Statement Of Sen. Patrick Leahy
State, Foreign Operations Subcommittee
Hearing On FY 2008 USAID Budget Request
And Foreign Aid Reform
March 28, 2007

I want to begin by welcoming Senator Gregg who is the new Ranking Member of this Subcommittee.  Senator Gregg and I come from states that share a border and I look forward to working with him in the same bipartisan way that his predecessor, Senator McConnell, and I worked together for so many years. 

I think we both agree that the United States does not need a Democratic or Republican foreign policy, we need an American foreign policy, and that is what I intend to strive for.

Ambassador Tobias, we appreciate you being here.  We also appreciate your past leadership as the Global AIDS Coordinator.  You got that program off to a good start.

The jobs of USAID Administrator and Director of Foreign Assistance are quite different from either the CEO of a private corporation or the AIDS Coordinator, as I’m sure you have discovered.

Today we want to focus on the President’s Fiscal Year 2008 budget request for USAID, and on your proposals for reforming our foreign aid programs.

I think most people would agree that there is a lot of room for improvement in our foreign aid budget, personnel and procurement policies, and programs.  But the issue is how you do it, and what decision-making authority is retained by USAID.

On the positive side, you have developed a more coherent process that will enable your office to more accurately show where and how funds are spent.  That will help and we welcome it.

We are also assured by your office that you consulted extensively during this process, although that is not what we have heard from some of those whose views we would have wanted to see reflected, including within USAID itself.

While the budget process may be more coherent and transparent, I am mystified by many of the results.

A glance at your budget request yields as many questions as answers.  A country like Colombia, that has received roughly $565 million in each of the past five years, gets the same amount for the same purposes in FY 2008, even though we know that some things have not worked and that conditions in Colombia have changed.   

In Nepal, a country where years of fighting has cost    thousands of lives, there is a chance to end the Maoist insurgency and replace feudalism with democracy.  Yet you propose to cut our assistance.

The Democratic Republic of the Congo, a huge country with every imaginable problem, has emerged from conflict and completed its first election in 40 years.  It holds the key to the future of central Africa, yet you propose to cut our assistance. 

Vietnam, a country of 80 million people, seeks closer ties with the United States, and there are so many opportunities for working together.  Yet, with the exception of HIV/AIDS, you propose to cut our assistance.

The Congress has worked hard to increase funding for global environment programs, particularly to protect biodiversity in the Amazon and central Africa where the forests are being destroyed.  Yet you propose to slash funding for those programs.

Last year, you testified before this Subcommittee that, and I am quoting you, “our intent is not to have a USAID budget or a State Department budget, but a Foreign Assistance budget that will make all of it more coherent in a way that all of us can better understand.”

I have mentioned just a few of many examples.  I have to ask what is the purpose of this stated “coherence” if it produces illogical outcomes?  What was the strategic thinking behind these decisions?  How were the views of USAID program officers in the field and their implementing partners reflected?  How were the Congress’ views reflected?

We know you have to make hard choices.  We all face budget constraints.  But Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq and Indonesia are not the only countries where the United States has important economic and security interests.  You need to make sense of this for us if we are going to be able to work together.

# # # # #