Each,g about 1. 5 million 98 of them struck their intended target. Within one week of the shower alassad of alassads executed with deadly position. It was america at its most impressive. No military in the world has more capacity than ours. None is more nimble. Givenhe u. S. Military is a task, resources are never a question, capacity is never in doubt, time is a minor apps to go. The attack went down as planned, perfectly. No one was surprised. Friday morning, no one was surprised when the attack did nothing to change the reality of the dystopia creating civil war inside syria that has killed 400,000 people. No one was surprised that a political solution still seemed one billion miles away. No one was surprised that no matter how badly damaged the airfield was, syria is still just as big and National Security nightmare for the United States and our allies. Because neither the root of the crisis in syria, nor the way out, is rooted in problems that the military alone can solve. The way in and the way out is political. Its cultural. Its social. Its economic. Its no secret why syria feels just as hopeless after thursday as it did before. When a problem is diagnosed as military, the department of defense never has to worry about having enough money for capacity, or support, from congress. When a problems diagnosis political, economic, or social, no one can imagine a real solution because the agencies that do that work, the state department, usaid, primarily, they are set up to fail, only given crumbs and never the resources to win. Just enough to keep the doors open. This happens over and over and over again across the landscape of u. S. National security problems. Yes, some of our major adversaries and rivals across the world are building up their militaries, but without exception the crises popping up globally have little to do with kinetic power. Moscow is on the march because it has figured out how to use its oil and gas largess and information propaganda in order to bully neighboring countries into the kremlins corner. China is building an aircraft carrier, but they have more friends now than ever before because of their willingness to spread capital all over the globe. North korea may be trying to build the capacity to fire a missile at the United States, but they are only sex theyve only been successful in certain ways. Grows,tical instability a Record Number of displaced persons for current famines, breakdown with extremist groups stepping into the vacuum. Few are capable governments mean less capacity to do with Game Changing developments. The continuing creep of breakdown, its catastrophic this for the United States, more ungovernable space means war more room for the enemies of the u. S. To grow. The nonmilitary challenges to the world order and American Security mount by the day. Yet we scratch our heads in wonder why, under both president obama and president bush, pursuing very different philosophies and strategies with nearly unlimited resources, our enemies only seem to multiply and strengthen. The answer, to me, is simple. A strong American Military is still vital in guarding against conventional threats but the emerging threats exert an influence that cannot be checked with military power alone. We are facing new worlds today. The new players, emerging economies, developing world is increasingly immune to the blunt force of American Military hegemony. The toolshas changed used, yet we have stayed the same. Now, we Pay Lip Service to new capacities for these threats, but its largely just that, lip service. Military and intelligence spending still outpace diplomacy by a 20 to one margin. 20 to one. Have about it this way, we more people working at military Grocery Stores today than we have diplomats in the state department. Thats insanity. How about this . In the global competition for foreign investment, china is lapping us. Why . Maybe because Public Diplomacy around the world, the budget is 650 million. Their budget for economic goodwill is 10 million. How about foreign aid . We wonder why its not effective anymore. In 1950, when we were rebuilding europe, we were spending 2 of our gdp on International Assistance programs. Today the number is. 1 . We are getting what we pay for. We are wondering when we will be getting serious about government reform in egypt. Maybe because saudi arabia is spending 10 times as much in the economy there. In the conflict, their priorities take precedence. U. S. President , republican or democrat, is destined to fail if we dont recognize that the toolkit that we currently give to the commanderinchief is a mismatch for the real challenges faced by the commanderinchief. Its time that we thought about nonkinetic forces in the same way that we think about war fighters. We need to give the department of defense everything in needs to succeed. We should do that. In part tohieved military strength. I want my country to have the capacity to do what it did on thursday night. What im saying is that we should look at the state department and usaid like we do defense. It should be reasonable to propose 50 billion more and nonmilitary security funding. A detailedunveiling proposal to change course. Showing a path forward to right size the National Security budget for the real threats that face our country. That we cane way rebuild the National Security toolkit so that for the first time in our memory president s will have the option to succeed globally if they choose to. Heres how it works. First, recognize the success of a Marshall Plan wasnt an accident. It was a great National Security investment and has never been in greater need than today. We cant compete with china, russia, or even isis we exit the Economic Development playing field. We cannot continue playing the role of Global Fire Department responding to crises only after they have developed for alarm blazes. We need a 21st century marshall that the recognizes best prophylactic against this is in at region with the best pathway for new markets to American Goods being economic empowerment. Setting forward specific proposals to do this. This doesnt come at any expense to the u. S. Taxpayer. Its time to consolidate the current alphabet soup of financing agencies into one powerhouse. The International Development bank, taking off all the restrictions it currently resist exist so that we can compete with countries like china, russia, for the good of u. S. Companies. Lets really ramp up the millennium challenge. Model that works there is a line of countries that wants in. Reinvigoration could make huge leaps forward and we should partner them with a new program where money has been fronted to side with the implementation of warm. Development aid coming from the United States reaching countries where it really matters. Finally, recognize that our adversaries are using energy as a weapon and we should start fighting back. Begin Financing Energy independence for countries on the periphery. Put the money up to do it. Have a robust policy. Ukraine Energy Independent is a better longterm investment in anything we could do with the military. The second proposal envisions an america that could truly respond before the crises deployment of cruise missiles. Theres nothing soft about the work that our diplomats do to protect and advance u. S. Security. Whether it is countering russian corruption in the balkans, working to stem the flow of undocumented migrants from central america, or fighting the spread of intolerant islam in the middle east, our diplomats are defenders of security all over the globe. By the way, they dont cost 1 million per year to deploy. This focuses on powering up some of the most Important Missions of the state department. A renewed focus on state propaganda is already underway, but it is needing more help. Rapidly spreading corruption is undermining the rule of law and u. S. Interest all over the world and a new cadre of Foreign Service offices dedicated to promoting good governments governance can help to turn the tide. Corps it builds stability and helps to sell america. The third and final set of proposals would put into place the necessary funding so that the United States can finally lead on Global FinanceCrisis Management prevention. Eventually the slope of every crisis flows to the United States, developing crises, whether they be military complex or famines, they eventually threaten us. Extremist recruitment, Public Safety crises thrive on undocumented migration. If the United States doesnt step up to prevent these crises before they arise, no one will and we will end up paying the price for this abdication of global leadership. While this proposal calls for some immediate increases in the historical unhumanitarian accounts, there are two major ones here. First, the consolidation of the existing Flexible Funding accounts within the state and usaid. These funding streams as they exist now are wellmeaning, redundant, and underfunded. Undersecretary they came to my office to complain that even though the u. S. Saw them moving into northern kenya, we couldnt do anything about it because we didnt have the authority to move money from one account of the other, to stand up in the capacities needed to keep it at bay. The Global Crisis prevention account will give the president to deploy the assets into the area before it falls into chaos. We dont have the resources or the agility to do this now. Second, a prefunded Global Health account that will allow the president to stop a pandemic in its infancy rather than having to wait once it reaches adolescence. Estimates are that the billions spent on ebola could have been just millions of the Obama Administration had the money to spend one year earlier. As you read through this report or the executive summary, i do thinkhat you will not ive gone mad. I understand what im doing here. Im arguing unapologetically for doubling of the Foreign Affairs budget over the course of five years at a political moment in time when the president is calling for the same budget to be cut by 30 this year alone. I understand that today this is not a realistic proposal. But it is a marker for where we should be. For the coming debate so that the terms dont start such that flat funding is on one side with a devastating 30 cut on the other. Smarte majority of thinkers on global security, they know that the Foreign Affairs budget is badly onerfunded and we need to be offense. President trumps medieval view of the world, in which the u. S. Can protect itself of the big army and a bigger moat is wrong and dangerous. Has flaw in it that the fawning, frankly over the missile strike in syria will fan the flames of his backwards views on National Security. Syria is just as big a mess today as it was wednesday, maybe even a bigger mess if the response is an escalation. The world is a mess, too. The cleanup cannot happen if the u. S. Continues to spend money the way that we are today, ignoring the blizzard of crises they cannot be solved by equipping the department of defense with everything they need in the homes that are left i am glad that we have those aircraft carriers, but the in u. S. National security is not another piece of military machinery. Its making unstable places stable. The world has changed. The tools of our rivals have transfigured. The battle is different than it was decades ago and the way to refund the fight has to be kept up. Thank you for having me today area and look forward to the conversation today. I look forward to the conversation. [applause] thank you for an much, senator. You have given us quite a bit to think about. Full disclosure, i grew up in connecticut, but you would not want that to affect the quality of the westerns in any way. We will get to syria and the strike just a moment, but i want to follow up on your proposal the you are releasing now. I had a look over the weekend costs of your proposal, added up, if i did my math right, to 131 billion over the next five years. That is before you count the president s thirtysomething percent to the foreign aid budget cut. First i want to follow up on something that you said. Donald trump won the election. Is this the time to suggest that theres any chance in the realistic future of adding 130 1 billion to the state or foreign aid budget . His proposal is at the department of defense, but he is signaling a willingness to talk about it and willingness of the resources needed to protect this country and what im trying to lay forward here is that if we are going to talk about that massive increase, then it is misspent if it is only happening in the buildup of ships and aircraft carriers and hangers. I understand that this is crosscultural today, but remember him as a candidate. His foreignpolicy signals were all over the place. He did seem to preview that he understood the danger of u. S. Military intervention inside of the middle east without a political component to that plan, right . Captiveuch more of us skeptic than he was an enthusiast. If that is the president we have , then why wouldnt he want tools that would allow him and his administration to learn the lesson . He seems to have set up this between hard power that is good and soft power that is bad. Part of the pitch am trying to make here is that there is nothing soft about what the state department does and can do. Hardened warriors for american National Security in a think if we try to reframe the debate to go on the offense, some people in that administration do know the disaster of american foreignpolicy the middle east over the last two years. The defense spending was paid for largely by cuts in defense spending at the state department, as we just discussed. Do you support any increase in defense spending at this point . Sen. Murphy absolutely. I try to make that point in the speech. There are a lot of bad things that havent happened in this world because people know that if they cross certain lines, the military will be there as a backstop. I do support increased military spending. Department state accounts. Im just laying out a aggressive puzzle and i think we should be talking about commensurate increases in state Department Funding with military increases. Million. Poses 54 if you were in charge of the world, what would you recommend . Can murphy i think i easily find, and i have recommended over five years increasing the numbers as they play out for ways, parsed different ways. 50 billion in increased Foreign Affairs spending over five years. I can argue for 50 billion this year, split evenly between military and nonmilitary accounts. I think we can put that to good use for a quickly. Polls show over and over that the American Public has no idea how much is spent on foreign aid. A recent one suggested that the American People believe that the the average american believes that some 31 of the u. S. Federal budget goes to foreign aid while the actual number is actually less than 1 . Why is the public so woefully uninformed . Where is this coming from . Its been a convenient pop talking point for the folks without a stake in the game. There have been high profile uses of the money overseas. People have been watching this on the nightly news for years. The equivalent in the story was the amount of money in the that we were spending to build up those countries. Its interesting, the next question was how much money do you think the federal government should be spending . Americans dont think it is the right number. You drill down, americans are much more willing to spend additional dollars if they know the actual size of the account. People do have this wonderful werelgia for when they helping to rebuild europe. They remember the beneficially so that hunting and if you told them that you had seen in addition and you make that argument consistently, you can reframe the debate. The folks that want to spend more money talk about the account from your talk earlier. Your site has so woefully failed ,o communicate this reality that the public is so completely uninformed about what the government spends, doesnt spend, and as you suggest, what they should spend. Thatis is a disease infects my party all the time. We sort of get on the wrong side of a debate and we stop writing it. It becomes a vicious downward cycle, right . That happened on health care. The minute we felt we were losing we stopped engaging. Of course, its an attractive argument, the idea that you should spend money here rather than over there, but we have decided to make a massive commitment to National Security. Its just a matter of where the dollars are best spent. When you walk through, the American Public just needs five minutes to talk about how enemies are building up these nonmilitary sets of tools, it is frankly not to far journey. Democrats lost a lot of our foreignpolicy big thinkers in the senate. ,olks that were good at this joe biden, my predecessor, joe lieberman, they all laughed. We need to rebuild the bench of Foreign Policy in the senate and need the courage to know that if we make this argument and spent time explain to