iu at some рот mayue we can talk about that.

So too are the resources for reconstruction. You did a great job eading to Japan immediately after our successes in Afghanistan. he President declared-his words, not mine or yours-a "Marshall lan for Afghanistan." I quite frankly think that we have got a ng, long, long way to go, notwithstanding we are occupied in cher parts of the world as well.

Afghanistan is again the world's top supplier of opium, and the bility to help them construct a legal economy has been sort of difcult, in large part because in significant parts of the country warrds continue to control the total environment.

I want to commend you for your recent op-ed piece in the Moscow ress, with which I agree completely. Russia, as you observed, has aveled an enormous distance since the collapse of the Soviet nion. Unlike you, however, I and I suspect the chairman and othrs as well are very concerned about the recent backsliding in Rusan democracy, especially regarding the rule of law and indeendent media, and also about continuing Russian brutality in hechnya and meddling in Georgia and Moldova.

One issue that begs for a coherent policy is nuclear proliferation. esterday the President delivered an important speech on that subct and I am very glad to see he has turned his attention to this ubject in a much more concentrated way. I support many of the resident's proposals, such as encouraging countries to criminalize roliferation activities, getting all countries to sign and implement e Additional Protocols of the IAEA, and enhancing the IAEA's versight, safeguards, and verification capability.

But we cannot just rely, in my view-I am not suggesting you ink otherwise, but-we cannot just rely on the preemptive use of orce if we are going to contain this deadly threat. But I worry that too many cases ideology for the first 3 years of this administraon has trumped or at least gotten in the way of nonproliferation olicy.

The President says he wants to reexamine the essential bargain, he Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and I think it warrants being examined. But in return everybody has to remember what that argain was, that in return for not pursuing nuclear weapons cates can receive assistance for civilian nuclear power applicaons. But there was another part of that central bargain of the PT, which was that-that I believe this administration has igored. That is that the nuclear powers will gradually move away om nuclear weapons while non-nuclear weapons states refrain -om acquiring them.

Over the last 3 years I believe we have sent mixed signals at est and negative signals at worst, that the United States has unermined our message that other nations must forgo the bomb. For uring this period the administration has raised the specter of the ossible use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons cates. We have begun exploring new nuclear weapons of dubious tility, and we have walked away from the Comprehensive Test an Treaty.

It does not really embolden the rest of the world to think that e are keeping the second part of that implicit bargain in NPT,

A year ago, Deputy Secretary Armitage, who I do not want to ruin his reputation, but of all the people I have ever dealt with in my entire career of almost 32 years now he is the straightest, most up-front, and most honest interlocutor I have ever encountered. Now, that probably is going to cause him to be fired, but I really mean it. He is first rate. He testified, when we asked him on the crisis of North Korea, he said that he saw no crisis in North Korea because, "I think we have got some time to work with this." But he added: "I do not think, given the poverty of North Korea, that it would be too long after she got a good amount of fissile material that she would be inclined to engage with somebody, a non-state actor or a rogue state."

I hope the administration heeds your close friend's warning here. I know we have the multi-party talks, but quite frankly I do not see them going very far now, either. The administration has been working the North Korean issue with varying degrees of intensity since it took office. In that time the situation has gone from bad to worse. It may have happened anyway no matter what the administration was. It may not be controllable.

But North Korea has kicked out international inspectors, has removed the 8,000 fuel rods that have been stored in Yongbyon, and says it has reprocessed them, which is the most logical thing to happen, although we cannot confirm with absolute certainty that they have done that. We are left to wonder when the administration will view North Korea's growing stockpile of nuclear materials as an urgent matter that warrants serious, immediate negotiation. In Pakistan, after numerous assurances that no proliferation was occurring, we are now told that Dr. A.Q. Khan acted for years to sell nuclear technology without the knowledge or consent of the Pakistani Government. Quite frankly, I think that is incredibly fictitious. The idea and I could be wrong; I am going to ask you about this that Dr. Khan could be loading up the equivalent of C141s and flying off material to other parts of the world and the ISI or the Pakistani military not know he is doing it, I find that absolutely, totally, completely beyond my comprehension.

I hope I can be proven to be wrong on that. But the fact of the matter is it is difficult to believe, and I look forward to hearing the administration's assessment of this matter and how the United States should respond from this point on.

A year ago the administration doubted the usefulness of international inspectors. Today we must conclude that inspectors, for example in Iraq, did a good job. The IAEA deserves credit for its inspections in Iran over the last year, and we have agreed that the IAEA will help monitor the dismantlement of Libya's program. Such an important institution I think deserves our strong support, not the sniping. It has not come from you, but it has come from this administration consistently since it has taken office.

Finally, let me say a few words about the budget. Once again, I commend you for securing a significant increase in the foreign affairs budget. I think we have had some great Secretaries of State, but in my time here I have known of no one who has engendered the loyalty, the thanks, and the gratitude of the employees of the

anded and when you were the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. You ve instilled pride in them. They know you are fighting for them. hink it has had a marked increase in their ability, capability, d confidence, and I want to publicly commend you for that. I happened to be with a group of State Department folks and two gh-ranking people, who were high-ranking officials and Demoats in previous administrations, and to hear them talk about at you have done for the Department would please you very, ry, very much. I do not think we recognize it often enough and w important that is. It is raw leadership you have provided, and ce again you have fought for their budget and your budget. The major increase is devoted to the Millennium Challenge Acunt and combating HIV-AIDS, two programs that are just getting the ground, but these increases I am concerned may appear to ve come at a price. Development assistance programs, which the esident pledged would not suffer as a result of the Millennium allenge Account, are reduced in the FY 2005 budget request. ere may be a rationale for that I do not understand, but I would e to talk about that. So are refugee programs and aid to Russia d other neighboring states. Other important programs such as e anti-narcotics programs and international broadcasting are esntially straight-lined, with no increases for inflation.

I think one of the things-there is a lot of things that the chairan and I agree on and there is unanimity in this committee, one which I think is the significant need for a fundamental reworkg and beefing up of our public diplomacy. I think it takes a great al more than we have in this budget.

I know you were I think you were there early on when the esident asked several of us in the Oval Office right after 9-11 d after Afghanistan and we were worried about the Arab street put together a program. I would like to resubmit to you a proam that we put together, the total cost of which over a period of ne is about a half a billion dollars.

I think we need something robust. I think we need something nificant. I think that the chairman and Mr. Hyde are committed not working on the proposal I make, but working on such a prosal. So I hope, notwithstanding the fact it is basically flat-lined re, you will have an open mind to hearing some of our suggesns. We are a global power with global responsibilities and we nnot let our attention on Iraq and the Middle East cause us to se our focus on other vital regions of the world.

There is a lot more to talk about. We could do this for a week. ere is so much at stake here. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of ne I am going to stop here. I look forward to having the oppornity today and, I know we cannot get it all done today, but over e next month or so to go into more depth on some of the issues at are raised here.

I will probably warn you-not warn you-advise you I want to k a little bit about Pakistan at the front end of this meeting and en maybe about Iraq and nonproliferation if there is time. But ain I compliment you on the esprit de corps you have created,

ua au you deserve an une creant, all the creuit.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Biden.

I think, Secretary Powell, you can receive the ambience of a strong bipartisan support for the Department and for your work and on so many issues, and we appreciate that.

Would you please proceed now with your testimony.

STATEMENT OF HON. COLIN L. POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Secretary POWELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have a prepared statement for the record and would submit it at this time.

The CHAIRMAN. It will be placed in the record in full.

Secretary POWELL. And I will provide some brief remarks summarizing that statement after I respond to a few of the points that you made, Mr. Chairman, and those made by Senator Biden.

Let me say what a pleasure it is for me to appear again before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It is always a joy to be with the members of the committee and your very professional, very experienced, very well-behaved staff. So I am very pleased to see that this morning.

Mr. Chairman, you listed so many areas that I could spend 5 hours talking about, but I will not do that. But it kind of was stunning to me to hear someone else list all the things that we have been working on. In the State Department we tend to be running the ground game. We tend not to be able to throw deep passes all the time. But every day, in so many different ways, wonderful diplomats and other individuals from all over the government, accredited to our missions around the world, are out there getting the job done for the American people.

Suddenly you find a Libya that is willing to give up its weapons of mass destruction. Suddenly you find a Sudan that is closer to peace than it has ever been in 20 years. Suddenly you go from a situation where India and Pakistan were almost at war with each other 18 months ago and we were worried about nuclear conflagration on the subcontinent, to a point now where they are cooperating with each other in moving forward and even starting to inch up on the difficult issue of Kashmir. And we find that Pakistan feels sufficiently confident in their position and, with our help and pressure, we are dealing with the the A.Q. Khan situation and we are going to get that network all ripped up.

The Moscow Treaty, the proliferation security initiative—all the things you have mentioned, Mr. Chairman, we are proud of, and especially proud of the young men and women of the Department who have done this for the American people, for the President, and for his foreign policy.

You paid me great tribute and I deeply appreciate that, but I could not have done it without the support that I received from this committee, from all the Members of Congress, and all the other committees that I report to. When I go out and visit our embassies and I give them a little pep talk, a "meet and greet," as they are called and you gentlemen and ladies have been kind enough to do it for us as you go out and visit our embassies-but I never finish

དཔ

པཡPPལ་

people support you. Iso tell them: I will go up and make the request for money and only they give me what I ask for, they want to give me more, I have to kind of say, no, that would not be right; I can only ort the President's request, I cannot go any further, do not me any more money.

at it is a reflection of the appreciation that you have for what are doing, and it is so important to those young men and en to know that it is not just the Secretary who understands appreciates what they are doing, but that you appreciate what are doing, you support them, and that the American people ort them. That is what makes it all work.

I have told the committee on many occasions beginning I x at my very first hearing, I am a foreign policy adviser to the ident, but I have also been given an organization to run, and ow a little bit about running organizations. I told you we would it. I told you we would fix the information technology system, would fix our building operation, and our security procedures. nk the Department has done all of those things and done it manner that the Congress should have every reason to be d of and approve of. We could not have done it without the ort of this committee, and once again I thank you for that. r. Chairman, I am sure in the course of our questioning we will nto all of the many issues that have been raised by you and enator Biden. What I would like to do is just go through my ement completely and then we can get into the various issues. e President's FY 2005 international affairs budget request for Department of State, USAID and other foreign affairs agencies s $31.5 billion and it is broken down as follows: foreign operas, $21 billion; State operations, $8.4 billion; P.L. 480 food aid, billion; international broadcasting, $569 million-and I always crying to see if we can raise that number because of the chales that we face of the kind Senator Biden mentioned and the Institute for Peace, $22 million.

e President's top foreign policy priority is winning the war on rism. Winning on the battlefield with our superb military s is just one step in this process, just one element of our camn. To eradicate terrorism altogether, the United States must create stable governments in nations that once supported term, nations like Iraq and Afghanistan, and we must go after rist support mechanisms as well as the terrorists themselves. must also help alleviate conditions in the world that enable terts to bring in new recruits.

these ends, our foreign affairs agencies will use the FY 2005 est money to continue to focus on the reconstruction of Iraq Afghanistan. We will continue to support our coalition partners rther our counterterrorism, law enforcement and intelligence eration. And we will continue to do everything we can to ex1 democracy and help generate prosperity, especially in the dle East as well as in other parts of the world.

r. Chairman, members of the committee, 48 percent of the ident's budget for foreign affairs supports the war on ter