Democracy is hard work. Whether it’s Venezuela’s descent toward authoritarianism, Kenya’s dismissal of widely-accepted election results, or growing fears of ethnic cleansing just years into Myanmar’s first-ever civilian-led government – even calling it “hard work” can seem like an understatement.

During Vice President Pence’s recent trip to Latin America, he commented on the situation in Venezuela by saying “we’re seeing the tragedy of tyranny play out before our eyes.” In his speech, Pence highlighted the sharp contrast between the U.S. allies and partners he visited – such as Colombia – with the increasingly isolated Venezuela.

As Secretary Tillerson and the Foreign and Civil Service Officers he leads around the world face unprecedented challenges—including the largest number of refugees since World War II, four famines affecting more than 20 million, and the risk of another global pandemic—he should consider building on the success of his predecessors, who recognized the new challenges our country faces, rather than ignoring their contributions.

Last week, the chorus of voices in support of America’s diplomacy and development programs reverberated across Capitol Hill as Cabinet officials testified on the Administration’s proposal to cut the International Affairs Budget by a draconian and disproportionate 32%.

Against the backdrop of today’s debate about America’s role in the world, it is striking to re-read the speech by Secretary of State George C. Marshall announcing the Marshall Plan on the 70th anniversary of its delivery. The Marshall Plan, which helped rebuild the economies of Western Europe after World War II, is often seen as the model for American global leadership. Secretary Marshall makes not a selfless appeal to support a new global order, but a calculated appeal to Americans’ self-interest, accompanied by a sophisticated series of short films to explain its benefits.

As the debate over funding for the International Affairs Budget continues – most recently with the release of the Administration’s FY18 budget request, which calls for a deep and disproportionate 32% cut to the State Department and USAID – there remains a growing chorus of bipartisan voices speaking out in support of strategic investments in development and diplomacy. In addition to military, business, and faith leaders from around the country, some of our nation’s most venerated foreign policy minds are making their voices heard on the critical need for a fully funded International Affairs Budget.

Reintegration will be a long, complex process. U.S. support is vital to aiding Colombia’s efforts to successfully reintegrate former combatants— and strategic to our own national security interests. Colombia is Latin America’s fastest growing economy, a major trading partner, and the leading U.S. ally in South America.

If USAID were to be integrated into State, this restructuring would not only ignore the great strides USAID has made to become more efficient and accountable over the past decade, but would also make our development assistance less effective in the long run. The U.S. government’s capacity through USAID to work among foreign populations and contain threats, to set long-term goals, and to effectively monitor and evaluate development programs are all crucial capabilities that would likely be lost.

President Trump’s budget calls on the State Department and development agencies “to advance the national security interests of the United States by building a more democratic, secure, and prosperous world.” To do this with fewer resources, the U.S. will need to expand and build on nearly 2,000 public-private partnerships like Power Africa and DREAMS that America has assembled over the last decade.

Today, the Administration today released its FY18 “skinny” budget, which would slash the State Department and USAID by 31% from current levels, cut the Treasury Department’s International Programs by 35%, and eliminate five agencies associated with the International Affairs Budget. The draconian and disproportionate cuts to these programs—which have long been key pillars of U.S. national security—would take funding levels for development and diplomacy programs back to levels not seen since 9/11. Here are just a few of the many Congressional leaders who have spoken out against these cuts, or in support of America’s civilian tools of development and diplomacy.