We as a nation understand the need for a robust national defense. However, as has often been said but seldom understood, our diplomatic and development programs are the first line of defense. The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, made abundantly clear that we ignore at our own peril the fertile ground that fragile states and lack of opportunity offer for the proliferation of hate, extremism, and lawlessness.

In 2002, President Bush elevated global development as the third pillar of U.S. national security alongside defense and diplomacy. American foreign assistance programs are a means of alleviating poverty and suffering, advancing human rights and promoting democratic governance. They help create the conditions for open, healthy, functioning societies, which are essential to global security.  With the myriad of challenges we face today, foreign assistance is more critical than ever to our foreign policy.

While this post-Sept. 11 focus on aid may have changed semantics about foreign aid, it has led to little real change in how we provide foreign aid. The foreign aid apparatus, which has grown organically to accommodate every new initiative and directive, is badly in need of an overhaul.

Almost since the day our foreign assistance program was established, there have been efforts at reform. Virtually every administration has attempted to retool our approach to development. However, the failure to undertake a comprehensive reform to meet long-term needs as well as short-term priorities has layered new programs, new mandates, new bureaucratic structures, and new congressional and administrative directives on an overstretched, outdated infrastructure.

Additionally, instead of strengthening the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the agency that traditionally devises and implements humanitarian and development assistance, this administration has bypassed it.  They have created initiative after initiative, outside of USAID, further weakening and demoralizing the agency.  

Today nearly half of our development dollars are managed by the Department of Defense and other agencies. The diffusion of resources and responsibilities across 10 Cabinet departments and over 15 agencies has created a management nightmare for our ambassadors in the field and has led to a lack of oversight, accountability, coordination and coherence of assistance programs.  

It is time to reinvent our foreign aid infrastructure to reflect the challenges and needs of the 21st century. That means developing a renewed, more focused mission and mandate, a better understanding of the expectations of Congress and the American people, and a streamlined, coherent, and empowered structure that can enable the implementation of this vision.

Among think tanks, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and academics, elements of consensus have emerged. We can all agree on the need for increased coherence and coordination within and between agencies in planning and implementing foreign assistance programs. To that end, I joined Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman (D-Calif.) and Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) in creating an Advisory Panel for the Departments of State and Defense and USAID, through the National Defense Authorization Act, to coordinate defense, diplomacy, and development strategies in a way that enhances our national security.  This is a good start, but more must be done.

A streamlined bureaucratic structure and clear authorities to achieve our foreign assistance goals are critical. Instead of successive administrations creating new initiatives and agencies, we should revitalize and strengthen existing agencies and refocus missions to promote continuity in our aid program.  Investments made now will yield dividends later. Red tape and bureaucratic growth will do little to alleviate poverty and suffering, advance human rights, or promote democracy.  Streamlining chains of command and empowering experienced professionals to implement programs that have proven results will be much more fruitful.

Widespread consensus disintegrates at the prospect of a Cabinet-level agency responsible for all things foreign aid, as has been advocated by many reform proponents. I am concerned that while a Cabinet-level agency for foreign assistance and development programs would elevate development in a new and exciting way, it might also result in an eventual separation between our foreign assistance programs and our foreign policy agenda. This legitimate debate should not distract us from the most urgent task before us — addressing the issues of coherence, coordination, and capacity.

Meaningful reform is a difficult task, one that will require a bipartisan and close collaboration between the executive and legislative branches and the many stakeholders of U.S. foreign aid.  Millions of individuals suffering abroad from disease, poverty, human rights abuses, or tyranny depend on effective American foreign aid, and taxpayers at home deserve an accountable policy that enhances our national security. Congress and the administration should begin reform now to accelerate the success of effective foreign aid.

Lowey is chairwoman of the State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee of the House Appropriations panel.