On Thursday afternoon the House of Representatives' Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights held a hearing regarding Africa's newest nation: The Republic of Southern Sudan.  While being led to a "spill-over room" at the Rayburn building I was surprised by just how many people were attending the event. Once the hearing appeared on the television I realized that it was not just people spilling out of the committee room, it was also emotion, particularly passion and grave concern. Between the members of the subcommittee and the witnesses present there was a sense of urgency begging for attention for the Sudanese people. The congressmen opened the hearing by voicing just how fragile the Sudan region is. 

The most outspoken representative on the subcommittee was undoubtedly Representative Wolf. He announced that we as an international superpower cannot ignore Sudan like we did Rwanda. He went on to say that the Obama administration knows exactly what is going on in Sudan and that it is doing nothing. The situation in Sudan is a mass humanitarian crisis and America needs to respond with sticks, not carrots. 

In an editorial in the Seattle Times, two members of Congress made a strong statement about the importance of international relations funding as budget battles loom.  Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA), and Bill Clapp, the founder of Global Washington and Seattle International Foundation, laid out the key reasons to maintain the international relations budget, including:

"Foreign assistance is the first line of our national defense, making us safer by stabilizing volatile nations. As Secretary of Defense Robert Gates emphasized, 'development is a lot cheaper than sending soldiers.'"

In addition to saving us from the troubles and expenses of war, programs that rely on the international relations budget also reduce the need for additional aid in the future.  The editorial states, "it cost $100 million to eliminate smallpox on the planet, but now saves the world $1.3 billion annually."  International relations spending, a mere 1% of the budget, allows us to proactively solve minor international issues before they become major problems that we have to deal with.

Don Kraus has submitted testimony to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on State/Foreign Operations. The testimony focuses on the budget for FY12 and the need to maintain funding for international relations, focusing specifically on three accounts:

• Contributions to International Organizations (CIO)
• Contributions to International Peacekeeping (CIPA)
• and the Complex Crisis Fund (CCF)

The testimony asks the committee to meet the President's FY12 request funding levels for each of these accounts. Robust international relations funding is crucially important to America's ability to lead, to our national interests, and to our national security. As stated in the testimony:

"It is imperative that now, more than at any other point in the United States history, that it deploys sufficient resources to maintain its leadership within international organizations in order to work cooperatively with other nations in order to achieve our national goals."

To read the full testimony submitted to the State/Foreign Ops Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, click here.

Yesterday House Budget Committee chairman, Rep. Paul Ryan, released his FY2012 budget proposal, which included many cuts. The most alarming cut was that of the International Affairs account, the 150 account. In Obama's FY2012 $63 billion dollars was budgeted for international affairs. In the House GOP FY2012 budget, international affairs received only $36 billion dollars in funding. This is a $27 billion dollar difference between the two, and is the largest percentage change between The House GOP budget cuts Obama's budget by 43%.

No other cuts come close to those made in international affairs funding, with cuts in transportation being the closest coming in at 23.8%. The chart pictured shows the percentage change between the House GOP budget proposal and Obama's budget proposal. It is clear that International affairs funding is taking the biggest hit. This comes at a time when cutting funding would hurt our efforts in Libya, Haiti, Cote D'Ivoire, and many other places around the world where we contribute. UN operations where the United State contributes will also be jeopardized.

Cuts this drastic in international affairs funding will undermine our national security, and cutting what is only about 1% of the total budget is not where to go to reduce government spending. Spending in international affairs is an investment in our future and our national security, and acting through multi-lateral organizations, such as the UN, actually saves the US money.