, Wolfowitz asked the candidates if they felt development assistance is still valuable in today’s economic climate, “Under George W. Bush, who was a conservative Republican, the United States spent billions of dollars to fight AIDS and malaria in Africa and elsewhere and set up the Millennium Challenge Corporation to encourage governments of poor countries to pursue policies that promote economic growth and job creation. Do you believe those are still wise expenditures? Or do you think we can no longer afford them?”

CNN moderator Wolf Blitzer turned first to Rick Santorum, who replied, “I hear people up here talking abut zeroing out foreign aid and humanitarian aid in particular. I think that’s absolutely the wrong course.” He added, “We have done more good for America in Africa and in the third world by the things that we’ve done. And we have saved money and saved military deployments by wisely spending that money not on our enemies but on folks who can and will be our friends.”

Blitzer also asked Herman Cain and Ron Paul for their views, but they took a different tack. Cain was neutral and non-specific, “It may be worthwhile to continue. It may not. I would like to see the results.” And Ron Paul stayed consistent in his opposition, “I think the aid is all worthless. It doesn’t do any good for most of the people. You take money from poor people in this country and you end up giving it to rich people in poor countries.” A few moments later, Newt Gingrich added that he supported helping “people even more effectively and at a much lower cost by having public/private partnerships.”

Foreign assistance appeared at one other moment earlier in the debate, when Michele Bachman challenged Rick Perry’s call to end aid to Pakistan. Bachman said the threat of nuclear proliferation meant the United States could not afford not to be present in Pakistan, prompting Governor Perry to clarify, “absolutely we need to be engaged in that part of the world.”

Debate season isn’t over yet. For updated information on the candidates’ views on U.S. global leadership and diplomacy and development, visit USGLC’s Candidates Corner.

In his remarks at the Citadel, Romney called for a future where, “America leads the free world and the free world leads the entire world.”  Allying himself with President Reagan’s vision of “peace through strength,” Romney highlighted American exceptionalism and rejected the view that American power is on the decline, saying “without American leadership, without clarity of American purpose and resolve, the world becomes a far more dangerous place, and liberty and prosperity would surely be among the first casualties.”

As for our issues, in the speech and accompanying White Paper released by the campaign, Romney reinforced the message in support of “soft power” in his book, No Apology.  He reiterated that he would apply “the full spectrum of hard and soft power to influence events before they erupt into conflict.  Resort to force is always the least desirable and costliest option. We must therefore employ all the tools of statecraft to shape the outcome of threatening situations before they demand military action.”  He called for America to “promote open markets, representative government, and respect for human rights,” and said his Administration would the “exercise leadership in multilateral organizations and alliances.”  On the UN, Romney said his Administration would work to “focus multilateral institutions like the United Nations on achieving the substantive goals of democracy and human rights enshrined in their charters.”

The speech and White Paper did not provide more detailed information on the Governor’s views on development, such as global health, food security, or agricultural development.  The White Paper calls for reorganizing the diplomatic corps along the regional lines of the military combatant commands to facilitate coordination.  It criticizes the “balkanized scheme” of American foreign assistance programs and called for clarifying authorities by appointing a single person responsible for all diplomatic and assistance programs in a region.  While many of these views are in line with Romney’s book and previous statements, the speech and white paper reinforce his commitment to using  all of America’s tools—defense, diplomacy and development—when addressing the threats facing our nation.

Romney also outlined eight actions he would take in his first hundred days of office, including a few related to the civilian side:

• Establishing a single point of responsibility for all soft power resources in the Middle East
• Launching a campaign for economic opportunity in Latin America
• Strengthening and repairing relationships with steadfast allies
• Conduct a full review of our transition in Afghanistan

As for Governor Huntsman, he released what appears to be a preview of his foreign policy speech scheduled for Monday in an op-ed in Politico this morning. Huntsman called for more comprehensive engagement with the world, saying, ““To protect American interests, we need to transform our foreign policy for the modern world. Simply advocating for more ships, more troops and more weapons isn’t a viable foreign policy. We need more agility, more intelligence and more economic engagement with the world.”

With another Republican debate scheduled for next week, we will be monitoring the other candidates’ responses to Governor Romney and Governor Huntsman, and waiting for their own plans for the direction of U.S. foreign policy.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton welcomed and introduced the President by noting that “alongside our colleagues in the Defense Department, America’s diplomats and development experts of the State Department and USAID are on the front lines of protecting America’s security, advancing America’s interests, and projecting America’s values.”  She echoed his call for a new results-oriented approach to “how we advance our values, project our leadership and strengthen our partnerships.”

“America must use all our influence to encourage reform in the region,” President Obama said, as he renewed his call for broader U.S. “engagement based on mutual interests and mutual respect.”  He reaffirmed the Administration’s commitments to build networks of entrepreneurs, foster educational exchange, encourage scientific collaboration, and provide assistance to civil society.  He emphasized the focus on trade and investment in the region with the aim of ensuring financial stability, promoting reform, and integrating competitive markets with each other.

The address laid out four proposals for American policies in North Africa and the Middle East:

• First, the World Bank and IMF will present plan at next week’s G8 meeting to stabilize and modernize economies of Tunisia and Egypt.
• Second, so that Egypt will not “be saddled by the debts of its past,” President Obama promised debt relief of up to $1 billion and guaranteed up to $1 billion in borrowing to help finance infrastructure and job creation.
• Third, the Administration will work with Congress to create new Enterprise Funds modeled on those that supported democratic transitions in Eastern Europe.  OPIC will soon launch a $2 billion facility to support private investment across the region, and the President will work the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development to provide support.
• Fourth, President Obama announced a comprehensive Trade and Investment Partnership Initiative in the Middle East and North Africa for countries that “adopt high standards of reform and trade liberalization.”

While these proposals do not contain major new financial commitments, they come at a time of tremendous budgetary pressures on American foreign policy.  Numerous proposals have circulated on Capitol Hill for ways to cut government spending as part of a deal to raise the U.S. debt limit.  The Pentagon announced a review yesterday that will give the President options for the $400 billion in cuts to security programs announced last month.   As Secretary Clinton noted in her introduction, the events in North Africa and the Middle East highlight why the work to ensure adequate resources for development and diplomacy is so important and “why we need to keep making the case for those resources.”

For another perspective, check out Josh Rogin’s word cloud of the President’s speech.

Why does the debt ceiling debate matter to the International Affairs Budget?

Although many of these proposals do not explicitly target the International Affairs Budget, they could have potentially dramatic consequences for our civilian smart power tools.  Proposals that focus only on spending cuts will almost certainly lead to deep and disproportionate cuts in the International Affairs Budget.  Proposals that identify spending caps, for example, could be written into law fairly quickly without specifying where cuts would be made. This vacuum would leave the International Affairs Budget vulnerable under laws that would be very difficult to change or repeal.

In the recent agreement that averted a government shutdown and funded the government for the remainder of the current fiscal year (FY 2011), the International Affairs Budget shouldered nearly 20% of total spending cuts despite being only 1% of the total budget.  If the trend of disproportionate cuts to the International Affairs Budget were to continue, dramatic pressure on discretionary spending overall could have a dramatic impact on these programs.

What are the current proposals and how could they impact the International Affairs Budget?

• Corker-McCaskill spending cap: The global spending cap introduced by Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) and Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) would limit total federal government spending to 20.6% of GDP, the historic average level of federal spending over the past 40 years.  This is substantially below the current level of 24% of GDP and would achieve its reductions by gradually lowering the cap over a decade. As mandatory entitlement costs rise with the retirement of the baby-boomers, the cap would almost certainly result in dramatic cuts in discretionary accounts. Given the outcome this year of the FY11 spending negotiations, severe cuts to discretionary spending could very likely have deep and disproportionate cuts to the International Affairs Budget.  The Corker-McCaskill proposal includes the possibility of additional “emergency spending” for national security purposes that could include funding for programs in frontline states, though it is unclear of civilian programs would be included.
• Budget “triggers”: A second idea is a budget “trigger,” mentioned favorably by lawmakers such as  Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT).  Budget “triggers” would be automatically invoked if fixed levels were exceeded for the level of debt or the level of spending as percentage of GDP.  These triggers would force automatic spending cuts, revenue increases, or both.  No legislation has been written that specifies the nature of the trigger or response, although the Administration seems to be favoring a trigger faced on the level of debt rather than spending.  Regardless, a budget trigger that solely forces spending cuts could once again impact the International Affairs Budget disproportionately.  Senator Baucus has acknowledged that exempting mandatory programs from being affected by the trigger would place potentially catastrophic cuts on discretionary programs.
• The “Gang of Six”:  Much media attention has been focused on the so-called “Gang of Six.” This bipartisan group consists of Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Mark Warner (D-VA), Tom Coburn (R-OK) Mike Crapo (R-ID) and Saxby Chambliss (R-GA). While its members have been tight-lipped, the group has been working for several months to forge an agreement that would be similar to the recommendations last year of the President’s Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, led by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson.   The Bowles/Simpson plan proposes to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over ten years through a combination of $3 trillion in spending cuts (to both discretionary and non-discretionary accounts) and $1 trillion in new revenue increases. Also, importantly, the Deficit Commission recommendations would create “firewalls” between security and non-security spending and include the International Affairs Budget on the security side.  The Commission proposal reduces security spending to overall FY 2010 levels in FY 2012 and then to FY 2008 levels in FY 2013, after which they may rise at levels below inflation.  The Commission also included 58 recommendations for reducing discretionary spending by $200 billion by 2015, including the call to slow the growth of foreign assistance.

With the looming vote this summer on raising the federal debt ceiling, efforts are clearly underway to find a broad agreement on spending, entitlements, and revenues.  At the same time, Congress is continuing its work on the fiscal year 2012  budget, which begins on October 1, 2011.  The House Appropriations Committee recently released its FY12 allocations, and all eyes are on the Senate, which has yet to even adopt a FY12 budget resolution.    Given the wide disparity in potential outcomes for the International Affairs Budget and the essential smart power programs it funds, we will continue to be actively engaged in these budget debates. As always, please visit our Budget Center at www.usglc.org for up-to-the-minute information.

The most significant impact may not be who is coming in, but who is leaving.  Secretary of Defense Bob Gates has been one of the staunchest and most effective voices in support of the International Affairs Budget and has built a very strong working relationship with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.  Secretary Gates has been a constant voice in support of greater resources for our civilian-led agencies within the Administration, on Capitol Hill and in the public arena.  His departure certainly raises concerns at first blush.

The good news is that the incoming team is well known and has a history of support for a smart power foreign policy.  Not surprising since President Obama made clear his intention that there will be more continuity with the Administration’s policies than change, emphasizing the need for the United States to stay “focused on our missions, maintain our momentum.”

Defense-nominee Leon Panetta has a long history of support for International Affairs programs and a long history of working closely with Secretary Clinton.  The question is given the challenges with the Pentagon’s budget, will Panetta use his clout to advance Foggy Bottom’s budget too?  Here is a look at each of the new nominees.

Leon Panetta

Current Position: Director, CIA
Nominated Position: Secretary of Defense

Leon Panetta, who served in the Army from 1964-66, brings a long record of public service to his   new job, serving as a member of the House of Representatives from 1977-93, Director of OMB from 1993-94, and White House Chief of Staff from 1994-97.  As Chairman of the House Budget Committee at the end of the Cold War, he led a debate about re-thinking the U.S. defense posture that considered cuts to the Defense Department budget to reduce the deficit.  It also considered changes in international affairs funding and proposed development assistance as a sensible priority for use for any savings.

While in the House, including as Budget Chair, Panetta was a strong and consistent supporter of the International Affairs Budget.  As President Clinton’s OMB Director and White House Chief of Staff, Panetta helped shape the deal with Congress over international affairs funding that protected USAID from being folded into the State Department.  Expect Panetta to work closely with Secretary of State Clinton.

While Director of the CIA, Panetta embraced the Agency’s role in dealing with today’s global threats that go beyond military conflict between nations.  He supported the Administration’s “comprehensive approach” to Afghanistan that uses all the tools of national influence to create stability.  He regularly refers to himself as a “creature of the Congress,” and his extensive budget experience on Capitol Hill will be critical in today’s climate.  After his recent nomination, Panetta’s comments reflected the challenge he faces in reducing the Defense Department’s budget, “This is also a time for hard choices.  It’s about ensuring that we are able to prevail in the conflicts in which we are now engaged. But it’s also about being able to be strong and disciplined in applying our nation’s limited resources to defending America.”

Bottom Line: Panetta has a long history of support for the International Affairs Budget and a close working relationship with Secretary Clinton. The only question is given the challenges he faces with Pentagon budget issues, will he use his considerable clout to support the civilian agencies like Gates.

General David Petraeus

Current Position: Commander, U.S. Forces in Afghanistan
Nominated Position: Director, CIA

General Petraeus’ nomination to head the CIA highlights the growing cooperation between the military and intelligence communities in today’s complex security environment.  In fact, he is not the first general to head the CIA in recent years, as General Michael Hayden headed the agency from 2006-2009.

Petraeus has been one of the strongest voices in support of “smart power” as Commander of U.S. Central Command and of U.S. Forces and ISAF Forces in Afghanistan.  Both publically and behind the scenes, Petraeus has encouraged significant resources for our civilian-led agencies.  Highlight quotes:

While at U.S. Central Command, he spoke in Florida to the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition, saying “I’ve testified as one of the biggest proponents of more funding for the Department of State….Maintaining a close civil-military partnership is a critical part of a comprehensive counterinsurgency campaign. In fact, tens of thousands of civilians are working closely with their military counterparts in the Central Command region to achieve the conditions we hope to establish, and this is obviously a hugely important aspect of our operations.”

Recently, he emphasized his support before the Senate Armed Services Committee, saying “I am concerned that levels of funding for our State Department and USAID partners will not sufficiently enable them to build on the hard-fought security achievements of our men and women in uniform. Inadequate resourcing of our civilian partners could, in fact, jeopardize accomplishment of the overall mission.”

Bottom Line: While these views will surely shape his work at the CIA, expect General Petraeus to be less public in his support for the smart power agenda, but very persuasive privately with Congress and the Administration.  He remains one of the most influential voices across party lines, and he clearly supports a smart power agenda.

Ambassador Ryan Crocker

Current Position: Dean of George Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A&M University
Nominated Position: U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan

Ambassador Crocker is a five-time Ambassador and career Foreign Service officer who had retired to academia before agreeing to serve again as the next Ambassador to Afghanistan.  He replaces Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, who had been widely seen as being at odds with Afghan President Karzai.  Ambassador Crocker has been deeply involved in both frontline states since 9/11, opening the U.S. Embassy in Kabul after the invasion in 2001, serving as Ambassador to Pakistan and as Ambassador to Iraq where he worked closely with General Petraeus on the “surge” policy that turned around the rising violence.

Ambassador Crocker is known to be a strong supporter of civilian power, recognizing the impact of U.S. economic development and military assistance on Pakistan’s recovery after the earthquake in 2005.  As Ambassador to Iraq in the post-war period, he praised the work of Provincial Reconstruction Teams as “great enablers.”  Highlight quotes:

“As chief of mission in Iraq I am constantly assessing our efforts and seeking to ensure that they are coordinated with and complementary to the efforts of our military.”

He testified to Congress:  “Our assistance has shifted to concentrate on people and capacity building rather than large-scale infrastructure projects, increasing the [Government of Iraq’s] ability to provide essential services to its citizens. We are also providing humanitarian assistance to refugees and funding small, high-impact projects to support security gains by Iraqi and U.S. military forces. Our policy goal is to leverage remaining U.S. foreign assistance to enable the Iraqis to invest their own resources more responsibly and productively.”

Bottom Line: As the U.S. prepares to begin to withdraw troops from Afghanistan this summer, Ambassador Crocker can be expected to continue the Administration’s policies of promoting stability through greater civilian capacity and economic development.

Lt. Gen John Allen

Current Position: Deputy Commander, United States Central Command
Nominated Position: Commander, U.S. Forces in Afghanistan

Marine Lieutenant General John Allen succeeds General Petraeus as Commander of U.S. and ISAF Forces in Afghanistan, having served as Deputy Commander at Central Command.  Like General Petraeus, he is often thought of as a scholar and strategist, having earned three Masters’ degrees and been a Marine Corps Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and member of the Council on Foreign Relations.  He is widely thought of as contributing to and embracing the “counterinsurgency” doctrine focused on economic development as a means to create stability in frontline states.

General Allen is widely credited with helping to turn around the war in Iraq through his appreciation for non-military solutions, willingness to develop local knowledge, and ability to work with local groups, helping bring together Sunni Tribes in the Anbar Province to turn against Al Qaeda and support American forces.  Highlight quotes:

In his words, “in the counterinsurgency struggle, you can only kill your way so far to victory.”

Describing his work in Iraq, he emphasized his effort to combine military and civilian approaches to working with the Sunni tribes:  “we did that both in terms of a kinetic alliance against al-Qaeda, but also supported the sheikhs in affecting projects in their tribal areas to the good of the people, turning on water treatment facilities again, reconnecting the electricity, paving the roads that had been blasted by years, now, of IEDs, repairing bridges, helping merchants to get their shops open again.”

Bottom Line:  Like General Petraeus before him, General Allen has shown a commitment to a “smart power” approach that recognizes economic development as the key to stability in the frontline states.  We can anticipate that he will build on the work of his predecessor in the same spirit.

Chinese foreign assistance to Africa has sparked a virtual cottage industry of concern about growing Chinese influence in the development world at the expense of the United States.   According to the recent report from China’s Information Office, its foreign assistance has been increasing at an average of 29.4% every year from 2004 to 2009.  The report notes that it has cooperated with the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization to send more than 700 agricultural experts and technicians to Africa, the Caribbean and the Asia-Pacific area by the end of 2009.  In a distant echo of the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, China has apparently even recently established a new inter-agency coordination mechanism to improve management of its foreign assistance.

Yet the human development figures create a different picture of China.  In the 2010 U.N. Human Development Index, China ranked 89th, behind Turkmenistan and the Dominican Republic.   One of the conference participants observed that China is an aging society as a result of its one child policy and may grow old before it becomes rich.  China is also the fourth largest recipient of funds from the Global Fund, having received nearly $1 billion in grants to fight HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria.  This has led some, such as Jack C. Chow, former-U.S. ambassador on global HIV/AIDS from 2001 to 2003, to argue that China can afford to pay its own global health bills and should not be eligible for funds that could otherwise go to poorer African countries.

Warnings about China’s rise will surely continue to tempt American political campaigns as the 2012 presidential election approaches.  Yet, seeing China just as a competitor masks the more complicated reality that it is deeply concerned about the economic development of its own people.   It risks heightening tensions between the United States and China, as well.  As Dan Drezner recently noted, treating the Chinese as if they are more powerful than they perceive themselves to be “provokes confusion and anger in China as Beijing is being asked to accept a burden it is not yet prepared to shoulder.”  All this means that, just as “smart power” uses all of our tools of national influence in today’s world, managing relations with China will require American policymakers to understand both sides of this complex country – a rising economic power and developing country at the same time.

The narrative is an ambitious vision that seeks to “frame our National Policy decisions regarding investment, security, economic development, the environment, and engagement well into this century.”  Reorienting U.S. national priorities will require a shift in investments, as “for too long, we have underutilized sectors of our government and our citizenry writ large, focusing intensely on defense and protectionism rather than on development and diplomacy.”  The authors suggest that today’s interconnected world and global challenges should be seen as opportunities rather than threats to American leadership.  They call for a “whole of nation” approach that integrates security policy across the government and provides for effective public-private partnerships, as well as for re-writing President Truman’s National Security Act of 1947 as a “National Prosperity and Security Act.”

At a launch event at The Wilson Center, Princeton University professor Anne Marie Slaughter called the narrative a “story about where the United States is in the world, and where we want to be, and how we get there.”  Congressman Keith Ellison (D-MN) agreed with the narrative’s call to reorient America’s place in the world and said he would like the United States double its diplomatic corps and elevate USAID to cabinet-level status, while acknowledging this would be a “heavy political lift.”  He highlighted the current debate on foreign assistance, saying his constituents have misperceptions about what these programs do and how much we spend, that he needs to explain that these programs promote global health and help people the developing world for less than 1% of the federal budget.

Panelists including former-National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, Brookings scholar Robert Kagan, blogger Steve Clemons and columnist Tom Friedman debated the paper’s vision of the world and its recommendations.  While many of the panelists discussed new challenges of globalization today, Kagan challenged the idea the military is less important today or a source of our economic difficulties, referring to traditional “great power” competition in today’s world with China.  He agreed foreign policy debates must be tied to budget debates, but noted defense budgets are not the driving force behind the growing federal deficits.

As the United States approaches presidential elections in 2012, the national strategic narrative offers a provocative starting point for Democrats and Republicans on the role of the United States in the world and the investments to ensure a foreign policy that balances development, diplomacy, and defense and ties America’s economic prosperity at home with the global economy.

* The authors published the article as “Mr. Y” in a nod to George Kennan’s seminal Foreign Affairs article as “Mr. X” after World War II and as a pseudonym for Captain Wayne Porter, USN and Colonel Mark “Puck” Mykleby, USMC.

Former National Security Advisor General Jim Jones (Ret.) opened the event by emphasizing the need for prevention and strengthening fragile states before a potential threat requires military intervention.  He called on the United States to provide “the full spectrum of security and governance assistance, not simply the traditional reliance on military aid as the all-encompassing band-aid.” 

Panelists at the conference highlighted the need for a wide range of foreign policy tools to deal with the challenge in Yemen, stressing the importance of good governance.  The panel, which included former U.S. Ambassador to Yemen Thomas Krajeski, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Combating Terrorism Garry Reid, Freedom House Executive Director David Kramer, and policy analyst Jonathan Ruhe, highlighted the complexity of U.S. strategic interests in Yemen.   The discussion covered the Yemen’s geographic, resource, and tribal fault lines, the challenges of Yemen’s leadership, successes in “low visibility” counter-terrorism programs, and, of course, the recent protests in the north and south calling for change. 

The situation in Yemen highlights the need for a strong and effective International Affairs Budget with adequate funding for the U.S. civilian programs of development and diplomacy necessary for strengthening fragile states.  Admiral (Ret) Gregory “Grog” Johnson (co-chair of the project and a member of the USGLC National Security Advisory Council) concluded the panel by calling for “East Bank, not West Bank solutions”– by which he meant the banks of the Potomac River — emphasizing that the State Department, not the Pentagon, should lead U.S. efforts in fragile states like Yemen.

This is not new, as polls repeatedly show that when you ask Americans to choose between programs, they tend to favor domestic ones. But polls consistently also show that Americans dramatically overestimate what we are spending on foreign assistance.

In December, a World Public Opinion poll asked Americans what percentage of the federal budget they thought went toward foreign assistance. The median answer: a whopping 25%. Second, the poll asked what percentage they thought should go to foreign assistance. Most respondents were quite generous, and the median answer came to about 10%.

The reality? We spend only 1% of the federal budget on foreign assistance.

The problem isn’t that we are spending too much on promoting global development, strengthening our alliances, and dealing with global threats. Rather, we must do a better job communicating the actual size and importance of our International Affairs budget. Most Americans may not know that National Security leaders from Secretary of Defense Bob Gates to Joint Chiefs Chair Mike Mullen, as well as 90 percent of currently serving or recently retired officers, believe the military alone is not enough to protect America, and we need the tools of development and diplomacy to keep us safe.

As one in five U.S. jobs is related to international trade and nearly half of our exports now go to the developing world, a strong and effective International Affairs budget is critical to our economic prosperity. And when we provide life-saving medications and education to people in the developing world, we are not only demonstrating the best values of America, but ensuring people have real opportunities to succeed.

At just 1% of the budget, this is a good return on investment.

Norris lays out the case that assistance can be made more effective, and be better deployed to serve U.S. interests abroad. But the question remains, how can a Republican House focused on deficit reduction be convinced to take steps towards foreign aid reform?  To date, Congress hasn’t felt that it has been adequately consulted in the debate during the lengthy internal process that led to the PPD, as well as the State Department’s nearly complete Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review.  This is unfortunate, Norris observes, but therein lies the opportunity.    

Implementing reform is different from articulating it, and Norris argues the Administration will have to make a more concerted effort to work with Congress for its reforms to be effective and sustainable.  Draft reform legislation has already been introduced in both houses in the 111^th Congress.  By dispensing with controversial and cumbersome issues, such as the creation of a cabinet level aid agency, and instead focusing on increased effectiveness, more strategic partner selection, and a focus on broad-based economic growth, aid reform can become an issue that could have wide bipartisan appeal.