Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy
Foreign Operations Subcommittee Hearing
 Secretary Of State Colin L. Powell
April 30, 2003

Mr. Secretary, welcome to the first hearing of this Subcommittee this year. I should begin by pointing out for those here who may not know, that Secretary Powell and I are both members of a very distinguished, selective club. We both had the honor of speaking at the Mitch McConnell Center for Political Leadership in Louisville, Kentucky.

I very much appreciated that opportunity. And I especially appreciated the gift of the Louisville Slugger baseball bat with my name on it. I have never been much of a baseball player, but Senator McConnell's gift might inspire me to consider a new career – maybe that was his reason for inviting me down there.

On a serious note, thank you, Mr. Secretary, for testifying today. I know you have a lot of other demands on your time. But I also know you agree that without the budget this Committee appropriates, you would not have the resources to do much of anything.

As I have said before, President Bush made a superb choice in selecting you for this position. You are doing an excellent job. You have been an invaluable voice of reason and moderation for the Administration's foreign policy.

This Subcommittee has worked hard to give you the funds you need. We have exceeded the Administration's budget request for foreign assistance every year. I hope this trend continues, because I do not believe we are yet responding adequately to the many global challenges we face.

The President’s Fiscal Year 2004 budget request is a step forward, but even if we appropriate every dime he has asked for it will still amount to only about 1 percent of the Federal budget. How can we possibly mount a credible challenge to global poverty, international terrorism, and all the other threats we face, with so few resources? We cannot.

I am concerned about the Development Assistance account, which would be cut. Funding for Child Survival and Health Programs, including to combat infectious diseases, would be cut. This is foolhardy. Aid to Russia would be cut. Aid to our Central American neighbors would remain a fraction of what it should be. And there are many areas – from promoting renewable energy to building democracy, where we should be doing far more. We are missing so many opportunities.

Mr. Secretary, this Subcommittee knows well that the State Department’s leading role in foreign policy dates back more than two centuries, when Thomas Jefferson became the first Secretary of State. But today that role is under assault, including by some within the Administration. Most recently, it was challenged by former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, now a member of the Defense Policy Board, when he called the State Department a "broken instrument of diplomacy."

I reject that view, and I believe his attacks against people who work for you are unfair and misguided.

Like any government agency and many private companies, there are things that the State Department could do better. I know that you are working on that. But there are many, many things that State Department employees do every day, that are not reported on CNN, to advance U.S. interests and help to make the world safer.

Mr. Gingrich, like those in the Administration who promote unilateralism and favor military force over diplomacy, claimed that the war in Iraq involved "six months of diplomatic failure and one month of military success." That is a misstatement of history.

I believe the Administration abandoned the diplomatic track too soon. Diplomacy achieved important results, including a unanimous vote in the UN Security Council. It was senior Pentagon officials who engaged in name-calling such as "Old-Europe" and exacerbated tensions with key allies – making the State Department's job more difficult.

Like everyone in this room, I am glad that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power. However, had we been more patient, I believe we could have dealt with Saddam Hussein without damaging relations with important allies. These were not mutually exclusive goals.

The war in Iraq has raised serious questions about the appropriate roles of the Pentagon and the State Department in diplomacy and in managing foreign aid programs. Over the past couple of years, we have seen the steady encroachment by the Pentagon into areas where the State Department and USAID have far more expertise – from formulating U.S. foreign policy to post-conflict reconstruction.

The Defense Department is second to none at fighting wars. It also has a role to play after conflicts end, but the State Department should have the final say when it comes to foreign policy and foreign assistance. It is disturbing that key officials in this Administration seem determined to weaken the State Department.

Mr. Secretary, I will only have time to ask a few of the many questions I have today. Those that I do not have time for I will pass on to your Legislative Affairs staff, who do an excellent job of quickly getting us the information we ask for. We appreciate that very much.

# # # # #