[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND
STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2003
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE
JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES
FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia, Chairman
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
JIM KOLBE, Arizona ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia
CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
RALPH REGULA, Ohio ROBERT E. ``BUD'' CRAMER, Jr.,
TOM LATHAM, Iowa Alabama
DAN MILLER, Florida PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Young, as Chairman of the Full
Committee, and Mr. Obey, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full
Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.
Mike Ringler, Christine Kojac, Leslie Albright, and John F. Martens
Subcommittee Staff
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
________
PART 7
Page
Secretary of State............................................... 1
National Endowment for Democracy................................. 108
Administration of Foreign Affairs................................ 113
International Organizations and Peacekeeping..................... 185
Public Diplomacy................................................. 405
________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
81-394 WASHINGTON : 2002
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida, Chairman
RALPH REGULA, Ohio DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin
JERRY LEWIS, California JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington
JOE SKEEN, New Mexico MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota
FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia STENY H. HOYER, Maryland
TOM DeLAY, Texas ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia
JIM KOLBE, Arizona MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama NANCY PELOSI, California
JAMES T. WALSH, New York PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina NITA M. LOWEY, New York
DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
ERNEST J. ISTOOK, Jr., Oklahoma ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
HENRY BONILLA, Texas JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts
DAN MILLER, Florida ED PASTOR, Arizona
JACK KINGSTON, Georgia CARRIE P. MEEK, Florida
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi CHET EDWARDS, Texas
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr., ROBERT E. ``BUD'' CRAMER, Jr.,
Washington Alabama
RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM, PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
California JAMES E. CLYBURN, South Carolina
TODD TIAHRT, Kansas MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
ZACH WAMP, Tennessee LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
TOM LATHAM, Iowa SAM FARR, California
ANNE M. NORTHUP, Kentucky JESSE L. JACKSON, Jr., Illinois
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan
JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri ALLEN BOYD, Florida
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
KAY GRANGER, Texas STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey
JOHN E. PETERSON, Pennsylvania
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California
RAY LaHOOD, Illinois
JOHN E. SWEENEY, New York
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania
VIRGIL H. GOODE, Jr., Virginia
James W. Dyer, Clerk and Staff Director
(ii)
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2003
----------
Wednesday, March 6, 2002.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
WITNESS
HON. COLIN L. POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE
Opening Remarks of Subcommittee Chairman Wolf
Mr. Wolf. Welcome, Mr. Secretary. We want to welcome you to
the hearing, and I have an opening statement I am going to
make, but before I do I want to share a personal comment. I
want to thank the Administration--you, the President--your
service and your team, Mr. Armitage, Mr. Grant, and all the
people, for the outstanding job that they are doing,
particularly after 9/11, and how things have changed. I want to
put that out on the record from my own point of view. The other
Members will have their own comments. But you have really done
an amazing job, and I am very grateful.
Also, I want to make it clear where I stand with regard to
President Bush and the policies with regard to the war on
terrorism, both domestic and foreign. I completely support what
the President is doing. As you know, I chatted with you when I
got back. I was in Afghanistan for two days. We were in Kabul.
I do not know if you read the report or not, and I do not know
if I am pessimistic or optimistic, but it is a tough, tough
neighborhood. I think the more people focus and understand the
complexity of the situation there, it will become very easy to
defend the policy. I can go anywhere and talk about why this
policy of the Bush Administration is the appropriate policy.
I happened to have, in 1998, visited Algeria for several
days. As you know, 100,000 people have lost their lives through
terrorism in Algeria. Almost every family in Algeria has been
touched by a form of terrorism.
September 11 was not really new; the Marine barracks in
Lebanon in 1983, the embassy in Lebanon in 1983, the Tanzania
Embassy, the Kenya Embassy, the U.S.S. Cole, Khobar Towers.
This is very evil what is going on.
I just want to make sure that, one, I strongly support what
the President is doing, as I know the American people do, and I
think the Congress does on both sides. I do not think it is a
controversial issue.
Secondly, I appreciate very much your service and how you
have handled yourself, certainly over the past year, but
particularly since 9/11, and I want to thank you and thank your
entire team. You have always been very helpful, very
responsive. There may be some issues we do not agree with
completely.
We are going to have a number of questions--I know you have
to leave at 12:30--on policy issues. In addition, a lot of the
budgetary ones will be raised with Mr. Armitage and Mr. Green
and others. But I just wanted to make that personal comment.
Secretary Powell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. The Secretary today will testify regarding the
fiscal year 2003 budget request for the operation of the
Department and the assessed contribution of the United States
to the United Nations and other internal organizations. Perhaps
the key feature of this budget request is the second large
personnel increase in as many years to improve diplomatic
readiness and diplomatic security. The request includes funding
for 631 new positions. If enacted, this will represent a
historic increase of over 1,500 American employees in just two
years. I think we will actually set a record.
This dramatic expansion of the Department has been
undertaken at the same time as widespread calls for reform. The
Overseas President's Advisory Panel Report, the Carlucci
Report, and others made significant reform recommendations that
are not necessarily--and I stress not necessarily--directly
linked to additional appropriations or staff. These included
right-sizing, regionalizing, overseas presence, strengthening
the authority of the ambassador to improve management,
improving inter-agency coordination, and reorganizing the
budget and foreign buildings functions of the Department.
We will be interested to hear about the progress of these
reforms, and the Committee will look to you to be able to
reassure us that the large budget increases are in no way a
substitute for reform. They should go together, and not just
one taking the place of the other.
As we have discussed last year, I think you will find the
Committee eager to assist you in bringing about any needed
reform and in achieving a more secure, strategically-managed
U.S. presence overseas.
I am pleased to see that your budget request continues the
funding stream that Congress and the Administration has
established to improve embassy security. I think that is very
important. I saw the story with regard to Rome several weeks
ago, and Singapore, and for the Committee--and I know Mr.
Rogers was very supportive during his tenure--I am very
supportive of making sure that we have improved embassy
security. That is why when any reprogramming comes up we always
make sure that this is done not to just move something, but is
done to maximize security.
Since the embassy bombings in Africa, the committee has
provided over $4.3 billion to improve embassy security, so we
will be interested to hear your views on how this effort is
proceeding, how is General Williams, who I do not see in the
audience today, but how is he doing?
Another area of particular concern this year is funding for
public diplomacy activities. There is a critical and immediate
need for action to counter anti-American sentiment abroad that
results largely from misinformation, lack of information, and
misunderstanding.
American people are good, decent, compassionate people.
Had it not been for the American people and the American
Government, I do not know what would have taken place in
Bosnia. In some respects, if there was any problem, it was
perhaps that we waited too long. But because of American
efforts and the American military, in Sarajevo now the shops
are open and people can walk, and that is mainly, as you know,
a Muslim community.
We came to the defense of the Muslims in Kosovo, which is
90 percent Albanian Muslim, 10 percent Serbian Orthodox. The
United States stood very boldly, and had we not participated,
the genocide would have continued under Milosevich. You can
look at other places as well, such as Macedonia, which has a 35
percent Albanian Muslim population. I see President Mubarak is
in town--$47 billion of American taxpayer money has been given
to the Egyptian government since the Camp David Peace Accord.
So America is a good place, and we are good people, and for
some reason our message is not appropriately given out. I am
concerned that this effort has not been sufficient, given the
magnitude of the task, and that the budget request may be
inadequate to continue and expand these important activities.
I sent a letter to Mitch Daniels--I think we shared it with
the Department--asking that in this area of public diplomacy
there should be additional funding.
The Committee is going to have a hearing later on, after we
finish the normal process, with your Charlotte Beers, and we
are going to try to bring in some outside experts, with regard
to the Middle East--Muslim, Christian, all denominations--to
see how we get the message out of the goodness of the United
States.
When I saw the latest survey--I know you saw that poll--the
country with the most positive view of the United States seemed
to be Lebanon. And even in Lebanon--I was in Lebanon in April--
it did not seem overly warm with regard to the United States. I
told the Lebanese we had 241 Marines killed in the barracks who
were there in defense of Lebanese people. So America is a good
country, decent, honest, and we have to get that message out.
I am concerned that there is not enough money in the public
diplomacy area to tell the message. We have a great product,
and that is American democracy, it is freedom, it is liberty.
How do we get that out around the world? I also saw how few
people in many of those countries believe that Usama Bin Laden
was responsible for this activity. There should be no doubt. We
should be able to make a clear case that Usama Bin Laden, al-
Qaeda, the Taliban were responsible for that activity. We have
to let them see more data and more information, put it on a web
page, bring people in. I think the more exchange that we have
with regard to those countries, by our people going over, the
better.
I think we are just going to have to really rethink and
maybe do it a little bit differently and maybe spend a little
bit more. But this is not a battle that we can lose.
Lastly, the American soldier is doing an outstanding job,
our military.
With that, I will just refer to Mr. Serrano.
Opening Remarks of Subcommittee Ranking Member Serrano
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is always a
pleasure to welcome Secretary Powell. I take great pride in
bragging about the fact that you and I come from the same
neighborhood.
Secretary Powell. Thank you.
Mr. Serrano. I chose to take on the voters every two years,
you chose to take on the world, but it is worthwhile and I tell
you that every morning as I leave my apartment on the Grand
Concourse in the city and I see the Grand Concourse Walk of
Fame, there you are. I am not on the Walk of Fame yet, but you
are there, and we are working to try to reach that point.
I know that especially today, Mr. Secretary, you face many
complex challenges in terms of our Nation's foreign policy. Be
assured, however, that our Nation continues to value your
leadership at the Department of State.
I look forward to working with you and Chairman Wolf on
this year's State Department budget. I have reviewed the budget
for the Department of State and I am in agreement that we
should continue to place a priority on improving our worldwide
security and readiness, on the hiring of additional personnel
and on continuing our investment in updated computer
technology. We should explore new initiatives in the area of
public diplomacy. We must also continue our active
participation in and obligation to the international
organizations of which we are members, and, of course, we
should continue to support and fund our peacekeeping
obligation.
I have told you this in private, and I have said it in
public. I think, of the so many wonderful things that this
country does, our peacekeeping effort has really shown who we
are as a people, as a Nation, and I think that we should
continue that and I will support you in any way that I can.
Mr. Secretary, I also want to take a moment to thank you
for the personal commitment that you have made and continue to
make to having the personnel in our State Department and
Foreign Service reflect our diverse society. Outstanding
progress has been made and I know will continue under your
leadership. I look forward to learning more details about this
progress during the course of this hearing.
Now I would like to take a moment to express my concerns
about the diplomatic challenges that are part of our
relationship with Latin America, an area that you know you and
I have spent time talking about. We need to be careful, Mr.
Secretary, to avoid military involvement in Colombia. Colombia
has had a problem for many years, and those of us who have the
opportunity to read both English and Spanish media accounts
know that is a very difficult and sad situation that has been
going on for a long time. It is also one of the few places
where it is very hard at times to find out who the good guys
are and who the bad guys are, because on any given day anyone
can tell you that the bad guys are on both sides of the issue.
And so I would just caution--and it is a message I also
bring from many of my constituents--caution that our
involvement in Colombia could be a long and costly one that may
not take us in a direction that we want to go.
In addition, we must never take for granted but rather
should continue to devote careful attention to our relationship
with countries in this part of the world.
Mr. Secretary, you can be assured that I will provide
assistance and support to Chairman Wolf as this year's State
Department budget moves through the appropriations process. I
firmly believe that the State Department, with its
professional, talented, and dedicated personnel, plays an
invaluable role in the conduct of our Nation's foreign policy.
I will certainly continue to work to make this a successful
budgetary year for you.
Let me close by saying that, although you are the Secretary
of State, in addition to being the Secretary of State, in my
opinion, you play a major role in the Administration. One of
the concerns I have which touches on the Justice Department and
the FBI and the INS is the issue of civil liberties during this
very difficult time. I know this is an issue of great concern
to you. And so, again, in our desire to get the bad guys, we
have to be careful that we do not hurt the good guys, and I am
just concerned that the tension of people, the invasion of
privacy could, again, lead us down a road we do not want to go
to.
I do not know if this is a compliment to you, but I have
always seen you, as many other Americans, as a calming voice at
times when storms are brewing. You always seem to have a handle
on how to keep things in their proper place, while being one of
the great American patriots of our time. And so I ask you to
continue that balance--that balance that makes you feel secure,
that if someone is trying to misbehave in our Government, you
somehow look over their shoulder and say, ``Can we talk about
this for a second?'' It is that second that will make the major
difference in world peace and the future of this country, and I
thank you for being with us today.
Secretary Powell. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Secretary, your full statement will appear in
the record. Proceed as you see appropriate.
Opening Remarks of Secretary of State Colin Powell
Secretary Powell. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
do have a full statement, and I appreciate its inclusion in the
record in its entirety.
I thank you for your very warm opening remarks, and Mr.
Serrano, as well, for yours. Grand Concourse always brings back
the fondest of memories for me, Mr. Serrano.
I want to begin, Mr. Chairman, by thanking the committee
for the solid support that it has provided to the Department
during the first year of my tenure. I think we have tried to be
worthy of that support. We have been aggressive with respect to
the reform efforts within the Department. I have taken to heart
all of the many reports about the Department that have been
made over the years and trying not to have another report but
to execute on the items that have been identified for us to
execute on--getting the right-sizing of our embassies done,
fixing our security problem, fixing our personnel system,
getting the right people in the right place at the right time
for the right job within the Department, opening up the
Department to new ideas, making sure that the American people,
especially young Americans, see the value of service in the
State Department, whether they are in the Foreign Service or
Civil Service or whatever component. I think we have been
pretty successful at that.
General Williams is not here with us right now. He is out
checking buildings, I hope. That is what he is supposed to be
doing, not sitting in hearings with me, except when you call
for him, Mr. Chairman. But he has been doing a great job. He
has really shaken up our whole building construction operation.
As you know, we have given him a more direct line of
authority into the leadership of the Department, and we have
held him accountable, and he, in turn, is holding everybody
accountable for using the best management techniques available
within the commercial building industries to bring those
techniques into the Department. We have reduced the overall
cost of our embassies. We have done some very, very smart
things with respect to standardization of power plants and
things of that nature. I think we are being very good stewards
of the money that you have given to us, that Congress has given
to us, the American people have given to us for embassy
construction.
I can assure you that, as I said to you last year, I am the
CEO of the State Department, not just foreign policy advisor,
and there is not a day goes by that I do not devote part of my
day, along with Deputy Secretary Armitage and Under-Secretary
Green and other members of my staff, on the leadership and
management issues that face the Department, and we are working
away at them one at a time.
With respect to public diplomacy, Mr. Chairman, I could not
agree with you more. We have got to do a better job, and I
think we are doing a better job and will continue to do so and
we will get better under the leadership of Under-Secretary of
State Beers, who brings a different kind of experience, new
experience, marketing experience to the Department. Sometimes
we get a little criticism about that: ``What does a marketeer
know?'' Well, we are selling a product, and the product is a
value system that we all believe in, not selling America as a
way of imposing ourselves on somebody else, but a value system
that believes in individual rights, democracy, freedom as a way
into this 21st century world that is before us, that everybody
could benefit from being a part of a globalized world where
trade barriers are broken down, where our value systems mean
more and more to people around the world.
I am as disturbed as you are over some of the surveys we
have seen recently where we have not been successful in getting
that message out, and we have got a tough job ahead of us.
There is the Israeli/Palestinian conflict that to some extent
contaminates some of those surveys. We have got to work on
that. We have our work cut out for us, but I can assure you
that we will be dedicated to that task.
I also want to assure you, Mr. Serrano, that I take very
much to heart the issue of having a Department that represents
America. I thank you for what you have done with respect to the
Serrano Fellows and the other programs you have sponsored. You
and I have had a chance to sit and talk about all of this,
reaching out to Howard University with respect to African
American youngsters applying for the Foreign Service and also
to the Hispanic Associations of America to help us.
I am very pleased, just as a little vignette, to say that
4,000 minorities signed up to take the Foreign Service exam and
showed up for the exam, and 652 have passed--the highest
number, I think, probably ever. We are off to a good start and
will continue working in that direction.
With respect to Colombia, I understand perfectly your
point, but there is a new situation now, with President
Pastrana deciding that he could no longer allow the safe zones
to exist. We have to help Colombia save its democracy from
narco-traffickers and from terrorists, and we will have to re-
adjust our policies, take a hard look at what we are doing, and
see if there are not other ways we can help Colombia protect
itself short of the United States armed forces going in to do
it, but there are other things we can do, and that is the
subject of intense discussion within the Administration now.
And, of course, Mr. Serrano, we take very much to heart
your concerns, the concerns of all of us, that in an effort to
protect ourselves from terrorism we cannot do away with the
civil liberties and civil rights that are a hallmark of the
American tradition and the American spirit, and we have to find
the right balance to make sure we are protecting our people,
because they expect that of their Government, but at the same
time they expect not to have their civil liberties trampled. I
am sure as we go forward we will find that right balance.
Let me conclude that opening statement by saying I thank
you, Mr. Chairman, you, Mr. Serrano, all the members of the
committee for the strong support that you have provided to us.
As you will recall, at our first budget hearing last year I
told you that what we were requesting for 2002 represented a
significant increase in the Department's resources for that
fiscal year. I also told you that such an increase was a good
start, that it was the first fiscal step in our efforts to
align both the organization for the conduct of American foreign
policy with the dictates, the requirements of American foreign
policy in the 21st century.
You heard my testimony, you responded, and we are very
grateful. Because of your understanding and generosity, we have
made significant progress, and we need to continue that
progress in fiscal year 2003.
The President's discretionary request for the Department of
State and its related agencies for 2003 is $8.1 billion. These
dollars will allow us to continue initiatives to recruit, hire,
train, and deploy the right workforce. The budget request
includes $100 million for the next step in the hiring process
we began last year. With these dollars, we will be able to
bring on board the 631 people you mentioned, and especially
within that number 399 more foreign affairs professionals and
be well on our way to repairing a large gap created in our
personnel structure over the last ten years and relieve the
strain that we have put on our people by almost a decade of
too-few hires and inability to train properly and fill hundreds
of positions.
I would also mention that, as we are staffing up with more
people, we are also putting into our Foreign Service Institute
a requirement, a more serious requirement for leadership and
management training so that we are not just creating
professionals, we are creating professional leaders, people who
will be leaders in the future, and we are making that a
hallmark of all of our training and management activities.
By 2004 we hope to have completed our multi-year effort
with respect to overseas staffing, to include establishing the
training pool I described to you last year. That is so
important if we are to allow our people to complete the
training we feel is needed for them to do their jobs,
especially their next job. We have to have a little bit of
flexibility in the system so people can go in the schools and
not be removed from a position, but that there is a little bit
of flexibility so that we do not have to gap positions while we
are training people for those positions.
Next March I will be back up here briefing on the results
of our overall domestic staffing review. In addition to getting
more people on board, we will continue to upgrade and enhance
our worldwide security readiness, even more important in light
of our success in disrupting and damaging the al-Qaeda
terrorist network.
The budget request includes $553 million that builds on the
funding provided from the emergency response fund, the
increased hiring of security agents, and for counter-terrorism
programs. We will also continue to upgrade the security of our
overseas facilities.
The budget request includes over $1.3 billion to improve
physical security, correct serious deficiencies that still
exist, and provide for security-driven construction of new
facilities at high-risk posts around the world.
Mr. Chairman, we are right-sizing, shaping up, and bringing
smarter management practices to our overseas building program,
as I told you we would do so last year. The first change, as
you well know, was to put General Chuck Williams in charge and
give him Assistant Secretary equivalent rank. Now his overseas
building operation has developed the Department's first long-
range master plan, which projects our major facility
requirements over a five-year period. The Overseas Building
Office is using best practices from industry, new embassy
templates, and strong leadership to lower costs, increase
quality, and decrease construction time.
As I told you last year, one of our goals was to reduce the
average cost of building an embassy, and I believe we are well
on our way to doing just that. General Williams is making all
of our facilities, overseas and stateside, more secure. By the
end of 2002, over two-thirds of our overseas posts should reach
minimal standards, meaning secure doors, windows, and
perimeters. We are also making progress in efforts to provide
new facilities that are fully secure, with thirteen major
capital projects in design or construction, another eight
expected to begin this fiscal year, and nine more in 2003.
With this budget, Mr. Chairman, we will also be able to
continue our program to provide state-of-the-art technology to
our people everywhere. Because of your support in 2002, we are
well on our way to doing this. We have an aggressive deployment
schedule for our unclassified system which will provide desktop
Internet access to over 30,000 State users worldwide in 2003
using 2002 funding, and we are developing our classified
connectivity program over the next two years.
We have included $177 million in capital investment for IT
requirements. Combined with the $86 million in estimated
expedited passport fees, we will have a total of $263 million
for our information technology initiative. Our goal is to put
the Internet fully in the service of diplomacy.
With this budget we will continue to meet our obligations
to international organizations, also important as we pursue the
war on terrorism to its end. The budget request includes $891
million to fund U.S. assessments to 43 international
organizations, active membership of which furthers United
States economic, political, security, social, and cultural
interests.
The budget will also continue to meet our obligations to
international peacekeeping activities. The budget request
includes $726 million to pay our projected United Nations
peacekeeping assessments, all the more important as we seek to
avoid increasing even further our U.N. arrearages.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I ask for your
help in getting the cap lifted so that we can eventually
eliminate all of our arrearages. Only by lifting the cap will
we avoid continuing to add to the arrearages.
These peacekeeping activities also allow us to leverage our
political, military, and financial assets through the authority
of the United Nations Security Council and the participation of
other countries in providing funds and peacekeepers for
conflicts worldwide.
We will also continue and enhance an aggressive effort to
eliminate support for terrorists, and thus deny them safe haven
through our ongoing public diplomacy activities, our
educational and cultural exchange programs, and international
broadcasting.
The budget request includes $287 million for public
diplomacy, including information and cultural programs carried
out by overseas missions and supported by public diplomacy
personnel in our regional and functional bureaus. These
resources help to educate the international public on the war
against terrorism and America's commitment to peace and
prosperity for all nations.
The budget request also includes $247 million for
educational and cultural exchanges that build mutual
understanding and develop friendly relations between America
and the peoples of the world. These activities help build the
trust, confidence, and international cooperation necessary to
sustain and advance the full range of our interests. Such
activities have gained a new sense of urgency and importance
since the brutal attacks of September. We need to teach the
people of the world more about America and America's role in
the world. We need to show people throughout the world just who
we are and what we stand for, just as the chairman noted a few
moments ago.
Moreover, the budget request includes almost $518 million
for international broadcasting, of which $60 million is for the
war on terrorism, to continue increased media broadcasts to
Afghanistan and the surrounding countries and throughout the
Middle East. These international broadcasts help inform local
public opinion about the true nature of al-Qaeda and the
purposes of the war on terrorism, building support thereby for
the coalition's global campaign.
Mr. Chairman, on the subject of public diplomacy let me
expand my remarks a little bit. The terrorist attacks of
September 11th underscored the urgency of implementing an
effective public diplomacy campaign. Those who abet terror by
spreading distortion and hate and inciting others take full
advantage of the global news cycle. We must take advantage of
that same cycle.
Since September 11th, over 2,000 media appearances by State
Department officials have taken place. Our continuous presence
in Arab and regional media by officials with language and media
skills has been unprecedented. Our international information
website on terror is now on line in seven languages. Internet
search engines show that it is the hottest page on that topic.
Our 25-page color combination, ``The Network of Terrorism,'' is
now available in 30 languages, with many different adaptations,
including a full insert in the Arabic edition of ``Newsweek.''
``Right content, right format, right audience, right now''
describes our strategic aim in seeing that U.S. policies are
explained and placed in the proper context in the minds of
foreign audiences.
Mr. Chairman, beyond the budget requests I have just
outlined for you, we are working closely with OMB to examine
our overall requirements. We believe that there are valid 2002
needs that cannot wait for 2003. The Administration will bring
the specific details of this supplemental request to the
Congress in the near future. We have not finished our 2002
supplemental request for you yet, but it will be coming to you
in the very near future, and there will be a number of priority
items that the State Department will have in that supplemental
request.
Some of you know my feelings about the importance to the
success of any enterprise of having the right people in the
right places, and if I had to put one of these priorities as
the pinnacle of our efforts, it would be the hiring efforts
that I have already described. We must sustain the strong
recruitment program we have begun for the last year, and with
your support I am sure that we will be successful in that
regard.
Mr. Chairman, all of these activities that we have talked
about so far this morning have improved morale at the State
Department. People see that we care about them. We are giving
them secure, safe places in which to work. We are hiring people
to help them do their jobs better. We are doing everything we
can to let our people know that they are valued members of
America's foreign policy team.
While we concentrate on the Nation's foreign policy, we
have to take care of those who execute it, and not only the
Americans but especially the Foreign Service nationals. These
are an extraordinary group of people we do not talk about often
enough--foreigners who work in our embassy. For example, the 60
Afghan employees in Kabul who worked diligently to maintain and
protect our facilities throughout the 13 years that the embassy
was closed. They worked at personal risk. We were able to get
pay to them, but even then they were working at the risk of
their lives. And when we went back into Kabul, the embassy was
not in a state of total destruction, as we had expected. Those
employees had stood by their jobs, had done a good job, and
they are an essential part of the team, as well.
I thank you for what you have done to allow me to push
forward in that concept of teamwork, all being members of one
family, and I ask for your support in getting the $8.1 billion
that we need for fiscal year 2003, and also for the foreign
affairs budget we will be asking for, as well, in this same
request for $16.1 billion.
I will also ask your help for the supplemental request that
will be coming up in the near future.
Mr. Rogers, I think I will stop at this point, and I am
sure we will get into specific foreign policy issues in the
course of our discussion as members of the committee return
from voting.
[The statement of Secretary of State Colin L. Powell
follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
MANAGEMENT ISSUES
Mr. Rogers [assuming chair]. Mr. Secretary, thank you very
much for that good statement. I say on behalf of the
subcommittee and on behalf of the Congress, how much
reassurance your presence in this position brings to us at this
particular time in our history. The events of 9/11 and the
aftermath are unsettling, of course, to all of us, but your
steady hand and your steady advice and counsel to the President
is something of a national treasure that we appreciate very
much.
Secretary Powell. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Rogers. And I am glad to hear your very good report on
the management issues at State. As you perhaps know, I chaired
this subcommittee for the last six years and have served on it
the last eighteen or nineteen years. One of the biggest
problems that we have faced was that State was just not
properly managed--wonderful people, dedicated to the Nation,
patriotic in every respect, but there was just not the
organizational or management structure there that allowed
modern management procedures to be employed. I am glad to hear
that it sounds like you have those in place.
You have commented on that already. Would you care to add?
Secretary Powell. I would always love to add to that
proposition.
Mr. Rogers, in our conversation last year I assure you I
took very much to heart what you said to me about your
disappointment and the disappointment of the Congress for many,
many years with respect to the management of the Department,
and I tried to be very faithful to my promise to you at that
time that you would see a change. I think you have seen a
change in the diplomatic readiness initiatives that we have
underway. I think you have seen a change with the way in which
we are running our building program. I think you have seen a
change in the way we run our security programs. One of the
issues was why you can't have representation on Capitol Hill.
We now have an office up here in Capitol Hill that is closer to
the Congress on the House side. I hope to open a liaison office
on the Senate side, as well, for the purpose of showing you the
State Department is here, wanting to know your constituent
problems, wanting to hear from Members of Congress, providing a
service to link you into the leadership and management of the
Department even more closely.
We spend an enormous amount of time in cutting through
bureaucratic processes to make the Department move faster, to
speed up the decision cycle.
When I first came in, the letter that the President gives
to each Ambassador took 18 months, in the previous
Administration, to get approved. I told my staff we are going
to get it done in four weeks and I will write it myself, and I
did, and we got it done and the President signed it. It is just
a matter of showing everybody that they are important.
One of the things we have been working very hard on, Mr.
Rogers, is to connect the Department, from the Secretary of
State out to every last employee in every embassy. We are one
team bound together by trust, by a common purpose, by policies
that are coherent and consistent over time, that we are going
to push down authority, that we believe the embassies are right
and they know more than we do back here at C Street at the
Truman Building. Now, that is not always the case, but we are
certainly going to act that way as a way of empowering the
whole organization.
I think that the results are starting to show--starting to
show by the number of people who are signing up to become
members of the Department of State, Foreign Service exams and
other applications coming in for Civil Service positions. I
think we are doing a good job, but it has only been one year.
You know you have the start-up period, when you are still
trying to figure out what to do. But we will continue to work
on this effort.
OPAP RECOMMENDATIONS
Mr. Rogers. A big ship is hard to turn around quickly, and
this ship is a big one. It has been adrift for a long time. So
you are right, it is going to take a little while to see
whether or not we are headed in the right direction management-
wise. But I like what I hear, and we will see whether or not
the captain steering the wheel makes the ship turn or not in
due course of time.
The Crowe Report of your colleague a few years ago
recommended--and I remain convinced--that the worldwide program
of relocation and security improvements in our facilities
overseas is an opportunity to minimize vulnerability by moving
as many functions as possible to secure, regional locations and
minimizing staffing at those vulnerable posts. Is that
something that you agree with? And, if so, are you moving in
that direction?
Secretary Powell. I agree with it in principle where it
makes sense. If you can do something on a regional basis and
perform the mission and provide the service, then we should do
so. So in principle yes, but you always have to balance that
against whether or not you can really provide a service at
Point A from a location at Point B or Point C that may be
regionally oriented. I think we have to strike that balance.
But as a matter of principle, yes.
Mr. Rogers. The Kaden Report and the Carlucci Reports a
year or two ago were good studies of reorganization and
management issues within State and how we go about making our
presence overseas known and felt and had a great number of
recommendations, which I have been strongly supportive of. I
think they did a wonderful job. What are your thoughts about
the recommendations within those reports, like consolidation,
right-sizing, America presence posts, and the like?
Secretary Powell. I am supportive of almost all of them. I
was a member of the Carlucci Study Team several years ago, so I
am quite familiar with those actions and we used them as a
benchmark. Now, not every one of them would I agree to, but I
think for the most part I think you will find that we are
following not only the spirit of those reports but the actual
specific recommendations that they made.
Mr. Rogers. Well, I hope so, because most of them are
headed, I think, in the right direction, particularly the
American presence posts.
Secretary Powell. Yes, sir. As you know, Ambassador Rohatan
in Paris started that idea, and we have documented it and we
have two other countries now that are exploring it, two other
places. One is Turkey, and the other one--I forget where it is,
but we----
Mr. Rogers. I think we have five in France.
Secretary Powell. Five in France, one in Turkey, and
there's another one.
Mr. Rogers. One in Canada.
Secretary Powell. Canada. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rogers. Well, I recommend that. It is a good way to
have our presence felt very effectively but with a minimum of
presence. There's no bulls-eye on the door----
Secretary Powell. Yes.
Mr. Rogers [continuing]. For terrorists. You go to an
office building and do your work unnoticed, more or less. So I
hope that we would get more reprogramming requests here to open
up others all around the world.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Powell. Thank you.
FY 03 REQUEST FOR PUBLIC DIPLOMACY
Mr. Wolf [resuming chair]. Mr. Secretary, on the public
diplomacy issue, your budget request is basically flat. It is
5.3 million. I understand how these things work, and I think we
did share the letter with you. I am sure we did, over with the
Department. You may not have seen it. But we asked for OMB to
look at that.
Would you want to comment on that? We have a great product,
and I just do not know that 5.3 million for public diplomacy in
the current situation that we are in--that is the only modest
increase that you asked for in that program.
Secretary Powell. Well, my figure of our overall account
for public diplomacy, including educational, cultural programs
is a $26 million increase up to $535 million total. It is $288
million, or an $18 million increase, in the public diplomacy
line.
Mr. Wolf. But, still, well, I guess it depends on what we
are counting.
Secretary Powell. Yes.
Mr. Wolf. But I do think we need more--I mean, I am not for
spending a lot of money. I would like to think we can have a
balanced budget again this year, if it is at all possible. But
knowing what has taken place, I do not think we can, unless we
defeat terrorism.
In the effort against terrorism, I commend the
Administration for mentioning Hezbollah. The Hezbollah were
involved in the Marine barracks. You were in the Reagan
Administration.
Secretary Powell. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wolf. The Library of Congress put together a series of
all the terrorism activity. Hezbollah comes up over and over
and over. So this impacts directly on what's taking place in
the Middle East.
It is the same thing with regard to public diplomacy,
defeating terrorism and at the same time telling our story, so
do you think it could use a little additional money?
Secretary Powell. Yes, sir. We were only able to add $18
million in 2003, but, as part of our supplemental discussions
with OMB, we are trying to get more under the supplemental.
Mr. Wolf. Good. I would hope so, and I have spoken to OMB
about that.
I also think----
Secretary Powell. If I may, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Wolf. Sure.
Secretary Powell. Sometimes it is cost free. It does not
cost anything to do new ways, to go about it new ways, and that
is what we are trying to do--get our ambassadors out on these
Arab television networks and radio stations. We can do a lot in
terms of getting articles placed that cost us nothing.
My own little minor effort in this was appearing in Al
Jazeera, appearing with another Arab network, and then going on
MTV, which reached 346 million households around the world, and
I had to defend the United States. Are we a Satan or are we a
protector? I made the portion of the case I made. I got asked
about the Middle East. I got asked about a variety of issues.
Some made news, others did not make news. But it gave me a
chance to tell----
Mr. Wolf. Welcome to politics.
Secretary Powell. But it got me to take our case to 90
straight uninterrupted moments. It was supposed to be 60. They
let it run for 90, broadcast six times to 33 MTV channels
around the world, population 17 to 25, mostly in the non-
western part of the world. And in each one of the locations
that it came down, our embassies throughout the world, consular
officers or embassy staff or the embassador himself or herself
stayed after the performance and talked to the youngsters who
had come to hear it, and now they are following up with
additional discussion.
Out of one of our embassies the request came from the
students who were there, ``Hey, we have never heard this kind
of thing. Why don't you now come visit our university? We want
to hear more.''
So sometimes it is cost-free.
TERRORIST ACTIVITIES IN SUDAN
Mr. Wolf. It is. We spoke to the students at AUB in
Lebanon, and they were very open, and I think you are right.
Well, I am glad you are doing that, and I hope when we have a
hearing we are going to try to bring in some outside experts,
because there are many people in this country who really know
that part of the world, and I think it can help you.
Things are moving quickly in Sudan. You know of the
concern. I saw pictures of the result. There was a Soviet
helicopter gunship that came in a week-and-a-half ago and
gunned down people. We have reports. We have talked to a person
by e-mail who was on the ground at the time. We sent pictures
over, I believe, of some of the shells. There was some
inference that the attack may have included chemical weapons.
The shells exploded above the people. But they literally came
in and gunned the people down, and this is supported with the
money coming from the oil. The oil now has given the Sudanese
government the ability to not only operate those training camps
around Khartoum. Hamas comes in to Khartoum, there must be a
shuttle. They come in on a regular basis. The Iranians are
there and everything else.
Could you bring us up to date? I saw the story about how
the Sudanese have now said they will cooperate, but we have
heard this before. I would like you to speak to that and maybe
speak to the Sudanese government, too.
Secretary Powell. As you know, Mr. Chairman, Senator
Danforth led a mission for us and went over there a couple of
times and came back with a four-point plan that looked like a
road forward, and we told the Sudanese that, ``If you want a
better relationship with the United States, this kind of action
simply has to stop.'' And then you saw we got something of an
agreement, which was a step in the right direction. The
Sudanese have been helpful with respect to intelligence sharing
and shutting down some of the terrorist activities that were at
least officed or headquartered in the Sudan, and so we thought
we were moving on a somewhat positive track, considering the
difficulties in this region, and then this helicopter incident
took place.
I have no evidence to suggest that chemical weapons were
spread at that time, but, nevertheless, we went immediately to
the Sudanese government and said, ``That is it. We stop. We are
not going forward. You do not understand. We were serious. You
have got to stop activity like this or it stops. This has to be
reciprocal. We do something, you do something. But it has to be
permanent.''
They have now come back and investigated the incident and
told us that it should not have happened, it was an error,
failure of command, and they have entered into an agreement
with us which we have now put before the SPLA that this kind of
activity will not take place, will stop.
Mr. Chairman, you and I both have been around this track
before, but what we have communicated to the Sudanese
government is that we will hold you accountable, and the
process of moving forward, of any opportunities for better
relationship will come to a dead halt with the continuation of
this kind of activity.
PROBLEMS FACING AFRICA
Mr. Wolf. Good. Well, thank you.
Several weeks ago Ted Koppel did a series on the Congo,
Eastern Congo--Goma, Bokago, and others. It was very moving.
For ABC to be dropping Koppel for Letterman, I do not
understand. I mean, he did an incredible job. He went in there,
spent a lot of time. Great, great show. I do not know if you
happened to see it. In any event, 2,500 people are dead each
day in the Congo. They have lost almost three million people.
My sense is we now have to, in this Administration, put
together a group of people who are literally the best experts
in the world to shape our policy be toward Africa. There are so
many problems. You have diamonds with regard to al-Qaeda,
Sierra Leone, you have the problem with Guinea, you have
Charles Taylor. I mean, we should be looking at it. What do we
do. We should be re-flagging all of the ships coming out of
Liberia with the Liberia flag. That would bring down the
Charles Taylor Government.
What should our policy be with regard to the Liberian flag?
What should our policy be on the diamond issue? What should our
policy be with regard to food aid and development? By the way,
let me congratulate you for the President's appointment of
Congressman Tony Hall. There's not a more capable and committed
individual in this Congress, or frankly in the country, than
Hall. Mr. Hall will do a great job and make you very proud. But
how do we deal with debt forgiveness? We need to forgive debt,
but we need to do it in a way that when the debt is forgiven
there is a reciprocity with regard to freedom of religion,
freedom of speech, that some things go back to the people.
Africa is ablaze, it is afire, I mean, from AIDS, to the Congo,
to Sudan, to Sierra Leone, to Guinea. We have to step back, and
consinder that what we are doing, as a country, and as the
West, really has not worked. The value of a life in Goma has
the same value as a life in Berlin, or in London, or in
Beijing.
You do not have to make me a commitment, but I would like
to think we could kind of step back, put together some of the
very best minds, new thinking, new ideas. How do we do aid?
What do we do with promoting democracy? How do we deal with
debt forgiveness? What do we do? Also, I am concerned about
terrorism. Terrorism is beginning to move. Charles Taylor has
sheltered terrorists. Charles Taylor's people go up to Libya.
But we need to really rethink what we are doing in Africa.
If you look at the Ted Koppel piece on ``Nightline,''
``Five Days in Eastern Congo,'' he makes the point again, 2,500
deaths a day. That is like the World Trade Center every single
day. Many go into the bush and literally lay down and they die,
and many who are not dying are living a life that is almost as
bad as we can possibly imagine.
What are your thoughts about the Congo and about how we
should step back and maybe take a look at this whole continent
called Africa with regard to rethinking some of the policy?
Secretary Powell. The situation in the Congo is every bit
the tragedy that you say it is, Mr. Chairman, and Ted Koppel
did just a magnificent job of documenting it in his program.
Mr. Wolf. I wonder if Letterman has ever been to Goma.
Probably has not.
Secretary Powell. Probably not.
Mr. Wolf. Maybe he will go.
Secretary Powell. I think I will stay out of the ABC----
Mr. Wolf. I understand. I probably should have, too.
Secretary Powell. It is a tragic situation. We are working
with President Kabila and President Kagame and the other
leaders in the region to try to bring an end to this conflict,
and working with the U.N. with respect to putting in the
peacekeepers and others necessary to try to help these
desperate, desperate people.
We are dealing with every one of these issues that you
mentioned in as effective way as we can figure out. It is
always wise to step back and take a look at the overall
picture, but I find my day dealing with the individual pieces
that won't wait for the overall picture to fall in place. We
have been aggressive with respect to HIV/AIDS. We have taken
the lead there. We have taken the lead in speaking out sharply
against people like President Mugabe in Zimbabwe. My speech in
South Africa last year made it clear that this kind of behavior
and this kind of political action is no longer acceptable if
countries wanted to progress into the 21st Century. Mr. Mugabe
is an anachronism with the way he is going about the running of
his country.
I think we have been forthcoming with respect to trying to
do something about the diamond trade and supporting actions up
in Congress with respect to getting the diamond trade under
control because it is such a source of income for the most evil
purposes in Africa.
So on each one of the issues you have mentioned we are
working on those issues, but we can always benefit from
stepping back and see if they are so integrated that we can
come up with a single, overall approach that would deal with
all of them. You do not get the kind of attention with respect
to issues in Africa that you will in Afghanistan or Bosnia or
anywhere else. You are quite right. Not only 2,500 people a day
dying in the Eastern Congo, but look at how many are dying with
respect to HIV/AIDS.
The president of Botswana was in my office the other day
and we were talking about it. It is a country of 1.6 million
people with an infection rate of 38.9 percent. The average life
expectancy has dropped from 69 to 44. This is an absolute
pandemic. It is a tragedy. Of all 15-year-olds in Botswana, 50
percent are infected. It cries out for more attention. It cries
out for the whole world to do something about it. The whole
world tends to have a difficult time figuring out how to get
their hands around the problem.
So I do not deny in the slightest way, Mr. Chairman, that
you have a good idea in terms of let's step back and how do we
take a look at this in a more holistic way. I am willing to
explore that with you and find out what we might be able to do.
Mr. Wolf. Good.
Secretary Powell. But we are trying to work the individual
problems every day, as well.
Mr. Wolf. Well, you have to. I had the Library of Congress
do a paper, which I will send to you, on this issue. I think
you have to continue to meet those needs as they come, but you
have got to--get a group of top people, experts who will care,
and come in and see if there's something a little bit different
we can do. Or maybe what is being done is correct, although I
find it hard to believe what the world has done for the last 20
years has been successful, because if that is success, my
goodness, I would hate to see failure. But I think such an
effort can make an impact. I will send you that paper.
Mr. Serrano.
COLOMBIA AND U.S. INVOLVEMENT
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I want to just spend some more time with you
on this issue of Colombia, which troubles so many people.
Last year, when you came before the committee, I expressed
to you my concern, and after correcting me on calling upon plan
Colombia and changing to its new name, you assured us--and I
believe that you meant that--that this would be for counter-
narcotic trafficking and growing issues and for democracy
building and strengthening the law enforcement and judiciary.
Backing up a second, prior to you coming before me,
transcript of the hearing shows that I expressed the same
concerns to Secretary Albright about Colombia. She went on to
say the that Administration was involved with President
Pastrana in trying to help him deal with the needs, the real
needs of the FARC, and other groups, and that she and that
Administration were trying to make President Pastrana
understand that the bigger problem in Colombia was how to
change the society so that certain people did not feel left
out.
Now, I should have prefaced my comments by saying that we
are all fans of President Pastrana and we are hopeful that he
is successful, but I think that those of us who feared a
military involvement may not have been totally wrong. What we
are hearing now, what we are reading now, is that we are now
going to go and get involved in protecting oil fields or oil
pipelines, and that we basically have declared again the narco
folks, the FARCs, terrorists.
Now, I am not suggesting that they are or they are not. I
am only suggesting that after September 11th we Americans
shiver at the word ``terrorist'' and identify with a group of
people we want to get rid of. There's not a single American who
says we should not get rid of every terrorist.
But now it seems to some that the word ``terrorist'' could
be loosely used to allow us involvement that we should be
analyzing in different ways. This is a civil war. You and I
grew up with a situation militarily where there was a civil war
that we got involved in, and we honor all the folks that were
there, but we spend so much time now wondering, you know, what
was the involvement and what the involvement should have been.
All that to say, Mr. Secretary, that we have to be careful
not to get involved in Colombia in a civil war that we can't
get out of.
Secondly, if we have accomplished one thing, it is that
people who usually opposed our involvement in Latin America
have been kind of quiet for the last ``X'' amount of years
because we have not been behaving that way. We may wake a lot
of folks up in Latin America who now feel that, ``Here they
come again using their military force.''
I do not know who the good guys are in Colombia. Maybe that
is where I open myself up to getting hit over the head by you.
You do that in a very diplomatic way, I know. I do not know who
they are. I know there's a government, a government that still
cannot get rid of its involvement with the paramilitary group.
I know there's narco traffickers on all sides of the issue. I
know there's an insurgency group that brings pain to the people
in the name of trying to bring a change in government. I know
governments who traditionally bring pain to the people also.
So I cannot figure it out, and I try to read it every day
in English and in Spanish. I am wondering how some folks are
figuring out somewhere else. So could you tell us how close are
we to military involvement, and could you tell us what would be
the reason for allowing our troops to be used in Colombia?
Secretary Powell. There are no plans that I am aware of--
and I think I am aware of all plans--that involve the possible
sending or use of American military units to Colombia to deal
with the problem they have. Colombia is a friend to the United
States. President Pastrana we all admire. There will be a new
president by late summer.
Colombia is fighting for its democracy. It is fighting for
its right to have a legitimate, democratic form of government.
It is under assault by narco traffickers, and it is also under
assault by organizations such as the FARC and ELN, especially
the FARC that has been after Colombian leadership for many,
many years.
President Pastrana boldly tried to resolve this with the
creation of the safe havens in the hope that this would
encourage the FARC and the ELN to negotiate seriously. There
was doubt that this would be successful. And President
Pastrana, after giving it his all, came to the conclusion that
they would not negotiate in good faith, that this is not the
solution to the problem, and he ended the safe havens.
He is now faced with having to deal with these
organizations which we have designated as terrorist
organizations. Our policies to this point--as I have said to
you last year, we have been faithful to that--have been to use
Plan Colombia and the Andean Regional Initiative, or ACI, as it
is called, for counter-narcotic purposes, and we have stayed
within the letter of the law with respect to that.
This year we continue to stay within the letter of the law,
but we introduced a new element to protect the pipeline,
because this was a pipeline that was being shut down on a
regular basis and was affecting the basic economy of Colombia.
It was reasonable for a democratic government to be able to
protect the pipelines. We did not think that this did violence
to anything we have said to the Congress previously and it was
a smart thing to do.
But the safe havens are now gone, and President Pastrana,
and I believe whoever will replace President Pastrana, is in a
conflict with the FARC. There are some things we might be able
to do with the ELN. I believe it is reasonable for us to take a
look at our policy in light of this changed circumstance, and
that is what we are doing.
It may be necessary--and the President has made no
decision, has received no recommendation--it may be necessary
for us to give the government of Colombia additional support
that is outside the counter-narcotics facet to enable them to
deal with this threat to their survival as a nation, this
threat to their economic well-being, and once we have completed
this review, we will come up to the Congress and ask for
whatever we believe is necessary.
Right now we are staying within the limit of the law, but
it is clear that the kinds of things that we are being asked to
provide to assist the Colombian government, such as more
intelligence information, things of that nature, that will
quickly run into the wall, the legislative wall that is there,
and that is what we are examining--what more is it appropriate
to give them so that they can defend their nation?
We also have made it clear to President Pastrana and will
make it clear to the future president of Colombia that if
paramilitary forces are given a free hand, this is destructive
of our effort to help you, and we particularly mean that with
respect to AUC, as it is called, the umbrella organization. We
made it clear to them, and they have assured us that they
understand it and they are not going to give the paramilitary a
free hand, because that is also destructive of their democracy.
So this is what we are looking at now. We are reviewing our
policies to see what it would be appropriate to do in order to
assist this nation in its war.
Mr. Serrano. Well, I would hope, Mr. Secretary, that, as
you have stated here today, that if there is a move to involve
us in any other way, that there is consultation with Congress,
so that at least the American people can hear a full debate on
this issue.
Lastly, I understand--we all do, especially representing an
area like I do in New York--that the issue of drug trafficking
has always been a problem, but nowhere in our history, recent
history that I can remember, have we said that that merited
getting involved in a civil war. So when I hear the word
``terrorist,'' I think of the World Trade Center. I think of
Bin Laden, the al-Qaeda, and so on. Incidentally, so that we
understand something, I voted against this when it came up in
appropriations when President Clinton had his administration. I
told President Clinton at that time that I felt we would get to
this point and that he was making a mistake. So I want to make
clear that I have disagreed with both Administrations on this.
When this Administration now says, ``These folks are
terrorists,'' should the American people assume that what the
Administration is saying is they are terrorists in the same way
those other folks are terrorists, that they present a physical
threat to us? The drug threat we know about, but are they
thinking of bombing us in some way and is that why we are
calling them terrorists, or are they attacking us physically?
Secretary Powell. I do not know that they are going to
attack us physically, but with respect to their being
terrorists there's no doubt in my mind. When an organization
such as the FARC says it is interested in negotiations, but at
the same time is hijacking airplanes to take elected
representatives off the airplane, when they take a female
Senator of Colombia, an elected representative who is trying to
help people, and they murder her, they are terrorists, and it
is terrorism that threatens stability in Colombia, and if it
threatens stability in Colombia it threatens stability in our
part of the world, in our neighborhood, in our back yard, and I
think that is something that should be of concern to us, and
that is why I think we have an obligation to review our
policies and to see what else we might have to do that changes
the line that is currently there in order to help the Colombian
government.
NEW CHALLENGES FOR FOREIGN POLICY
Mr. Serrano. I have one more question I want to ask on a
separate subject, but, once again, I meant it seriously when I
said that I always see you as a calming voice. Both in Spanish
and in English, I hope you pay close attention to what some
people may be saying.
And, with all due respect, as far as terrorists go, there
are some people who hijacked planes in Cuba and now live
peacefully in Miami, and we have never called them
``terrorists,'' so those issues become bigger issues.
Our foreign diplomacy has always been geared towards
dealing with governments and nations. Now it seems that the
world changed September 11th. Maybe it was changing before that
and we hardly noticed, but now there are people outside that
understanding of nations and governments. Bin Laden is a fine
example of that. He's neither a nation or a government, but he
causes havoc on the world.
How will you see our foreign diplomacy changing in order to
deal with that issue? And are the tools we had in the past
still relevant to what we are doing today?
Secretary Powell. I think they are still relevant, but will
have to be used in new and different ways and we will have to
come up with new tools. You are quite right. The days of seeing
a clear enemy on the other side of a boundary and that is who
is going to attack us is not the case any more. There is no
superpower out there that we should see as an enemy right now.
They just do not exist, fortunately. That is the good news.
That is the great news.
But we find these trans-national kinds of threats. al-Qaeda
is neither a government nor a state as we know it, and,
nevertheless, it is an enemy. I mean, it attacked us. It
violated our sovereignty and killed several thousand people at
the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
How do we go about it? One, intelligence, law enforcement.
But one of the principal ways we have to go about it, which
falls into my area of foreign policy, is to make sure that any
nation that wants to be a friend of ours, any nation that
claims to be an ally of ours has to make sure that they are
following policies that make it inhospitable, impossible for
such organizations to find haven and succor in their country.
That is what the President meant when he said we have to go
after those who are giving haven. That is why we went into
Afghanistan. That is why we went after the Taliban. The Taliban
was given a chance to stop it. They said no. And that is why
the nations that develop weapons of mass destruction that could
fall in the hands of terrorists have to be nations of concern
to us.
And so we have to use foreign policy in relations with
other nations and governments to make it clear to those nations
and governments that they have to take action that cause their
nations not to be havens and places of comfort for these trans-
national threats that now exist in the presence of terrorists
who are looking for nations where they can find a corner to
hide in or a financial system to exploit or the lack of an
intelligence system to take advantage of.
That is, I think, one of the new challenges for American
foreign policy.
WINNING SUPPORT IN AFGHANISTAN
Mr. Serrano. Without details, obviously, are we involved in
Afghanistan in trying to, at the same time that we do what we
do, win support from the folks for future endeavors?
Secretary Powell. Yes, we are. Our public diplomacy efforts
are active there, the fact that we are going to help them train
their police force and army I think shows that we are
interested in a better future for the Afghan people, our
humanitarian efforts, that we are the largest provider of food,
we support their mine-clearing programs. We are doing a lot, I
think, that will cause the Afghan people to see that we come in
friendship.
The point that the chairman made earlier that we get a bum
rap, you know, it was United States armed forces that went to
help Muslims in Kuwait in 1991. It was not America that invaded
Kuwait, it was another Muslim country that invaded Kuwait. We
went to Kosovo for the same reason. We went to Afghanistan for
the same reason. But sometimes people forget to give us credit
for that or we forget to claim credit for it, as we should. We
have not invaded any Muslim countries with the purpose of
taking it over. We have not tried to overthrow any Muslim
regime. They ought to look at other enemies to Muslim causes,
not the United States.
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Chairman, I want to close and join you in
your opening comments in congratulating Secretary Powell and
this Administration. My city was the center of the pain, and
your leadership and the President's leadership has been
something that we have valued and found comfort in in New York
City, and I thank you.
U.S. INVOLVEMENT IN LATIN AMERICA
Secretary Powell. And if I may have one final word, Mr.
Serrano, you mentioned in the course of your remarks earlier
about some who have been rather quiet about U.S. involvement in
Latin America, as opposed to, shall we say, 15 years ago, when
I was deeply involved, and you recall those days. And I am
still kind of proud of the fact that America's efforts and
willingness to get involved produced change in El Salvador and
Nicaragua that turned out to be for the better.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Young, chairman of the full committee.
Remarks of Committee Chairman Young
Chairman Young. Mr. Secretary, welcome.
Secretary Powell. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Young. I apologize that other commitments have
kept me from attending a full hearing today, but I did want to
come by for just a few minutes and pay my respects to the
American who assumed this tremendous responsibility in one of
the most challenging times in the world's history, and to say
that I believe you have done a really good job. I think you
have represented our country well. And I just wanted to come by
and say those few words to you, because we are really proud of
what you have done.
Secretary Powell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
for your support of the Department's efforts.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Miller of Florida.
Extradition Issues with Mexico
Mr. Miller. Mr. Secretary, I appreciate Mr. Young coming
over just to make those statements, because you really do make
us proud of this Administration and proud of the job that you
have done after September 11th.
One brief comment, something I brought up last year, Boys
and Girls Clubs. We both share an appreciation of the job they
do. It was dropped out of the budget last year by the
Administration. Through Mr. Wolf we got it back in last year.
But they included it this year, so thank you, because you have
given that moral support. We appreciate that.
Let me first ask a question about extradition issues. I
admire the great job that the State Department does. Last year
I ended up working with families over here that are trying to
get someone accused returned. I worked with the family of Holly
Maddox, who was brutally murdered in Philadelphia in 1977. Last
year, Ira Einhorn was returned from France to stand trial in
Philadelphia. It was a lot of work by a lot of people in
Justice and State that you never read about or hear about, and
it just happens very suddenly, but apparently the French
government was very cooperative.
Since September 11th, the European Union has apparently
developed an extradition within their countries to make it just
like extraditing someone from Florida to Missouri.
How I got involved in this originally was because of an
issue of a horrible murder in Sarasota in 1997 of a young
mother of six, including quadruplets who were two years old. A
hired killer drove from Texas to Sarasota and shot her twice,
slit her throat twice, fled to Mexico. He's a U.S. citizen,
born and raised in the United States.
He eventually came back to the United States and was
convicted--or pled guilty, actually, serving a life sentence.
But the problem was we had to waive the death penalty, and so
with Ira Einhorn, but the question is: the Mexican Supreme
Court has recently ruled that the life sentence is, I guess,
cruel and unusual punishment. It has a real threat to our--
because of the huge border we share with Mexico, and we are
going to have a safe haven for criminals now with terrorism and
drug dealers that would have--especially U.S. citizens to be
extradited and to use the excuse of life sentence. I read in
``Newsweek'' and ``The New York Times'' as many as 70 people
are being delayed extradition for that.
What can you tell me as where we stand on that issue--I
know President Bush and you will be going to Mexico later this
month--that we can do to address this concern, because we all
agree we do not, with that huge border, have that safe haven in
Mexico for criminals.
Secretary Powell. This is an issue that I raised directly
with Foreign Minister Castenega, the action of the Mexican
Supreme Court last fall, which has thrown this whole issue into
some turmoil.
I do not think it is quite 70 cases that have been caught.
It is a lesser number. And we have told them we cannot give
assurances that there will be no life sentence, that it would
be inconsistent with our law and with the laws of the several
States.
The Mexican government is very sensitive to this issue,
and, frankly, Mr. Miller, I think we are working out ways to
deal with this problem a case at a time, and there are some
clever legal ways that one can work this issue so that we can
get the extradition taken care of. And so this has high
priority within the Department and within the Administration,
high interest on the part of the Mexican government to make
sure that we do not stop appropriate extraditions, but we have
to use some clever legal means to make it happen.
Mr. Miller. I hope we can have a more general policy with
the Mexican government rather than have to do it case by case.
Secretary Powell. We expect that, as a result of
conversations I have had with Foreign Minister Casteneda and
conversations between our Justice Department and our Justice
officials and the commitment of the Mexican government, I
expect that there is a way to resolve this as a general matter
over the next couple of years.
VIOLENCE IN THE MIDDLE EAST
Mr. Miller. Thank you very much.
Let me ask one other line of questioning, and that is the
Middle East. That has to be your frustration and your
predecessor's great frustration, what's happening there. Of
course, it is the front page news, sadly, day after day after
day. I will just take a couple minutes, because we do not have
too much time.
How much control does Arafat have in that country? He's
under house arrest. Who is running that country, or the
Palestinians?
Secretary Powell. Mr. Arafat is the elected head of the
Palestinian authority, and he is clearly the leader of the
Palestinian people. He is seen by the Palestinian people as
their leader, so that makes him their leader, however others
might wish it otherwise. And since he claims this leadership
mantle, it seems to me he has the responsibility to bring under
control those organizations in the Palestinian movement that
are conducting these acts of violence, these acts of terror,
these horrible acts that fill our screens every single day.
No issue is of a higher priority to the United States, and
there is no issue that I spend more time on than on this one,
and we are encouraged by new initiatives that come along, such
as the initiative that came from Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi
Arabia, suggesting that in due course, if we can get a
settlement to the crisis, then we can get all Arab nations to
recognize Israel and normalize relations with Israel once we
can determine what the Israeli withdrawal will be and what the
new boundary will be between the State of Israel and a
Palestinian State.
And, of course, President Mubarak was here this week, and
he had an idea that perhaps we could get the two sides to sit,
Mr. Sharon across the table from Chairman Arafat, and begin
discussions. There were lots of ideas.
We have had ideas out there. The President's statement at
the U.N. last fall calling for the creation of a Palestinian
state called Palestine, no American president has said that
before. I gave a speech in Louisville that laid out in a very
comprehensive way the American view and laid out in a very
comprehensive way what both sides had to do and what both sides
had to stop doing in order to move forward.
And so we have had a lot of initiatives, a lot of ideas.
They have all not worked so far because the violence continues.
And you can come up with all the ideas in the world, but until
the violence ends you are not going to move forward, and the
violence has to end, and it has to end as soon as possible.
We need to find a way to get into what is called the
``Tenet work plan,'' which is a plan that George Tenet, our CIA
director, worked out with both sides last year as a way to get
them into the Mitchell process, the Mitchell plan. The Mitchell
plan leads to a political discussion on the basis of U.N.
Resolutions 242 and 338, but to get started the violence has to
go down, so I am anxious to see both sides to do everything
they can to bring down this tension, to bring down this level
of violence so that we can get into the Tenet work plan, and
both sides through this Tenet work plan can begin to work with
each other and bring security to individual sections within the
region and then the whole region so that there can be
confidence-building measures undertaken as called for by the
work plan and by the Mitchell plan and get back to
negotiations.
Both sides are following policies right now that will just
lead to more violence, and it is a tragic situation, and the
President is committed to doing everything he can to see that
we can get into a process of discussion which will bring the
violence to end, bring a cease-fire into place, and then get
into peace discussions.
Mr. Miller. Just reading a paper, I have not been there for
several years now, but, I mean, Mr. Sharon is talking about
just having to kill more Palestinians. That is what we are
going to do. The Palestinians are saying we are going to kill
more Israelis. I do not know how the Palestinian area even
continues to survive. They are treated as second-class
citizens. Now there's vigilante groups--it sounds like possibly
Israeli vigilante groups that blew up a school, and the mayor
says, ``Well, they are second, you know. We will only respond
to them after we take care of everything else.''
Well, you know, the roads are blocked. There's no commerce
within the West Bank or Gaza. I am not sure how Mr. Arafat is--
house arrest, and he's symbolically the head of it, and how he
can really function.
Secretary Powell. He may be under restraints. He cannot
move around freely. But he has the ability to call people or
talk to people and give instructions, so I think he can do more
and he should do more.
Mr. Miller. I think Palestinians are second-class citizens
over there, not the Israeli citizens but the Palestinians.
Secretary Powell. Well, in this condition of violence
everybody is a second-class citizen when you cannot even go out
for an evening walk without worrying about a bomb going off and
killing you. Yes, the Palestinian people are having--are under
enormous difficulty right now, with their inability to get to
jobs, their inability to conduct commerce, and all of these
problems can be on the way to resolution with the ending of the
violence, and Mr. Arafat has to do more. He can do more. He
must do more. And I think at the same time Prime Minister
Sharon has to take a hard look at his policies to see whether
they will work. If you declare war against the Palestinians and
think that you can solve the problem by seeing how many
Palestinians can be killed, I do not know that that would lead
us anywhere. Right now I am not satisfied that both sides have
thought through the consequences of the policies they are
following. They need to take a hard look at what they are doing
now and find a way to get into the Tenet work plan as quickly
as is possible.
Mr. Miller. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Mollohan.
FY 03 REQUEST FOR PEACEKEEPING ACTIVITIES
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I would like to welcome you.
Mr. Secretary, just a couple questions regarding
peacekeeping. I notice that your request for $726 million was a
decrease. It does not seem adequate to me. How does this deal
with the arrearages issue?
Secretary Powell. Well, the decrease is a function of a
lesser demand, lower assessment rates, termination of
operations in Bosnia anticipated, reduction of operations in
East Timor and Sierra Leone, and we assume that the rate cap
will be lifted. If the cap is not lifted, then we may have to
come in for more money.
Mr. Mollohan. Well, how does it deal with--let me get back
to the arrearages. Do we have an arrearage?
Secretary Powell. Yes.
Mr. Mollohan. About $318 million?
Secretary Powell. Yes.
Mr. Mollohan. Does this deal with the arrearage at all?
Secretary Powell. No. We still have an arrearage.
Mr. Mollohan. And how are we dealing with that?
Secretary Powell. We have just finished paying our second
tranche of $582 million, and it was always this arrearage that
was left, and we really have not dealt with it. I want to work
with the Congress in trying to get rid of the cap, which keeps
the arrearage from continuing to build up, and then figure out
a way of how to work off this last debt that we have to the
United Nations. But I am anxious to get the cap lifted so that
that does not increase.
Mr. Mollohan. Where is the problem in lifting the cap? I
mean, is the United Nations not doing something that Congress
requires, which keeps arrearages from being dealt with? Do you
have an authorizing problem? Talk about that issue and where
the problems are.
Secretary Powell. I do not know that there is anything left
for the U.N. to do that it has not done that we are not
satisfied with. The only thing right now is we have to get the
cap lifted in the authorization bill. It is in the Senate
version of the authorization bill, and we are still trying to
lift that cap. But I think it is just a question of coming to
grips with this final bill. It was all we could do last year to
get the $582 million dealt with.
Mr. Mollohan. What does that mean, it is all you could do
last year to get it dealt with? It is all you could do to get
that much money out of the Congress?
Secretary Powell. To tie all the bows and check all the
boxes and make all the pledges and all the other things that we
had to do to satisfy the Congress that this was a smart thing
for Congress to do. And I must give credit to Ambassador
Holbrooke, my predecessor at the U.N., who pulled this all
together and managed to satisfy the various constituencies in
the Congress that it was time to get that bill taken care of,
but there was still a remaining bill.
Mr. Mollohan. Well, is it not time to pay the remaining
bill, all the bows tied up and is it not time to get that
remaining bill----
Secretary Powell. I would love to get the cap lifted and
all of the arrearages paid off.
Mr. Mollohan. How do you get the cap lifted? What do you
have to do?
Secretary Powell. I need the House to authorize the lifting
of the cap and for it to go through the conference process and
come out the other end in the overall State authorization bill.
Mr. Mollohan. So this budget does not anticipate your being
successful in getting that cap lifted, does it, because you are
not requesting the money----
Secretary Powell. This budget assumes that the cap will be
eliminated. It will go from 25% to 27%.
Mr. Mollohan. Okay. So you assume to pay these arrearages
in this request. Is the arrearages request contained in the
$726 million?
Secretary Powell. No.
Mr. Mollohan. Then where is it?
Secretary Powell. It is not in this submission.
Mr. Mollohan. Then how does the budget anticipate----
Secretary Powell. The budget does not reflect the
elimination of arrearages.
Mr. Mollohan. Okay. I am sorry. You probably misunderstood
my question or I----
Secretary Powell. I want to make sure I am saying it right.
Mr. Mollohan. What I thought I asked was: does this budget
anticipate the cap being----
Secretary Powell. The budget anticipates the cap being
lifted, but it does not request the money, because the
arrearages money has already been appropriated.
Mr. Mollohan. Where? Where is it?
Secretary Powell. It is in previous appropriations.
Mr. Mollohan. And carried?
Secretary Powell. And carried forward, but we cannot finish
it off----
Mr. Mollohan. So you are just holding it pending----
Secretary Powell [continuing]. Until we deal with the cap.
Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. Authorization.
Secretary Powell. Yes. It is an authorization issue. The
funds were previously appropriated.
[Secretary Powell consulting with aide.]
Mr. Mollohan. If it is not quite right, maybe you can
expand on that for the record.
Secretary Powell. Yes.
Mr. Mollohan. On to the adequacy of the $726 million for
the peacekeeping missions that are ongoing, you have assumed a
decrease, as I am reading this justification, in almost every
one of the missions. Is that realistic? The U.N. is not going
to continue anything in Bosnia, and all these other missions
are going to decrease as you have reflected here?
Secretary Powell. This is what we assume to be the case. If
it turns out not to be the case, then we will have to come back
to you.
Mr. Mollohan. Well, I understand that.
Secretary Powell. Yes.
Mr. Mollohan. But the question is: is it realistic that we
are going to be decreasing these missions in every one of these
areas?
Secretary Powell. Yes, I believe it is realistic.
Mr. Mollohan. That would be great. That would reflect a lot
of progress in many areas around the world.
Secretary Powell. Well, there has been progress. For
example, in East Timor, and especially Sierra Leone, the bulk
of the work in Sierra Leone with respect to that peacekeeping
operation and the collection of weapons has gone rather well,
and so I think these are reasonable savings--or ``reasonable
reductions'' is a better way to put it. But, you know, you
cannot anticipate a new mission coming along or one suddenly
expanding, in which case we will have to come back to you.
FY 03 REQUEST FOR PUBLIC DIPLOMACY
Mr. Mollohan. I was just kind of surprised. Maybe the
chairman will have detail on that.
It is clear that we are not communicating adequately on a
number of different levels with the Arab world. How does this
budget address that issue? I mean, do you agree with that? I am
sure you do, and you might talk about that a little bit and
talk about how your budget addresses that. I am looking at a
couple of areas here. The public diplomacy programs, $5.3
million is about level funding. It says you expand the services
in the Office of Broadcasting. Just as a starter, would you
talk about that premise a little bit?
Secretary Powell. I spoke about it earlier, but you are
absolutely right that we have to do a better job of getting our
message out, especially to Muslim Arab populations, and we do
have an increase in public diplomacy. It is not as great as I
would like, and we may well be coming in with more in a
supplemental request that we are currently discussing with the
Office of Management and Budget, and we have to do a better job
of conveying our value system to the Muslim world, letting them
know again that it is the United States who came to the rescue
of Kosovo and Afghanistan and Kuwait, Muslim countries that
were not invaded or attacked by the United States but were
attacked by others.
Mr. Mollohan. How are we doing that?
Secretary Powell. Just by saying so and by putting out more
and more people, by putting more and more people on Arab
television and Arab radio, by putting more and more articles in
Arab newspapers. We have a station opening up in the region
that will convey our message more effectively.
Mr. Mollohan. Who is opening that up?
Secretary Powell. We are with a public/private venture.
Mr. Mollohan. Not out of one of the radio----
Secretary Powell. I do not think--no, it is a separate
account--BBG, Broadcasting Board of Governors operation.
FY 03 REQUEST FOR CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL EXCHANGES
Mr. Mollohan. In cultural and educational exchange
programs, which I think would be a natural complement to
broadcast----
Secretary Powell. Yes.
Mr. Mollohan. You are requesting a decrease in the
professional and cultural exchanges of $3.3 million, a bit of
an increase in academic--actually, it is not an increase. It
would be level funding, at best. In exchange programs it would
be level funding, as well.
Secretary Powell. On overall educational exchanges, it is
not quite level, a slight increase of $8 million by my numbers.
Mr. Mollohan. Well, I would say that would be virtually
level funding with inflation. But these are wonderful programs.
Hamid Karzai, I understand----
Secretary Powell. He was.
Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. Was a participant in one of
these programs.
Secretary Powell. He was a participant in one of the
programs, and I could not agree with you more. These
educational and cultural exchange programs, the Fulbright
program, these are all wonderful efforts, as well as, for
example, IMET--International Military Education and Training.
We have increased that, as well. These are terrific ways of
bringing young potential leaders to the United States, exposing
them to our value system, letting them live here.
Mr. Mollohan. Why don't we expand on that?
Secretary Powell. Well, we have been expanding. I mean,
there are limits. I would love to triple it. If you want to
triple it, go ahead.
Mr. Mollohan. Well, I think it would be delightful to
triple it, but I think the question is what do you want to do?
Secretary Powell. I want to increase them and we have
increased them and I am going to try to increase them more in
the years----
Mr. Mollohan. Did you ask OMB for more money in these?
Secretary Powell. We got more money. It is a slight
increase.
Mr. Mollohan. Well, I know. That did not quite answer my
question.
Secretary Powell. Yes, it is.
Mr. Mollohan. Did you ask OMB for more?
Secretary Powell. We asked and we received an increase.
Mr. Mollohan. You received what you got? So, in other
words, you wanted an $8 million increase and that was all?
Secretary Powell. I do not know what we requested. I would
have to go in and find out.
Mr. Mollohan. I am not trying to catch you on it, I am just
trying to----
Secretary Powell. No, it is not a catch, Mr. Mollohan, but
everything competes with something else, and when you go in and
you try to get an increase in every single account--and I would
love for this budget not to be $26 billion, I would love for it
to be $46 billion, but it is not, cannot be $46 billion at this
time. Maybe if I stay long enough I can get it up there.
Mr. Mollohan. You know, in the war on terrorism the
competition is huge and maybe it is not this program. Maybe you
are asking to fight back more some place else by making the
funding more robust. And I have not looked at every one of the
accounts, so this line of questioning is my way of expressing
my feeling that----
Secretary Powell. No, I----
Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. This is an area that we ought to
be doing a whole lot more, and these exchange programs are
wonderful programs.
Secretary Powell. I could not agree with you more, Mr.
Mollohan.
Mr. Mollohan. Let me join all my colleagues in telling you
how I admire what a good job you are doing. We appreciate your
efforts.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Mollohan.
We are going to recognize Mr. Obey and then Mr. Cramer. I
apologize to Mr. Cramer. I think it has been a good practice to
always recognize the chairman and the ranking member because
they have 13 different committees to go to and subcommittees,
but Mr. Obey and then Mr. Cramer and then Mr. Vitter.
Remarks of Committee Ranking Member Obey
Mr. Obey. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I do apologize, Mr. Chairman, for not being here earlier. I
have been across the hall with Secretary Thompson, who was also
my former governor, so we had to do first things first.
Mr. Secretary, I hope you do not take my comments the wrong
way. There are lots of questions I would like to ask you on
policy, but there is a more overriding concern I have this
morning, and so I think I am just going to get something off my
chest.
FY 03 ADMINISTRATIVE BUDGET REQUEST
As you know, last year the administrative budget of the
State Department was increased significantly, a 14 percent
increase, going from $3.2 billion to about $3.7 billion. And,
as you know, I was strongly for that. I urged my colleagues to
provide just as much as humanly possible, because I thought
that your agency had been under-funded for years.
This year you are asking for 399 new positions and an 8
percent administrative budget increase over last year, and I
want to tell you I do not support that this year. It is as you
say--every dollar that you put in this budget somewhere is
accompanied by a dollar that has to be taken out.
At the risk of offending the former Old Miss cheerleader on
the Senate side, I am going to dare to suggest that the
allocation of resources between what we are doing abroad and
what we are doing at home might just not be plum perfect in the
White House's budget. And if the cheerleader from Mississippi
is going to hyperventilate over that, that is tough, but I want
to get something off my chest.
I am an internationalist. I believe very deeply that we
need to be doing more than we are doing in a variety of areas.
But the Marshal Plan was not sold at a time when we were
clobbering domestic expenditures. The American public, even
though public opinion polls were never positive in terms of the
Marshal Plan, nonetheless the American public tolerated it as a
grace note because they thought that their at-home needs were
being tended to.
I think there are a number of needs that are not being
tended to at home which relate to our ability to marshal public
support for national security expenditures and international
expenditures. Example: homeland security. I am still steaming
over the fact that last year the White House had to be dragged
kicking and screaming into supporting additional homeland
security funding above their own request, including
bioterrorism preparedness funding. The President personally
told me that if we passed one dime above the amount that the
Administration asked for, he would veto our homeland security
efforts last year. I think that was profoundly reckless, given
the threats that were described to me by a number of agencies,
including your own.
In addition to that, I take a look at some other actions
that are being taken by the Administration in its budget. Both
political parties posed for political holy pictures supporting
NIH. That is a nice, popular, politically sexy account. But
then the White House budget cuts $1.4 billion from other health
care programs. I do not think that kind of budget is going to
marshal support for our providing more money for foreign aid. I
think it is going to diminish public support for it.
I firmly believe that we ought to be doing more to provide
additional help for Third World countries with respect to their
education problems and their health problems, but it is going
to be hard as hell to convince the American public to do that
when we are slashing the rate of increase in support for
education that we had the last five years in this budget and
when we are gutting programs like world health. The districts
in this country where we need the biggest increase in public
support for international activities are rural districts, and
politically a practical fact is we ain't going to get that
support from people if they see their own needs being short
sheeted.
So I just wanted to make that point because, as you say,
nothing occurs in isolation, and in my view we are being set up
in the Congress so that we are forced to choose between
providing additional funding for international activities or
additional funding for education and health care and job
training, and we are forgetting the third part of the equation.
I know we are not supposed to talk about taxes, nasty word, but
the fact is these three numbers--and I recognize you are not
making these decisions, but I am going to get this out every
chance I get. These three numbers represent what has happened
economically in this country over the last 20 years to after-
tax income. The top number is $400,000. That is the amount by
which the most well-off 1 percent of people in this country
have seen their after-tax income increase over a 30-year
period. The $3,400 figure below that is the amount by which the
American who is exactly in the middle of America's income
stream, that is the amount by which their after-tax income has
risen over the last 30 years--$3,400 as opposed to $400,000.
And then, if you are unfortunate enough to fall in the bottom
20 percent of people in terms of income in this country, over
the last 20 years you have actually lost $100 in terms of real
income after taxes.
And yet, if you take a look at that tax cut that was passed
last year, when fully effective that tax package will provide
the folks who have already over the last 30 years had an
average of $400,000 increase in their after-tax income, they
will wind up with a $52,000 tax cut. The folks in the middle,
who have seen their income rise by $3,400 over that same
period, will have a $600 tax cut. And one-fourth of the people
who have already lost ground will get absolutely nothing
because they do not make enough to quality under the tax cut
that Congress passed and the President signed.
In my view, that is the context in which we are going to
have to deal with all of the requests for defense, for foreign
aid, education, you name it, and it seems to me--I know that
some people are as offended when we talk about delaying
scheduled tax cuts for this 1 percent at the top of the
economic heap--and, incidentally, you have to make $330,000 a
year to be in that top 1 percent. Not bad. But I know some
people are offended when we talk about delaying tax cuts for
those folks so that we can afford to do more of what you think
we need to defend the national interest and more of what we
think we need to do to strengthen us here at home, including
education and health and homeland security.
So I just wanted to put that on the table. It is beyond
your jurisdiction, and I do not expect to debate you on it
because it is the White House, OMB, and the other wizards in
this town who are setting that policy. But I think this is a
warped result which is going to result in squeeze on a lot of
programs, including the administrative budget for which you are
asking an increase to finance 399 new positions.
I want you to understand why I think it is a different ball
game this year than it was last year in terms of your budget
request for administrative purposes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Powell. Thank you, Mr. Obey.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Obey.
Mr. Cramer.
EMBASSY CONSTRUCTION
Mr. Cramer. Mr. Secretary, I want to add to the chorus of
welcomes as well. I have been impressed with your leadership at
the Department and especially since September the 11th. I have
always enjoyed working with you and look forward to the day
when we might interchange over issues that I brought up last
year.
Last year I talked to you about our embassies and security
at our embassies, and you laid out for me and then sent General
Chuck Williams to see me--most impressive plan with our
security issues at our embassies. I am sorry I was not here for
your testimony, but I read through the detail that you are
offering there.
I would like you to be a little more specific about what's
coming on line. Thirteen facilities coming on line? What does
that mean? Give me some examples of what we have accomplished
specifically in the last year with regard to security.
Secretary Powell. I would like to give you a more fulsome
answer for the record, but let me just say that General
Williams, in the course of the last year, has managed to reduce
overall construction cost of embassies, new embassies, by about
20 percent. One embassy in Beijing that we were building that
was of great concern, he has been able to really reduce the
cost of that embassy considerably. He is trying to do a better
job of matrixing new embassies so that you have common
components with respect to powerplants and other facilities
that you can repeat embassy after embassy and not reinvent it
with every new embassy building that you design, some common
components with respect to embassy construction.
Mr. Cramer. Now, does his plan take into consideration
sites where we already have our embassies located and what we
might do to improve those sites----
Secretary Powell. Yes.
Mr. Cramer [continuing]. Or is this mainly for new
construction?
Secretary Powell. No. He's put together a master plan that
includes new construction as well as upgrading facilities in
existing sites, such as the couple that I have referenced in my
documents this morning. Kingston, Jamaica, is an example where
we are upgrading a number of sites. It includes not only new
construction, but, as well, it includes security-driven
projects, things that have to be done because of security, not
necessarily new construction, as well as redesign fit out of
newly-acquired buildings. Bridgetown, Barbados; Kingston,
Jamaica--newly-acquired buildings; design and construction of
annexes in Athens, Tirana, Almaty, Albania, and Moscow. Then
there are security-driven projects in Astana, Kazakhstan,
Bamako, Mali, and in Panama City. He's got a master plan which
I do not know if he's had a chance to provide to you or not,
but a master plan of exactly what we are going to do for the
next five years on the basis of new construction, on the basis
of upgrades, on the basis of security-driven projects, and new
office buildings, and presence facilities that we have talked
about.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cramer. I have not evaluated your budget, but your
budget takes into account those new designs, those new plans,
and new facilities, as well?
Secretary Powell. Yes. Yes, it does.
EXCHANGE PROGRAMS
Mr. Cramer. I want to echo some of the remarks of Mr.
Mollohan about the exchange programs and the budgets for those.
I have co-chaired with Roger Wicker a Russian leadership
exchange program which I think has gone incredibly well, where
we have brought young potential Russian leaders here to the
United States, gotten Members of Congress--I think some 20 to
30 Members of Congress that have sponsored those groups that
have gone all across our country, settling into our
communities, going to church with people, visiting business
people, looking at land issues, school issues, all kinds of
issues. Now, that program is not funded out of your budget, but
it is funded out of another budget, so I think there are ways
that we could incorporate these programs. But I also want to
emphasize that I think these are programs very much worth of
budget increases and budget priorities, as well.
Secretary Powell. I could not agree with you more, sir.
And, as I said to Mr. Mollohan earlier, these programs are
terrific, and I had experience with them as a soldier when I
met foreign officers back when I was a captain and I followed
them throughout their careers and we have both ended up
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of our respective
services, and they always treasured the time they spent in the
United States school. That is the military part of it.
It is the same thing with Fulbright scholars, all your
other kinds of programs where you bring people from overseas,
have them come, live in our community, go to our schools, meet
our families, understand our customs and traditions. This is an
incredibly powerful investment.
Mr. Cramer. And it sure gets us the chance to overcome some
of the----
Secretary Powell. Absolutely.
Mr. Cramer [continuing]. Pre-set ideas of what we are
really all about.
Secretary Powell. Absolutely.
RECRUTIMENT AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT
Mr. Cramer. And also I want to go back to an issue that we
discussed last year. You have done an incredible job with
recruiting people for the Department, and, as I have had the
few occasions to mix and mingle with our overseas State
Department employees, I have been most impressed. It is always
interesting to understand what family sacrifices they make, and
husband-and-wife teams and how they go about settling
themselves, especially when a spouse is not a State Department
employee.
In your comments you refer to a new web-based recruiting
tool, and vigorously asserting the truth. Can you tell me a
little bit more about what you mean by those?
Secretary Powell. We made a major effort last year to let
all young people in the United States and not-so-young people
in the United States know that the State Department was looking
for quality people who wanted to serve--serve in the front
lines of democracy, as we called it. And, as a result, we
doubled the number of youngsters applying for the Foreign
Service exam last fall, and that is why we needed those
positions that Congress gave us. No point in having a great
recruiting effort you cannot hire at the other end of the
process.
We are also concentrating on the Civil Service part of it,
as well, not just Foreign Service. We need great civil servants
to come into the Department, as well. And so we are putting a
lot more of this on the web--how to apply on the web, how to
find out information about jobs in the State Department and
Civil Service on the web. And so we are trying to make this
user friendly, web-based. More and more people have access to
the web and get information about the Department on the web.
DIPLOMTIC READINESS INITIATIVE
Mr. Cramer. And the Department's diplomatic readiness
initiative, what exactly is that?
Secretary Powell. It is a tiger team. It is a bunch of
people we have put together in their own little office drawing
from assets within the Department, and their mission is
diplomatic readiness--finding people who want to become part of
the Department, getting them ready to take the exams.
For example, people in my front office--I have a Cuban
American in my front office, my executive secretary, and on the
weekends she calls Hispanics who have taken the Foreign Service
exam, or at least applied for it, and she makes sure that they
show up to take it, to encourage them--that kind of direct
contact. Our Diplomatic Readiness Task Force works on issues
like that, cradle-to-the-grave, bringing people into the
Foreign Service, and let them know we have a career path for
them. We put out a training program now. They know what is
expected of them over time. It just gives total attention to
the readiness of our people to do the jobs that we have waiting
for them.
Mr. Cramer. How long has that task force existed?
Secretary Powell. I inaugurated it and put it in a new
office about six months ago.
Mr. Cramer. Very good. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. I thank you.
Mr. Secretary, we have a vote and we are not going to keep
you, so we are going to end in about four minutes.
Mr. Kennedy, did you want to----
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
Mr. Kennedy. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, welcome. I thank you for the job that you
are doing on behalf of our country. You are representing our
country very well and we are proud that you are our Secretary.
I would like to bring up a question that I brought up last
time that you were before this committee, and that has got to
do with the International War Crimes Tribunal.
As you know, last time we spoke about it--and I know of our
differences on it--there are over 52 countries that have
ratified the International Criminal Court, and it was at that
time you said that the Administration's position would be to
support the ad hoc courts that are already in existence, and
yet in your budget you actually have lower--you cut, basically,
funding for the ad hoc tribunals in former Yugoslavia and in
Rwanda. So I would ask you what other multilateral venue do we
have to bring the issue of criminal justice to light in an
international setting if we do not support the ICC and we do
not support the ad hoc?
And let me just say one final thing. I think that the
message that has been going around in the Congress about how we
cannot get entangled with the ICC because we might end up
becoming victims, our young men and women might be held
accountable under the ICC statute, but it is not true that we
are going to be under the ICC statute whether we ratify it or
not. Even if that is the case, would not it make sense to join
it, because if we did then we would be able to access the
theory of complementarity and be able to have first right to
try our own troops before they would ever be called before an
ICC? So in essence we have more protections for our troops if
we ratify it than if we do not, which is kind of a funny way of
thinking about it, wrapping your head around the idea that by
joining it you actually have more independence than by not
joining it. I would ask you to comment on that, as well.
Secretary Powell. We still believe that the ICC does not
serve our interest and it has some deleterious effects with
respect to our ability to conduct our operations around the
world and might put at risk some of the Constitutional
protections that we expect our soldiers to have and our
soldiers expect to have.
President Clinton believed this also at the time he signed
the treaty or the agreement, because in the signing statement
he as much as said that--that he did not intend to send it up
for ratification, and this Administration does not intend to
send it up for ratification, either.
With respect to the various international tribunals, we do
support them. My ambassador for war crimes tribunals,
Ambassador Pierre Prosper, testified before Congress last week
that some of these tribunals will be going out of service in
the timeframe 2007, 2008, and their workload is decreasing over
time, so I do not know what the specific numbers are with
respect to specific cuts in any of the tribunals----
Mr. Kennedy. It is four million for Rwanda and 2.5 for
Yugoslavia.
Secretary Powell. I would have to get for the record why
those specific cuts are in there, but I suspect it does not
reflect--I know it does not reflect a lack of support for these
tribunals, but it may reflect the declining workload, but I do
not know. I would like to give that to you for the record.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Secretary Powell. We just feel our soldiers are better
protected not as a signatory to the ICC, and we recognize that
it will go into effect once it is ratified by 60 countries.
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Secretary Powell. And when it goes into effect, it is with
the force of international law, and therefore all persons are
subject to it.
Mr. Kennedy. Right.
Secretary Powell. And we would have to then condition where
we send our soldiers and under what circumstances we send them
overseas as a function as to what dangers they might be put
under with respect to the ICC. The United States is different.
We are unique.
Mr. Kennedy. I understand that.
Secretary Powell. And I think we have a certain obligation
to our young men and women in uniform.
Mr. Kennedy. And that is why we have the theory of
complementarity built into the treaty, and I know that was
worked out through much work by the United States delegation.
The whole purpose of that was that then we would retain the
power to try our own troops under our own court martial system,
our own justice system, rather than have them immediately go
through the ICC. So it actually is the opposite. If we want to
protect our troops, we had better ratify it, because then we
maintain our first right of refusal, if you will, for trying
these.
Secretary Powell. That is not the judgment that this
Administration or the previous Administration came to, and I do
not believe we have gotten the level of protection, even with
complementarity, that I believe our young men and women are
entitled to.
EAST TIMOR
Mr. Kennedy. Could I ask you also about East Timor, the
fact that we have not been able to get, despite the memorandum
of understanding, the Indonesian government to help us at all,
helping to prosecute some of these war criminals as part of the
whole reconciliation process. Could you comment on that?
Secretary Powell. I would like to give that to you for the
record. There has been a problem with that tribunal, but I
would like to give you a more fulsome answer for the record.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
AID WORKERS IN WEST AFRICA
Mr. Kennedy. And the abuse by AID workers in West Africa.
Secretary Powell. A source of enormous concern to us, and
we are in discussions with the United Nations as to how to get
to the bottom of this, how to find out those who are
responsible and guilty and bring them to justice, but we have
to make sure that we do not throw out the programs. There's
some suggestion we should cut off funding for these programs,
but the only ones who would be hurt are the people receiving
the benefits----
Mr. Kennedy. I hear you.
Secretary Powell [continuing]. So we should not do that.
Mr. Kennedy. I hear you.
Secretary Powell. Yes.
U.S. POLICY IN COLOMBIA
Mr. Kennedy. Let me also say finally that in my
Congressional District we had a priest, Father Paul Guiterrez
Corrales, who was assassinated in Colombia recently. He was a
priest in my District. Obviously, the tumultuous war in
Colombia is affecting our international policy to a great
extent, and I just would like to make a point of saying that
this is a case that I am watching, and I would like you to
comment maybe to the committee--I know you may have already--
about what the State Department is doing to address these
issues.
Secretary Powell. I have commented to the committee
earlier, Mr. Kennedy, with respect to the fact that we are
reviewing our policy in light of the changed situation in
Colombia with the end of the safe havens and whether it is
necessary for us to assist the Colombians with counter-
terrorist efforts in addition to the counter-narcotics efforts
that we are assisting them with. That review is taking place
within the Department now.
To assist them as they move more aggressively against these
counter-terrorists or insurgents, some might call them, we will
run up against the limits of the current authorities that we
have under the counter-narcotics programs that we are running.
Mr. Kennedy. And we will be following that.
Secretary Powell. Yes.
GLOBAL POVERTY LOANS AND GRANTS
Mr. Kennedy. Finally, I would just say I had a very
interesting meeting with the president of the World Bank, Mr.
Wolfenson, a couple of weeks ago. He went through with me the
international poverty issue, which was featured in last week's
``Time'' or ``Newsweek'' magazine.
Secretary Powell. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. I am not sure which. And it really does point
to our international security in the developing world with the
booming populations who are in destitute poverty. As part of
our national security, we will not be able to be fully secure
unless we address the issues of global poverty.
I would just say I agree with President of the World Bank
Wolfenson that we should not convert these loan programs to
grants, because we take the money out from being recycled.
Basically, these loan programs through the World Bank are
programs that are interest free and almost like grants, and
when a country 30 years later gets to paying them back, and as
they often do, they put the money back in circulation where it
can go help another very troubled part of the world.
I would just say that I am very troubled by the prospects
of the Administration at Monterrey saying that they are about
to turn this loan program into a grant program, because I think
it will destroy what little we have in terms of recycled value
and international aid, and I hope that you may be able to
comment on that.
Secretary Powell. There is an argument over this issue as
to whether or not it is better just to give grant, and we are
inclined to think that we probably can strike a better balance
between loans and grants and give them grants so that the money
goes to immediate use and you do not saddle that country with
the debt, long-term or otherwise. And so I have the utmost
respect for Jim Wolfenson. It is an area that I hope to be able
to spend more time talking to him about so that we can have a
more unified position when we get to Monterrey.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, if we do go for the grant process then
it would make sense we would up the money in our international
aid budget.
Secretary Powell. I am always for upping the money
internationally.
Mr. Kennedy. I would imagine you are, so maybe we could
work on looking at those issues. Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Secretary, we are down to four minutes. Thank
you very much. We will submit additional questions for the
record or raise them in subsequent hearings. Trafficking in
persons is a big issue we were going to raise with you, also
the abuse of the children in West Africa. Also, we are waiting
for the report to come up on compensation with regard to
American victims of terrorism. In addition I wanted to raise
the issue of the return of criminal aliens to their country of
origin. There are 3,000 now in prison in the United States. We
should be asking Vietnam and those other countries to take them
back.
We thank you for your testimony.
Secretary Powell. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, April 11, 2002.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
WITNESSES
RICHARD ARMITAGE, DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE
GRANT S. GREEN, JR., UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR MANAGEMENT
Opening Remarks of Subcommittee Chairman Wolf
Mr. Wolf. The Committee will come to order. It is a
pleasure to have with us the Deputy Secretary of State, Richard
Armitage, and the Under Secretary of State for Management,
Grant Green, for their second appearances before the Committee.
I appreciate the great job that the Secretary and both of you
are doing, and your people are doing; and frankly the Bush
administration is doing with regard to all of the issues that
we are facing. There have never been greater challenges when
you look at Afghanistan and Middle East and what is taking
place in Africa. I want to let you know we personally
appreciate what you are doing. I am sure I speak for the rest
of the Subcommittee.
We will hear your testimony regarding the fiscal year 2003
budget request for the operation of the Department, including
the cost of improving security for employees overseas and other
management improvement initiatives. The budget request includes
funding to expand the efforts we began this year to
significantly increase staffing, both overseas and
domestically.
You are seeking funding for 631 new positions and
significant continued funding for capital technology
investments and embassy security programs. For many years, this
Committee has been very supportive and helped you to improve
the management of the Department. We look forward to hearing
about the progress you are making in bringing about needed
reforms and putting in place improved management structure and
many other issues. There will be a number of questions on
policy issues I am sure and a number of budget issues as well.
With that, let me recognize Mr. Serrano. And after that you
can proceed as you see fit. Your full statements will appear in
the record.
Opening Remarks of Ranking Minority Member Serrano
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning,
gentlemen, it is nice to see you here. It is obvious from the
chairman's comments that we are big supporters of the State
Department and the work you have to do. And I want to join the
chairman in saying that these are very difficult times. You
guys have done a great job and the ladies who are at the
Department also. We are very proud as Americans and very
grateful to you for the work that you are doing.
I will also tell you when the Secretary was here before
this Committee, I was careful not to ask him a single question
about Cuba and I didn't get him in any trouble anywhere in the
country. I am not promising you the same thing. And lastly, one
thing I mentioned to the Secretary, which is of great concern
to me and one that falls more on the Justice Department than on
your department, but since you are the State Department, and
since you play such a major role just keep in mind as we go
through this very difficult time in this country and as we try
throughout the world to root out the evil of terrorism and get
the bad guys, that in the process, we in this country don't
hurt the good guys and that we respect peoples' civil liberties
and civil rights, and we don't stereotype people ethnically,
racially or in religious terms.
We don't want to repeat what we did during World War II. We
don't want 20, 30, 40 years from now to feel about Arab
Americans and other groups the way we now feel about what we
did to the Japanese-Americans during World War II. And I know
this is a very delicate situation you have in your hands. And
as I said, it probably falls more on the Justice Department
than it does on you. But it is something that I need to remind
us and to remind myself, that we have to be balanced in this
approach so that as we get the bad guys, and we don't hurt the
good guys. And with that, I welcome your testimony and stand
ready to work with Chairman Wolf to make your life much easier
this year.
Opening Remarks of Deputy Secretary Armitage
Mr. Armitage. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Serrano, if I may
just comment on your comments. Sir, that is not a Justice or
State or Defense issue you raised, it is a human issue, and I
thank you for reminding us. It belongs to all of us. It is our
duty to respect every human being and treat them with the same
dignity and respect which with we want to be treated. I
appreciate the reminder.
Mr. Chairman, I owe you several thanks today. First of all,
to you, and your committee, thanks for supporting us so well.
We are extraordinarily grateful and we count on earning your
continued support. Number two, I want to thank you for the
letter that you sent me. I want to make some comments about the
Middle East in a while, and I think your letter, which I got
yesterday reminding us of the words of Dr. Martin Luther King
and the Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel do come to mind as Secretary
Powell is on the eve of his journey into Jerusalem. I want to
thank you for the letter.
Third I want to thank you and the committee for allowing us
to reschedule this hearing from March 21st, because what you
allowed us to do that day was to go to Andrews Air Force base.
I had the duty of welcoming back into this family the remains
of Barbara Green and her daughter, Kristen, and welcome back
into this family her husband, who was gravely injured and her
son. It gave us the opportunity with President Bush to
privately meet with them at Andrews Air Force base out of the
glare of the press lights. He didn't want press.
The President and Mrs. Bush spent some time with Mr. Green
and his son. Although obviously the President couldn't bring
back his wife, the President told the Greens that he would pray
for them, and he was secure in the knowledge that they were in
a better place. He went on to say that none--no less than our
men and women in uniform, the men and women of the Department
of State are fighting on the front lines, and he appreciated
their sacrifice. That reminded me vividly why we are here.
Mr. Chairman, before we were going to have the last
hearing, I asked your permission to poll the members of your
committee to see if there were particular issues they wanted me
to raise. I did receive some responses, and I will tick, tick,
right down if I may and I will end with you, Mr. Chairman.
Congressman Miller and Congressman Latham both wanted to talk
about embassy security, which my colleague Grant Green can
address in much greater length than I. We are appalled as
anyone else with the cost of security today.
General Williams, who directs our overseas building
operation, has decided on a modular construction plan, to
standardize embassies which we hope will allow us to bring down
the cost. He is using best business practices. He put together
an advisory panel from industry. Quite stunning the level of
these folks. I went down and spoke to them, and Grant spoke to
them. They are there to give us the latest, greatest ideas on
how to save our money, the money Congress appropriates to us
and how to make sure that we are as safe as possible. We will
continue to do that. I don't know how to go below the cost of
embassy security. It is something that we face in this day and
age and I don't think we will be able to get away from it.
Congresswoman, you were kind enough to talk to me about
your own concerns, which is small businesses and the
availability of our embassies and the State Department
particularly to help them. Of course, if you are Lockheed
Martin or Boeing, I guess you can easily get help, but small
businesses are particular. We do have a unit in the Department
of State dedicated to this. I am going to ask, with your
permission, that Assistant Secretary Tony Wayne come up and
provide you the information that we do have and make sure that
all of the small businesses in which you are interested know
what our embassies can and can't do.
Now out in the field, is the foreign commercial service is
in the main duty. Our ambassadors have this duty as well; we
accept it, we embrace it, and I appreciate you raising it to
me. With your permission, Tony Wayne will contact you.
Congressman Vitter raised the issue of the Middle East. I
want to make a few remarks. Secretary Powell is on his way to a
meeting with King Abdullah. Tonight, at 4:20 our time, he will
land in Jerusalem and begin his discussion with Prime Minister
Sharon, and most probably with Chairman Arafat on Saturday. You
saw he left Madrid after getting strong statements from what is
now called the Quartet, the UN, the EU, the Russians, and of
course the United States. Strong statements which he would not
have been able to get, and we would not have seen from the EU
or any of these folks left to their own devices. It was a
strong statement that paralleled the President's April speech
and called on both sides to make the necessary sacrifices.
It is obvious that the leadership of Chairman Arafat has
been a disappointment. Our President said that the other day.
He is, however, the elected leader of the Palestinian people.
He is what we have to deal with. It is clear that suicide
bombers are not martyrs. They are murderers. We have to do
something about the lack of hope that leads people to that type
of decision.
Finally, we recognize that the Israelis do have a right to
self-defense, but they have to realize that in this projection
of their self-defense, there can be repercussions that were not
considered beyond their control. That is why the Secretary has
been sent by the President, because we couldn't sit by in
silence as a friend of the Israelis and friend of the
Palestinian people while this suffering went on.
The Secretary is going to do his utmost, with the support
of the administration, to try to revive the vision which he
spoke of in his Louisville, Kentucky speech, and the President
was so eloquent at the UN of two states, Israel and Palestine.
It was the first time an American President has spoken about
the state of Palestine, living side by side in peace and having
a hope of a future for all of their peoples.
Congressman Serrano, on the question of minority rights,
you have raised this consistently. I want to assure you and
show you that not only do we hear you, but you can see results.
Unfortunately, many of the things that we do in our government
lives seem to have a gestation period. But I think in a year,
we have seen some changes that have happened. Let me just tell
you that last year we had 23,459 people who applied for the
foreign service exam, of which 8206 were minorities. 12,150 or
so actually took the exam, of which 4,086 were minorities and
652 minorities passed, which is the highest we have had since
we have kept these records.
Is that good enough? No. However if you look at that and
with the Pickering scholarships, with the Serrano scholarships
and the fact that we work with 52 universities to try to
recruit minorities from Texas to Howard, I think you can see
that we are pushing. You can quibble with us if you like
whether we are pushing hard enough or fast enough, and we will
take whatever guidance you want to give. When I came here last
year, I spoke about our office of civil rights. The State
Department was 76 out of 79 agencies when it came to EEOC
complaints, 76 out of 79.
Secretary Powell made it clear to Barbara Pope, who runs
the Office of Civil Rights, that she will be in the top five
this year. Right now, we have only 17 cases that are still
outstanding and that have been on hold for more than a year. We
are getting into the top 5. We are knocking on the door, and in
slightly less than the year that Barbara has been on the job.
Finally Mr. Chairman, you are responsible for us adding at
least 120.5 million dollars to our supplemental request. You
came back from a trip to Kabul. You showed us a video. That
video had a stunning effect on all of us and allowed us to get
OMB permission to put in among other things a budget request
for $120.5 million for the embassy in Kabul. I wanted to report
specifically to you, because you told me on the phone that
those Marines better have weights. Those Marines got their
weights. We took them from Islamabad and crossed through Kabul.
They are exercising in pretty shoddy quarters, but they are
exercising. I will stop there, sir, and thank you very much for
your support and Mr. Serrano's and Congresswoman Roybal-Allard
and look forward to your questions.
Opening Remarks of Undersecretary Green
Mr. Green. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, I am
happy to be here, along with the Deputy Secretary, to testify
on support of the State Department's budget for fiscal year
2003. The Secretary's management priorities are pretty simple.
They haven't changed: its people, its technology, its
facilities, its security and the resources necessary to achieve
those objectives. Thanks in great part to the tremendous
support from this Subcommittee, I think we are making
tremendous progress in restoring the management platform of the
Department, but it is still going to take a couple more years,
I think, to get us where we need to be.
Let me address people for just a second. With the FY 2002
funding the Department received, we have taken the first steps
to meeting the needs of both our overseas requirements and here
in the main State Department. We join the Secretary in asking
you for your support so we can maintain the hiring plan. We
have got to complete this plan in order to restore the health
of the diplomatic corps.
As the Deputy mentioned, in September, the foreign service
entrance exam had about 13,000 takers, the highest number since
1988 and a 63 percent increase over just the year before. We
are proud to have the highest number and percentage of minority
exam takers and passers ever. We have cut from 27 months to 10
months the time a successful applicant waits to be hired after
taking the test. Incidentally, we have filled all seats in the
most recent A100 course, which is our basic course for foreign
service officers, and we are well on our way to doing the same
for all of the fiscal year 2002 classes. They are subscribed
right now at 80 percent.
The next foreign service exam, and we have gone from one a
year to two a year, occurs this Saturday. We have over 25,000
people who have registered for that exam. Let me move----
Mr. Wolf. Is that an all-time high?
Mr. Green. I will check. It has got to be an all-time high,
because we were at 23,000 and that was the highest since 1988,
but I will confirm that. It is over 25,000. Regarding embassy
security, for just a moment, as you know, we have more than 30
U.S. Government agencies overseas that rely on us as the
platform at over 260 diplomatic and consular posts. Obviously,
as the Deputy mentioned, one of our major concerns about these
overseas facilities are security and safety where our people
work and live. Our security challenges again are pretty
straightforward, sustaining the security readiness as the
threat levels are elevated, strengthening our existing security
programs and having the flexibility to deal with increasing
threats worldwide.
In the area of technology, our priorities also have not
changed in the last year. They are OpenNet Plus, which is web
access for all State Department employees on their desktops by
mid 2003, based on increases we received in the 2002 budget;
provide classified connectivity and e-mail to every eligible
post by fiscal year 2004, and provide a foundation for
modernizing our outmoded 1950s messaging telegram system.
Lastly, test and evaluate the foreign affairs system
integration system, which is currently being piloted in posts
in Mexico and India which will enable us to communicate across
agencies and across posts.
Finally, facilities. In the aftermath of September 11, the
security and working conditions of our employees not only
overseas, but also in the United States, became a major
concern, and we are moving aggressively to improve both. The
deputy had mentioned some of the initiatives that had been
taken by our overseas building office. Let me add they have
also developed a long range overseas building plan covering six
years of planning data. That plan is in the final stages of
approval at OMB, and should be in your hands within 30 to 45
days. It will serve as a strategic road map for facilities and
increases the transparency in our decision making process. As
Rich mentioned, they have developed the standard embassy design
concept for small, medium and large embassies. This concept
will reduce the cost while speeding the construction and
enhancing the quality of our new embassies overseas.
By the end of this fiscal year over two-thirds of our
overseas posts should reach minimal security standards, meaning
secured doors, windows and perimeters. We are making progress
in efforts to provide new facilities that are fully secure with
13 major capital projects in design and construction, another
nine expected to begin this fiscal year, and nine planned for
fiscal year 2003. Obviously, these are our highest priorities.
They cost something. For the administration portion of the
foreign affairs account in fiscal 2003, in our budget
submission, we are requesting $5.9 billion.
Mr. Chairman I think I speak for the Deputy when I say we
will be happy to answer any questions that you and other
members of the Subcommittee may have.
Mr. Wolf. Good. Well, thank you both very much and we have
a number of questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
EMBASSIES IN AFGHANISTAN AND TAJIKISTAN
Mr. Wolf. On the supplemental request, you are seeking $322
million for State programs funded under this subcommittee. Over
$200 million of that is for the embassy security projects in
Afghanistan and Tajikistan. Can you describe the projects and
the American diplomatic presence that you are planning for both
countries?
Mr. Armitage. If I may, Mr. Chairman, in Kabul we have
spaces for 28 American diplomats. We have 21 there. There are
92 Marines present right now. There are any number of other
agencies, including CIA, who are there. In the short-term, we
are trying to make thorough use of trailers, et cetera, for 275
spaces total. We cannot, however achieve that total of
Americans until we have a much better situation on the ground.
For instance, we are going to have to dramatically kick up
our AID component. Right now, because of the security
situation, it is very difficult to get AID personnel out into
the field for extended stays because they have to go in an
armored vehicle with DS protection. This will change over time.
We do not have a full staffing profile. I am sure you are more
familiar with than I am, and you know what it needs to have in
terms of upkeep and rehab. We also want a secure chancery, or
work building.
In Dushanbe, Tajikistan, we are basically living in
something that is on the street. It is an old office building
and has barbed wire around it. Until recently, we had our
ambassador working out of Almaty and travelling to Dushanbe. We
hope we will have a full embassy, particularly as we have such
a large number of U.S. Forces.
Mr. Wolf. How many personnel will be in the embassy?
Mr. Armitage. I don't think we have a profile. We have 12
or 14 that are there now.
Mr. Wolf. When fully staffed, what is your expectation?
Mr. Armitage. An embassy of that size would have roughly
what we have in--slightly less than what we have in
Afghanistan.
Mr. Wolf. 24, 23?
Mr. Armitage. There will be more than that. I think with
other personnel it will be quite a bit higher.
Mr. Green. Mr. Chairman, the plan right now for the
chancery is 39 U.S. Desks and 42 foreign service nationals
desks, if you will.
Mr. Wolf. You have----
Mr. Green. Let me just add, because I just mentioned to
you, I talked to Chuck Williams. You and I both went to Kabul
and saw it at its worst. I saw it a little better than you saw
it, but not much. Chuck reported to me yesterday he spent a
day-and-a-half with the ambassador. They walked the ground. As
I mentioned to you, the two Butler-like buildings for the
Marines are up. They are prepared to be occupied by the
Marines. We are going to take about two weeks because there is
some concern about overhead cover. Chuck's people are going to
build a structure over these two buildings. They are light
weight. They are like a Butler Building and then have some
sandbag cover over the top. We are going to do the same with 55
or so relocatables that are now in place and ready to be
occupied.
As the Deputy said, we can now house about 250, 275 people
there. In addition to that, which of course is the temporary
arrangement, the ambassador and General Williams have agreed on
the concept for a full-up, permanent facility with an annex, a
GSO facility, Marine security guard compound and housing for
some of our people within the Kabul complex.
Mr. Wolf. Within your supplemental request is $25.6 million
to rehabilitate the chancery.
Mr. Green. That is going to be mostly for mechanical--if
you went into the basement of that place--you saw it--
mechanical, air, heat, some structural, water, some structural
improvements, doors, windows, blastproof doors and windows and
those kinds of things.
PUBLIC DIPLOMACY EFFORTS AND FUNDING
Mr. Wolf. Last month when the Secretary was here, I raised
the issue of a vigorous public diplomacy program. The Committee
is going to have a hearing on the 24th with Under Secretary
Charlotte Beers and we are getting outside witnesses to come in
to tell us what they believe we should be doing with regard to
telling the good American story abroad, particularly in the
Middle East. It is very disturbing to hear about low public
opinion of America among Kuwaitis when we think in terms of the
American soldiers who sacrificed their lives for the Kuwaiti
government and Kuwaiti people. Clearly, their media and their
government people are not speaking out to tell the story. I
know the story. You know the story.
Anyone who truly knows, knows that America is not anti-
Muslim. We were the ones who rescued the Muslim community in
Kosovo. We were the ones who led the effort with regard to the
Muslim community in Sarajevo and Bosnia. And if it had not been
for us and what is taking place in Kosovo with our
stabilization force there who knows what would have happened.
So the same with regard to Kuwait and all over the world.
And I think we have to do a better job with the media in the
Middle East. And I also believe that we should take our values,
the eternal values that were talked about in the Declaration of
Independence. Ronald Reagan said the Declaration was a covenant
with the world, not only with the American people, but with the
world. Many of these countries where our reputation is not that
good, where it ought to be very high, really don't have a free
press.
There are anti-Semitic statements in the press in Egypt. We
should jump on that and speak out, not criticizing the Egyptian
people, but criticizing the media and criticizing their
government, because as they say one thing, they feed the fire.
So we need a public diplomacy program that tells the good story
of the American people and of the American men and women who
are in Kabul today and throughout Afghanistan living in very
difficult conditions. The Afghan people are very appreciative
of what the United States Government and our people are doing.
If you ask the average Muslim on the street, they will tell
you they want more, not less. They want more American soldiers.
They want more Special Forces. They want more Marines, more
than we can perhaps even give. So I looked at the supplemental
request. You included $10 million for an exchange program, $7.5
million for information programs, and I have really serious
concerns. I know most other members on both sides of the aisle
share the perception that this is an enormous task. Is this
amount of money sufficient? This would not be sufficient to
sell a very good product in the United States. It is not fair
to make an analogy of a product. The product we are selling is
honesty, integrity, democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of
religion, freedom of movement, respect for women. I was in an
Afghan school and the women told me they wanted an education.
They are all anxious to have that education.
So is this really enough? Hopefully, we will get some
information out of this hearing to encourage and urge our
government to do more. Maybe we lost something in the abolition
of the USIA and the resources that we used to have, such as
libraries around the world. But we can't go back and revisit
that now. But is this really enough? Shouldn't we be pulling
together the best minds, both American and non-American,
prominent Muslims from the Middle East who are very supportive
for what the United States is doing. And there are many that
are--in fact, privately, almost all of them are. When I talked
to them off the record privately, they are all supportive. They
are all anxious. No one in the Kuwait government asked us to
leave. No one in the Saudi government but perhaps one or two
asked us to leave. And you can go right across the board.
In Mr. Hyde's bill, there is an authorization for $70
million. We have American men and women who have risked their
lives. You all have done a very great job. Our military has
done a great job. This is one of the areas that you may have to
invest and be bold and put more money in to tell the great
story that we have. So is this $7.5 million for information
programs and $10 million for exchange programs really enough to
tell the story?
Mr. Armitage. I would say the way you set it up, absolutely
not, but I need to tell you why we put that number in. The
tenets under which we move forward with the supplemental were
very strict because OMB and the administration wants to make
sure they are absolutely credible. One of the rules was you
cannot go in for money that is not an emergency. You have got
to be able to justify this as an emergency that needs to be
addressed before the FY03 bill comes forward, before the 2003
bill becomes law.
That from the beginning, I think, puts constraints on us.
Do we want more money? Absolutely. I have talked to Chairman
Hyde about his bill. But any amount of money would be wasted
unless we know exactly what we are doing. You correctly said
that in my words, if I may, our values are special because they
are universal values. That is what makes us special.
If you look at a word that has become unfashionable now in
politics, but if you look at focus groups and focus groups in
Egypt, if you ask what word springs to mind when you hear the
United States, the word was a four letter word, it was
``hope.'' It was only way down the list when you got to the
question about Middle East and Palestinian rights and things of
that nature.
Hope, freedom, et cetera were on the list. Charlotte Beers
will be up here and you and I talked about this hearing.
Charlotte looks forward to coming up here. One of the
preparations we did, and she is doing was to have all of our
PAO officers in. I believe we have been a little slow to truly
embrace our public affairs officers. I spoke to them yesterday
and found they were thrilled because we were paying attention
to them. I spoke in the Secretary's, stead. It proved to me
yesterday that we have first, really embraced our family and
got them ready to go out and do exactly what you want done and
what we need done.
Second, we have to know exactly what we are selling to
whom. What we are selling is hope. We are selling our universal
values. It sounds easy to do, but it is not quite that easy
because we have to go through the thicket of governments in
many cases which are not Democratic.
I appreciate your point criticizing the media, which, in
effect, in most of those governments, is criticizing the
government, but it allows you to do it and not get into a big
confrontation. The short answer is no it is not enough money,
but we are under pretty tight constraints to make sure that we
can look you in the eye and say that is about the money we need
in an emergency supplemental between the time we hope the
emergency supplemental is enacted and the time the 2003 bill is
enacted.
Mr. Green. You mentioned the travelling exhibit.
Mr. Armitage. Charlotte briefed us this morning. We have
had an exhibit from New York, the Twin Towers exhibit, and it
shows fire fighters in the moments of most stress during the
horror of September 11. It is going around the country. It is
going to 26 Middle Eastern cities. It went to Kuwait yesterday,
and it was such a hit because it shows humans and human
suffering, that we all suffered when the towers were hit.
It is in Jeddah now, and we are having the same response
from the Saudi population, which is even much more conservative
than Kuwait. That is the kind of thing that we have learned
that we are on the right track on and going in the right
direction because we are not talking about politics but human
values and universal values.
Mr. Green. To go a little further on that one, when it went
to Kuwait, they thought they had limited availability of people
to attend so they kind of had to be on the A list. Once the
officials in the Kuwaiti government went to it, they were so
impressed they opened it to all citizens. It is very striking.
It is very emotional when you see these fabulous photographs.
Mr. Wolf. I would like to see it when she comes up here.
Also I think in the political process sometimes when you are
making a message you have to say it 10 times before people hear
it. And we may all feel good at the first meeting, but
sometimes we have to have 10 meetings to make the case. We have
a great product. This is almost a God-ordained product. I mean
this is a product of the Declaration of Independence. Go to
Williamsburg and walk it. This is a product that will sell
every where in the world because it is the right product. It is
freedom, liberty, respect and dignity.
And I think we may have an emergency when I turn on the TV
and see the demonstrations and things like this. So the
Committee may need to put more money toward this effort. This
is not only a military effort, it is also to win the hearts and
the minds.
I think some of our friends in the Middle East ought to be
very careful. There is an article that Bob Kaplan wrote for the
Atlantic Monthly in March. He points out that Egypt and some of
these countries may very well see the closing down of certain
Americans' involvement there.
Mr. Armitage. I want to say what Charlotte is going to talk
about. One of the things she is going to talk about is that it
is not sufficient to have the message. We have to magnify the
message. One of the ways we are going to do it is these
exchange programs which you also mentioned, Mr. Chairman, where
we are bringing in journalists, and we sit them down. I had the
Middle Eastern journalists in my office the other day. We had
the Indonesians. They sat down with the leadership of State,
and we had at it. But the response when they go back home, when
they are allowed to write, is quite fantastic because they
magnify the message and get it out ten fold. We are not just
reaching one journalist. They are getting it out, and we found
that experience just recently in Indonesia. We are also finding
it in the Middle East States, such as Jordan, Kuwait. Obviously
Saudi Arabia less so, and Egypt less so.
Mr. Wolf. I will be looking forward to talking with her. I
am going to leave the subject, but I also think we should use
the Muslim community in the United States to speak out because
they know of our values. They are good citizens. They know of
our values. It would be powerful to have a Muslim living in the
United States who has come from Syria talk about the values in
the United States, the Muslim in the United States who has come
from Lebanon, someone who has come from Egypt to talk about the
goodness of the American people. What we have to tell people is
that most of the food that came to the Muslim community in
Afghanistan during the days of the Taliban was paid for by the
American people. We didn't go telling everybody and bragging
but the American people were feeding and paying for the food
that the average Afghan was eating during the reign of the
Taliban.
So I think there is an opportunity to use the Muslim
community in the United States who want to participate, who
want to be involved, to use them. There would be nothing
greater than a face of a Muslim from America to go back and be
on Al-Jazeera and say this is the goodness of the country I now
live in.
Mr. Armitage. I hosted Shariff Abdul-Rahim, which won't
mean anything to you unless you happen to be a basketball fan.
He is an NBA all star this year with the Atlanta Hawks. And he
agreed to work with us and publicize his life as a Muslim, and
this is MTV stuff. This reaches a lot of young people because
basketball is big. But that is the kind of thing that Charlotte
has got us doing. He agreed to do this. His father is an imam
in Atlanta, and he speaks quite passionately about this
country.
Mr. Wolf. He should be on television.
Mr. Armitage. We are following him around and filming him,
not talking about how many points he scored but what is life
like for you as a practicing Muslim in this country.
REPORT OF SUDAN ENVOY
Mr. Wolf. Shifting to Africa and then I am going to
recognize Mr. Serrano. On the issue of Sudan, one, I want to
thank the President and the Secretary for appointing Senator
Danforth as a special envoy. He is getting ready to make his
report, I understand, by sometime this month.
Mr. Armitage. End of the month.
Mr. Wolf. There was a news clip by Charles Cobb yesterday,
where it said Khidir Haroun Ahmed in Saudi Arabia said the
following thing. He said, Major General Ahmed Abbas speaking at
a nationally televised address in Khartoum this weekend is
calling for a holy war in support of the embattled Palestinians
and for freeing the Gaza Mosque from Zionists. Training camps
have been operating in Khartoum and the suburbs for years. We
know where they are and we know who has gone in certain
circumstances, although they have changed uniforms. The camps
have been set up pursuant to an order by Sudan President Umar
Hasan al-Bashir to train volunteers to join the fight against
Israeli military occupation.
The training camps are ready to receive volunteer fighters
as of today. I am not against talking to people that I don't
agree with. In fact you have to talk to people. But I think the
Sudan government better get the word from the Bush
administration. We are expecting them to bring about a just
peace by the end of this year. If there is not a just peace by
the end of this year, there will be a number of people who will
begin to aggressively push for other options to deal with the
problem here.
Could you tell the Committee what your plans are once
Senator Danforth submits his report? Let me say I congratulate
you. You have done a great job and I think there are a lot of
positive things taking place. But where do we go from here? The
report's filed. I don't know if Senator Danforth is going to
stay or not stay. That is up to him. But what is our policy now
to bring about a just peace, working with the English, working
with the Norwegians. Where do we go once the report is filed?
Mr. Armitage. Right now with the Norwegians in the Nuba
Mountains we have two U.S. Colonels working with them to be the
monitors. We have several issues going simultaneously with him,
all of which are extraordinarily well known to you, as it was
your idea.
Mr. Wolf. He was your idea. I just thought we were going to
have an envoy but I never even thought of him to be honest with
you.
Mr. Armitage. He is going to file his report and it is
supposed to be on the 28th, and we want him to give it to the
President. The only problem we have is scheduling one and make
sure he gets in to see the President and take the time he needs
to make his report. We have two colonels now in the Nuba
Mountains along with the Norwegians monitoring things. Some
food is now going forward. The cease fire is more or less
holding. The question of slavery is being looked at at this
very minute.
George Lukes, one of our diplomats, is on the team. I think
there is a 10-person team there. The very comments you referred
to--I didn't see that news broadcast, but a couple of days ago
we saw Bashir, the President screaming out about jihad and holy
war. Walt Kansteiner, our Assistant Secretary for African
affairs, was following with the foreign minister, saying this
is absurd.
Now the pushback we got from the foreign minister is for
domestic consumption. It doesn't mean anything. Saying it don't
make it so. We have to really be all over him on this one, and
we really have been tough on Bashir with this kind of language.
You were gentle. You didn't use the language that he allegedly
used in his speech, which was very, very inappropriate. We
can't have a relationship with a country that moves like that.
Mr. Wolf. Well, then I think when Senator Danforth makes
his report on the 28th, the administration has to be able to
articulate, as a result of this, what we are going to do.
Mr. Armitage. I brought with me today, because you
expressed in a phone call some interest in a meeting with him,
opposition leader John Garang. I got a memo from that meeting
and shows further some of the complications. We are working
with Garang and the southerners as you know trying get one
country, two systems, but the right kind of systems and the
right kind of setup. That is another complicated factor because
we are moving forward with Garang and his colleagues.
U.S. POLICY IN AFRICA
Mr. Wolf. Last question, and then I will go to Mr. Serrano.
Africa is having a difficult time. We had the CRS do a report
and we sent a copy to the Secretary. It said HIV/AIDS has cut
life expectancy in Botswana from 71 years to 39 years. Both of
us would be dead if we lived in Botswana. In Zimbabwe from 70
years to 38 years. U.S. Census Bureau experts predict that the
life expectancy throughout southern Africa will be 30 years old
by the year 2010.
There are so many other things. In that piece that Kaplan
wrote for the Atlantic, he said in Africa, the rising tide of
young males will be even more extreme than in the Middle East.
The top ten ``youth bowl countries'' are all in sub-Saharan
Africa. The next decade could be disastrous, judging by recent
political violence that has developed, and gang warlordism in a
number of African cities. He said, ``Nigeria is already
crumbling although too slowly to generate headlines.''
``The loss of central authority may be part of a long-term
transition that will ultimately yield positive results and in
the long-term it will provide new opportunities and havens for
global terrorist groups to strive in legally governing
realms.''
We had asked the Secretary to look at the possibility of
appointing a panel to take 90 days to come up with a policy for
Africa. We were going to put in legislation here and it would
take us months to get it out.
What we ask for in the letter is a blue ribbon panel to
come up with strategies and solutions to address how the United
States can help solve the massive challenges facing Africa. My
sense is not only are you having the AIDS problem, the health
problem, but you are going to have little Afghanistans
developing. This can be a Presidential panel or a panel
appointed by the Secretary of prominent people who know a lot
about Africa, far more than I know. How do we do this? Maybe
the establishment of a new university in Kenya. Africa is
crumbling before us. This is not a big expensive proposition--
20 people, 90 days, come up and see if the administration can
refocus because what we, the United States, are doing now isn't
working.
I think we have to try to do something different. It is not
just a question of spending more money, but spending it wisely
and getting the results for whatever we were spending. Not
supporting corrupt governments, but doing it in a way that help
these people.
Mr. Armitage. When I came back to government this time
after an 8-year absence, I was shocked more than anything else
by what I saw in Africa. What I saw in almost every country was
that the infrastructure was much worse than it had been 8 years
before. It happened for a lot of reasons, not the least of
which is the unbelievable prevalence of HIV/AIDS. You know the
map as well as I, east and west and north and south, and it
radiates in a horrifying stream showing the incidence of
infection and the implosion of HIV/AIDS.
I think the trap we fall into very often is we look at the
parts instead of the whole. For instance, we have been very
active in Sierra Leone trying to stop Charles Taylor. We have
been active in the DROC in trying to bring some sense to that.
We are happy that the Angola War has ended after 20-odd years.
But we are looking at the parts, and you are suggesting we look
at the whole. You mentioned Nigeria. You have a city, Lagos,
with 32 million people. No infrastructure can keep up with that
implosion of population.
You run the risk of having what you suggest, as you call it
in the military, a strategic center of gravity against the
government, and something that will develop into little
Afghanistans and things of that nature. I must admit to you I
don't know where that piece of literature from the Secretary
is. I will find out, and I will respond to you once I go back.
But I see we tend to focus on the individual problems where we
are making some small success, but we are missing the whole.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Serrano.
VISAS AND INFORMATION SHARING
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me ask you a
question and then move on to some comments I would like to
make. Recently we learned about the embarrassing and
potentially dangerous error that occurred at the INS where
student visas were mailed to two of the men who were
responsible for the September 11 terrorist attacks. What are
you doing at the State Department to ensure that similar
problems do not occur with various systems that you deal with
and how much money are you proposing to spend in FY 2002 to
enhance the entry exit technology and how will these work?
Mr. Armitage. Grant will get into the particulars. I don't
think I am putting him on the spot. Part of what is being
proposed by Mr. Ridge gets right at the whole problem of INS in
identifying who is who, and who has responsibility for
admitting people, and following up on people who are visitors
to our country. Part of the answer to your question, I think,
will lie on whatever legislation eventually comes out of the
Congressional process, but it is not just because of the
terrible embarrassment to the INS, but the people who are to
follow up and actually apprehend, if necessary. Justice, part
of INS, is separate from the people who have visas or the State
Department. Our difficulty historically has been that we don't
always get information from the FBI or CIA.
Since September 11, I can say with complete assurance that
has improved enormously. God knows it must after that horror.
But whether it still is where it ought to be, I think not.
Mr. Green. We have a strong track record, I believe, in
dealing with the other agencies in sharing information. We have
the Consular Lookout and Support Systems, the CLASS system
where we share very detailed information on people coming into
this country with the INS, Customs and DEA. We have on the law
enforcement side a tip-off system which we fund out of consular
affairs money which are run by our Intelligence Research
Bureau, which shares information with the law enforcement
community.
Subsequently that information provides name checks and
checks to INS and Customs. With the advent of Homeland Security
and the standing up of that, we are working with them very
closely on the terrorist tracking system. We have people
detailed there. We sit on six of their 11 subgroups, working
groups. I just think that, as the Deputy said, the sharing of
information is getting much better, unfortunately, in the
aftermath of September 11. We still have some difficulty on the
law enforcement side having them provide information to us.
That is also slowly getting better. We have about, as you
probably know, we will take in about estimated 1.2 billion in
various fees in the consular area this year. We keep about half
of that to support border security, pay for our consular
officers throughout the system, upgrade IT systems relating to
security and the border. If you draw a circle around the
country, we are the first line of defense for people coming
into the country. We are making tremendous progress both in
what we are doing in the information technology area, the
sharing of information and also in working very closely with
the Homeland Security Office.
LATIN AMERICAN POLICY
Mr. Serrano. I thank both of you for those comments. That
is a grave concern and it was pretty embarrassing and everyone
wants to make sure that it doesn't happen with other systems
that we have in place. Let me just be very careful how I say
this. I don't want to put you in a situation that you may not
want to be in, but when the chairman spoke about public
diplomacy and spreading our message, part of the message is the
fact that we have a unique system. We perfected it pretty well
and that is the whole issue of having a judicial branch, an
executive branch and a legislative branch. And we take each
branch very seriously.
Without mentioning names, I would just hope that the
Secretary, and that you folks begin to pay closer attention to
the fact that there are some members of the administration in
the State Department who have taken it on their own to
disregard comments coming out of Congress and publicly denounce
comments coming out of Congress in terms of what this Congress
feels should be some of our behavior in Latin America. You
know, as I look across here to Mr. Wolf and Mr. Vitter and Mr.
Miller, we have reached some decisions in the last few years on
Latin America and have taken a long time to get there. For all
of us it has been very painful to go there, to get to that
point. And now we have top officials at the State Department
get up in front of recorders in public and say we don't care
what Congress is saying on this issue.
I am not here to allow us to give in to anyone on a
particular issue, and I am not going to allow that to happen.
Well, there is a big difference between that statement and the
President saying I disagree with the Congress on the
supplemental, and I think for the good of the American people,
we should pass the supplemental. That is what this country is
about. But it is different to say that when Mr. Miller and I,
or Mr. Latham and I, reach a point where we reach some sort of
understanding on an issue that that issue should not be paid
attention to and for us to be seen by a member of the Secretary
of State's Department as a bunch of idiots with no power and no
responsibilities.
And that bothers me. The reason I don't want to mention the
person's name is because I will be on record as having
denounced them and there will be all kinds of back and forth,
and I don't want to get into that. You know who I am talking
about. You know what I am talking about. This year I am up for
reelection as we all are. I take very seriously that fact.
Every morning when I drive by the Capitol dome, as dramatic as
this may be, I get chills. I take very seriously the fact that
someone who came from a poor town in Puerto Rico and came and
lived in a public housing project in the Bronx became a Member
of the Congress. I didn't accomplish all that, and I didn't do
all that with the help of people in my district to be made an
idiot by someone who is appointed to our government.
So I would hope that you begin to look at that and at the
minimum, whisper to the gentleman and say they were elected,
you were not. You should pay a little respect.
Mr. Armitage. If I may, I got the message very loud and
clear, and I know to whom you are referring, and, as I
indicated this very day, I will take this up. It will not
happen again, at least with that individual. Let me make a
comment more generally about the responsibilities of the
various branches. One of the reasons we are the best hope, I
think, of mankind, at least as far as I am concerned, we as a
Nation, is because unlike every other great power that has ever
gone before us, we have got this necessary and creative tension
among our three branches of government which keeps power from
being concentrated in any one person's or groups' hands. It is
self-renewing. We all in Secretary Powell's State Department
understand exactly what the duties and the rights and
prerogatives are. We know who is appointed, and who earned it.
That is the policy and I will take this back and take care of
this matter.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you so much. Let me move on. As you
know, part of the reason why I was so careful in my
presentation is because of the great respect that I have for
you, and Secretary Powell. Some of the obvious things, he and I
come from the same neighborhood as well, and that carries.
Mr. Armitage. Yeah, but he speaks Yiddish.
Mr. Serrano. Well, when it comes to his budget, he is a
real nudge. We know what that is all about. And I came to
Congress incidently like so many children of my generation with
all kinds of troublesome thoughts about the State Department
and how much the State Department is responsible for any
mistakes our country made overseas.
Since then, I have gotten to really care for the work you
do, to respect and be very supportive of it. There is one issue
I am going to disagree with very loudly, and I am going to be
as vocal as I can. And that is the fact that I think we are
making a terrible mistake in Colombia. I think we are on the
brink of getting into what I call a Spanish speaking Vietnam.
That has been going on for over 30 years. It is hard to tell
who the good guys and the bad guys are anymore in Colombia. The
traditional left has no respect for the Colombia left--
interesting because they don't see them as true insurgent
revolutionaries.
The military folks of Latin America are not crazy about the
paramilitaries in Colombia. And not many people respect any
government in Colombia. With all of that in mind, I am troubled
by the fact that we have found a new gimmick in our country and
that is a gimmick that plays on the fears and sentiments of the
people. It is very shrewd because it makes it difficult for
guys like me to confront and the fact is that we no longer call
people insurgents or narco-traffickers or murderers. We call
them something dash terrorists. So now they are narco-
terrorists and we have to get the narco-terrorists.
In the process you are asking now in the supplemental for
changes in the language that will allow you to be involved
which is just what Bill Clinton told us he wasn't going to do,
and George W. Bush told us he wasn't going to do and that is to
allow the helicopters and the advisers to be used in a military
way to get the terrorists, not to get the paramilitaries, not
to get any corrupt people in the government, not to get the
Attorney General who is no longer enforcing or conducting the
human rights violations or studies or investigations, not to
get them. We have taken sides now. When we take sides, we are
making a terrible mistake. It will probably happen. I will be
probably one of a few lonely voices saying don't do this. It
will probably happen.
But even if it happens and we get involved, you folks don't
have the ability to curtail our involvement and suggest to the
President how far we should go or could go. I tell you
something, representing a district in the south Bronx, I am in
touch with people from Latin America on a daily basis. You
don't have to travel there. They are in my district, and they
live there, work there and travel there. They are very pro-
American, but they tell us that the thought of American
uniforms, soldier uniforms throughout any part of Latin America
will awaken the dormant left and bring back that ugly anti-
American sentiment.
In the Middle East Secretary Powell is saying guys, you
have to come to talk peace, and you have to be strong--the
first one to talk about a Palestinian State openly which is
right and the security of Israel. In the same way that is what
we should be doing in Colombia, not sending in--as we will and
you can say we won't but we will--we will send troops and we
will attack the insurgents and we will create a backlash. That
is a 35 years Civil War. And we can go in there and just clean
out a cave. So I hope you keep that in mind because I am sure
this will happen somewhere on down the line, and that you don't
let it get out of hand.
Mr. Armitage. Mr. Serrano, I take seriously your words.
This is an area in which we will disagree without being
disagreeable. You have very strong heartfelt sentiments. The
administration has them as well. I want to be clear on one
thing, and you cautioned us to make sure you limit your
involvement. I do want to be sure that it is understood, and it
was discussed yesterday at Mr. Kolbe's hearing, when we talk
about movement and we do want an expansion of the authority--we
want it, but we don't want to get rid of the Byrd cap or the
Leahy amendment, which discusses human rights particularly.
I want to be clear on that.
Second, part of the reason we came forward is because we
were very clearly warned and cautioned and advised by the
Congress. Come forward. Let us debate it, as our system
requires, and be clear about it. We have a disagreement, but I
hope we get some credit. We are trying to be clear about it. I
do take seriously your warning.
Mr. Serrano. One last comment: You are getting around us
when you include it in a supplemental that talks about a fight
on terrorism, and which talks about embassy security. You have
a choice. You either vote against the whole package or you
accept it as it is. Had you brought it to Congress alone as a
freestanding situation, the sentiment would be different. This
is a very smart way of doing it, but it is not a totally honest
way of doing it. This is too big of an issue to be in a
supplemental. This is a declaration of war, in many ways, and
that should stand by itself. Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Miller.
Cost of Embassy Construction
Mr. Miller. I just got back Tuesday from a trip with Mr.
Kolbe and some others to Africa--Mali, Ethiopia, Mozambique,
South Africa--we made numerous stops. Every time I travel
reinforces the admiration that I have for the people that work
for State. They do a great job and they often live in difficult
conditions. When I first came to Congress, I thought of people
going to Paris and going to embassy parties. That is not the
way it is in Addis Ababa and other places in the world. And it
is a great challenge to live in the lifestyle, the air they
breathe, the food that is available, I have great admiration
for State Department employees.
We were looking at a lot of the AIDS challenges and what we
are doing to address them. I know this work is not funded by
this subcommittee, but there is a lot being done.
When I visit places, I visit the embassy and see the
facilities. I am interested in the question of the cost and the
planning for new embassies and also the operational costs of
embassies.
How much do Congressional requirements contribute, if they
do, to that cost? We have security problems in Moscow from 20
years ago that affects some of our thoughts, and what happened
in Nairobi raises different security concerns. Comment on what
is going on with planning for new embassies, and buying the
land. We have nine planned for next year and nine the following
year. How does the cost vary between all of these? I know the
costs are not the same in Addis Ababa versus the one in Berlin
where I visited. That is going to be very costly.
Mr. Armitage. I do recall our telephone conversations, and
also concerns about the cost of embassies and the cost of
security of embassies, and I made some remarks. Basically we
are trying to control the costs by having modules or models
small, medium and large. They all look alike so they do not
have a unique design. Relatively alike. We save money that way,
through economies of scale.
Second, General Williams, who takes this business very
seriously, has put together a rather unique and formidable
industry panel. I spoke to him a couple of months ago. It will
give us the latest of what is business practice, how can we
save money, et cetera.
Grant can be more specific on how Congress costs us money.
But I think our system requires it in a way. I do not like all
of the ``Buy America'' aspects of it because it does raise
prices, and I think in some cases we could do a lot more if we
used a lot more local materials.
I do not know how to get around the absolute need to have
total and complete and continual oversight. So it may cost us a
little more, but I think the system demands it because when you
have gentlemen like yourself stand up and say you have been
there and done that and you know how people are living and how
they have done that and you can attest that you have got people
out there who are doing the Lord's work and are not living with
their face in the canape tray, they are in hard and dangerous
places doing work for our country.
Mr. Miller. On the Buy America, like basic things, light
bulbs, paper products and all of that? And what can we buy in
the local market versus have to import from the U.S.?
Mr. Green. On those kind of things, expendables, we are
buying a lot more----
Mr. Miller. We are not required to buy our bulbs and such?
Mr. Green. Absolutely not. We warehouse those in Europe and
ship them to the various posts. At risk of repeating some of
the things that the Deputy said, I think the whole thing on
overseas construction and positive movements began with the
reorganization of the building operations and pulling them and
making them a stand-alone organization. General Williams has
made, I think, tremendous progress in reorganizing that, making
it a results-based organization, with accountability.
I do not know if any of your staff have been over and sat
in on some of these review sessions, but if they have not, and
they are interested in how we are doing things overseas in a
business-like way, I would encourage them to do that. These
happen a couple of times a month, and all of the stakeholders
are in the room, 30, 40 people from contractors to the design
people to the architects to the actual construction folks, and
they go through every one--not every project, but I just sat
through one on China about 2 weeks ago. It is a very business-
like process.
Rich mentioned the three standard embassy designs that we
have adopted which reduce costs. We will put a facade on them
that fits the local community or the local country's
architecture, but basically they are a standard design. This
enables us to not design something new and go into those costs
every time.
Another thing that I think is interesting in the cost area
is we now have approval from OMB to do a pilot in 2003,
assuming the Congress agrees, on cost-sharing. In other words,
other agencies, other departments which rely on our platforms
would share in the construction costs of those facilities.
This does two things. It spreads the cost and it makes
other departments and other agencies look very carefully at
right-sizing. Now there is no incentive. There is no incentive.
When you have to start paying for desk space in a classified
portion of an embassy, you will ask yourself, I think, twice
whether I really need five people, and can I get by with three.
RIGHT-SIZING AT EMBASSIES
Mr. Miller. Tell me in an embassy, other than State
Department people, how many other agencies?
Mr. Armitage. It is 30 in a big----
Mr. Miller. Thirty other agencies, that is what you are
talking about? The 30 people from Agriculture, Commerce?
Mr. Green. Some agencies do not--this Subcommittee has a
lot of interest in what we do overseas. Some of the other
oversight committees do not have that same interest. I go back
to right-sizing. I don't want to beat a dead horse. We are
under a lot of pressure to right-size. Make sure you have the
right number of people at the right post. Other agencies
frankly do not think much about that. I do not think a lot of
them even know how many people they have overseas at a
particular post.
Mr. Miller. With 30 different agencies, that is a large
number to be there. I know they are all under the ambassador.
He or she is in charge in that country, but you are talking
about a large number of desk spaces. When we visit these
embassies, you meet a lot of them and they play critical roles.
Mr. Green. Sure they do. Sure they do.
Mr. Miller. But right now there is no way to oversee the
numbers in the budgets?
Mr. Green. There is not a systematic, organized way to do
it. Now, that being said, a couple of years ago there was an
interagency group that went out to about a half dozen embassies
and tried to divine a concept for right-sizing and they could
not even agree on a concept. GAO recently went to Paris. They
have not completed their report, but I was briefed on it about
a week ago, and they believe now they have a concept, a
structure for possibly right-sizing an embassy. We are going to
have a hearing the end of this month and discuss that, among
other things. While, as you say, the chief of mission has
tremendous authority to run that post, we, very frankly, with
some of the other agencies do not have a lot of leverage. And
as the world changes, and as there is more and more emphasis on
health issues, terrorist issues, drug issues, you get--you
continue to get a larger influx of law enforcement people and
health and ag and----
Mr. Armitage. FBI.
Mr. Green [continuing]. FBI, and it is tough to just say
hey, no. Go home.
Mr. Miller. I met a lot of them. Whether it is CDC people
or the FBI, certainly a larger presence, and each has a
critical role.
Mr. Green. Sure.
MIDDLE EAST POLICY
Mr. Miller. One other comment about Africa. Where it is
heading is just a huge concern as HIV, the role of Government
there, whether it is the president of South Africa or Swaziland
and the acceptance of the cause of it, the spread of it. The
orphan crisis there. The role of women is just horrible. But I
see we are trying, the international community is trying.
I know we do not have much time, but let me briefly switch
over to the Middle East, which is not a budget issue. I had
limited news while we were gone. We watched CNN International
for our news in Africa. But we are not popular over in that
part of the world. I mean, the perception is that we have
chosen sides, we are pro-Israeli--Israel's position, and the
image is that we have given a green light to Sharon to do
whatever he wants. Secretary Powell shows up in Morocco and
they say what are you doing here? Get off to Jerusalem,
basically I think is what was said.
I know we were talking about this communications issue
earlier. It is more than just communications. So please comment
about what we are doing there, and comment about the settlement
issue. I know we do not have much time. But the settlement
issue is a thorn in the sides of the Palestinians and we are
defending these settlements, basically our country is, because
we are defending the Sharon policy.
Mr. Armitage. The President has called for a halt to
settlement activity.
Mr. Miller. We have been calling for a halt to that for 20
years.
Mr. Armitage. It is one of these things, depending on how
you look at that time, the settlements, there was an allowance
for natural growth. Well, how much is that? How much is
``natural growth,'' and how do you define it? The wording that
surrounded settlements historically is not clear, and we are
hoisted on our own petard. I think it is not right to blame all
of our image problems in the Middle East on the Palestinian
question. I think to some extent that is the immediate one, and
it is certainly causing the demonstrations right now that we
are seeing in front of our embassies, whether it is in Bahrain
today or in Cairo or anywhere else. I think it is more subtle,
and in part television is a reaction against oppressive
governments at home and lack of the ability for young people to
express themselves in other ways. We did not give a green
light. The President said: Withdraw now. The reason Secretary
Powell went the way he did, and why he is in Amman Jordan right
now, is because we are going to make progress. Not only does
Israel have to stop the military activity, but Arafat has to be
told by the Arabs that he has to get in line. He has to once
and for all stand up and show some leadership. That is why the
crown prince of Saudi Arabia in Morocco, that is why he went to
Cairo and Amman, and will arrive tonight. We have to get the
moderate Arabs to put some steel in Arafat to do the right
thing. His leadership has been, as I said earlier,
disappointing, to say the least. That is why the Secretary went
about it this way.
Finally I might say in Madrid you saw the statement by the
Quartet. The statement issued by the Quartet is one that none
of those organizations, the U.N., I think, or the Russians,
would have ever issued on their own, calling for the
Palestinians as well as the Israelis to restrain themselves.
There was a method to this madness, if you will.
Mr. Miller. Causing problems for our friends, whether it is
in Egypt or Jordan and such by these demonstrations and the
image that--CNN is not the only source--that all you see is
what is taking place in Palestine. And I do not know how much
they show of the bus bombings in Israel which are a horrific
sight, and the terrorism that takes place there, but the image
is the U.S. is being very one-sided.
Mr. Armitage. Yet every single person in the region and
probably in the world wants us to fix it. While we have the
image that you talked about, I think there is also the almost
palpable hope that we will fix it because we are the only ones
that can.
Mr. Miller. Well, let us hope that we can. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Ms. Roybal-Allard.
DEFENSE TRADE CONTROLS
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I
want to express my concern for the lack or the small amount of
money that is being allocated for information. I share the
Chairman's concerns about that. Because I think lack of
information is a part of the problem that we are facing, for
example, in the Middle East. And it is an emergency because I
do not think we are going to be able to begin to turn things
until, for example, in this case the Muslim world learns to
trust the United States, and the only way they can do that is
through gaining a better understanding of what it is we stand
for and what it is we have already done to help the Muslim
world.
By not having that kind of information, it contributes to
the hatred that exists about the United States and makes it
easy to feed that hatred and to turn it into the kind of
terrorist threats that we are facing now. So I think getting
out information is critical.
And in talking to Muslim Americans in my own district, they
themselves are frustrated by the fact that accurate information
is not getting out and that they, even though they have
volunteered in various ways, are not being utilized to get the
message out to their families and the friends that are still in
those areas. So I just wanted to make that statement.
Last year we talked about some of the problems that small
businesses were experiencing with the Office of Defense Trade
Controls and at that time you attributed some of the problems
to the fact that you were understaffed and you were, in fact,
starting to take steps to make the whole process more user-
friendly.
What I would like for to you do is tell me what you have
been able to do since then, but also to respond to a GAO report
that was issued in December that found a lot of deficiencies
that still existed in the agency and also to respond to them. I
believe there was a difference of opinion about that report and
I would like to give you an opportunity to respond to that.
Mr. Armitage. Thank you. Lincoln Bloomfield, the Assistant
Secretary for Political and Military Affairs, has been tasked
by Secretary Powell to not only make this whole process user-
friendly, whether it is small business or otherwise, by the
way, because the complaints were not just limited to small
business. I was in business. I was one of the complainers, so I
know.
I do not have at my fingertips the processing time, but the
processing time was down sufficiently for a group of industry
folks come in to see me just to thank us for having made that
move. Linc Bloomfield has more people on it and has cut down
the process time. I apologize, I do not know what it is. I
received an industry group not so long ago that thanked me for
that and urged us to continue. The question of the GAO----
Ms. Roybal-Allard. If I can, let me just summarize a part
of it maybe that you can respond to. It says that the State
Department has not established formal guidelines for
determining the agencies and offices that need to review
license application. As a result, the licensing office refers
more license applications to other agencies and offices than
may be necessary. The reviewers in the State Department
reviewing offices consider license reviews low priority.
I am reading directly from it.
Mr. Armitage. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Are those guidelines being established?
Do you disagree with----
Mr. Armitage. I am not sure how much I disagree with it. I
am looking at the defense trade control paper that I have here.
What I have is sort of along the lines of what I was briefing
on a minute ago about people coming in and telling us that we
were moving in the right direction. Processing time lines are
at an all-time low and the outside auditors have determined
that even with the process deficiencies which you speak about,
the department handles its case as equally efficient as other
agencies with much greater additional human resources.
Perhaps there is a difference of opinion, but that is what
our outside auditor is telling us. I want to be clear with you.
In no way am I or Secretary Powell or any of us saying that we
have got it right.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. I guess really what I am trying to
find out, based on these findings--for example, the State
Department lacks procedures to monitor the flow of license
applications through the review process. The planned business
system upgrade needs to focus on ensuring a timely flow of
applications and implementing a mechanism to track the progress
of applications. Otherwise the benefits of the upgrade may be
limited.
I guess my question is that these things have been
identified and are you now taking steps to remedy them?
Mr. Armitage. I want to say yes, we are, but since I do not
personally--I have not personally looked at this, let me take
that back, if you do not mind. I think we are, but I do not
want to say something that I have to come back and say that I
was wrong. I would like to take that question and come back
with a correct answer that I can stand by.
[The information follows:]
While a good deal of work is already under way to make
updated and revalidated business rules fully operational, we
believe future IT development will provide the tools to further
improve process efficiency. This will include electronic
transmittal of data with electronic ``clocks'' and ``ticklers''
to monitor and track cases.
Assistant Secretary Bloomfield recently convened a session
of the Defense Trade Advisory Group during which industry
representatives were briefed about the upcoming IT pilot
program and were asked for their input. A kick-off session with
industry participants in the pilot will be initiated soon.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. I appreciate that. I have gotten
complaints from businesses in my district. I have one more
question. This actually comes from a constituent who did not
have a good experience. He has an idea and has recommended that
the ODTC inaugurate a pilot program that is designed to provide
a one-stop-shopping for small businesses or other companies who
are new to the licensing process. And the idea is to set aside
two or three licensing officers to screen new registrants and
shepherd them through the voluntary disclosure and licensing
process, with the ultimate goal being to make sure that small
businesses do not get lost in the process, that they gain a
positive experience in learning how to go through the process
and hopefully not have to hire these high-priced counsels to
accomplish the same thing.
Mr. Armitage. In other words, you want to put me out of my
private job. I see where you are going here.
If you will write me the name of that constituent where I
can find him, I will have Linc Bloomfield call them, as a
result of this conversation, and probably this afternoon.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. Thank you.
HIRING AT STATE DEPARTMENT
Mr. Wolf. Thanks. We have three votes, but we are almost at
the end of one. I will just ask a few questions and then we
will recess for probably about 15 minutes at the most and come
right back.
The Congress fully funded your fiscal 2002 request for
additional personnel. Between the CJS bill and the
supplemental, you have received 871 new positions. You are now
seeking an additional 631 new positions in your budget request
for fiscal year 2003. This takes you well beyond your original
goal of 1,158 new positions for full diplomatic readiness. What
more remains to be done or has the definition of readiness
changed based on September 11?
Mr. Armitage. What has changed, we are still looking for
1,158 foreign service officers. The additional numbers to make
up the 600 odd that you have spoken about are DSA, more
diplomatic security, and computers----
Mr. Wolf. That was changed based on 9/11?
Mr. Armitage. It is in addition to.
Mr. Wolf. So 9/11 changed that?
Mr. Armitage. Yes, the DS, it did.
Mr. Green. The 1,158, I think this often gets confused.
Those are new positions over 3 years, which we hope to get us
back up to the level that we need to be. That does not include
attrition, which runs about overall through civil service,
foreign service probably runs about 400 a year, and it does not
include these added diplomatic security CA personnel that are a
result of principally 9/11.
So this year--or 2003, I should say, 2003, we are looking
at a total of 1,411 folks to come in across the board. Civil
service, foreign service, both foreign service generalists and
specialists. So the 1,158 that we often throw out and people
seem to hang on, those are the positions we need and hopefully
over 3 years, 360 last year, 399 in 2003--I should say 360 in
2002, 399 in 2003, and 399 in 2004 is what we hope to have to
make up those shortages that we have to give us the training
float.
Mr. Wolf. Right. I understand.
We are just going to recess. We will be back in about 15
minutes. Thank you.
[Recess.]
EMBASSY IN ROME
Mr. Wolf. The hearing will resume. Can you tell us a little
bit about the embassy problem in Rome, the counterterrorism
issue that you had in Rome?
Mr. Armitage. The recent holes and whatnot?
Mr. Wolf. People were arrested, who were they?
Mr. Armitage. We have had different cells over the last
year, a lot of intelligence information about various cells and
al Qaeda operatives, and it reached a crescendo at the time of
the President's visit some time early summer. We actually had
to have the Italian police bust a few safe houses to disrupt
activities. We continue to receive reports of that. Recently in
the embassy in Rome, some water systems looked like they had
been tunnelled into. My understanding of the investigation is
that it is relatively inconclusive, and we have not found that
these folks were actually going to introduce something into the
water system. However--and the holes were relatively small.
They did not do a very good job if they were going to introduce
something into the system.
Because of the high level of threats that we have been
receiving generally, we took it seriously. Two weeks ago in
four Italian cities we had to put out a travel notice because
of our fear that Americans would be targeted.
Mr. Wolf. So arrests were made in the Rome situation?
Mr. Armitage. I do not think they were technically
arrested, but I think they were held for a while and they are
gone.
REWARDS FOR JUSTICE PROGRAM
Mr. Wolf. The department received an additional $51 million
in emergency supplemental funding for emergencies in diplomatic
and consular services. Part of the funding was for the Rewards
for Justice Program which has been widely publicized both here
and abroad. These would be rewards for information preventing
terrorist acts or information leading to the arrest and
conviction of terrorists. What kind of response and results
have you seen from the program and how much has been paid out
in rewards?
Mr. Armitage. Sir, I will have to take that. I do not know
the answer. With your permission, I will take it. Does anybody
know?
Mr. Millette. We have not paid rewards yet. We have paid
for advertising.
Mr. Armitage. Jim Millette tells me that we have not paid
any rewards yet. I cannot tell you how many hits we have had.
Mr. Wolf. Tell us how much was spent for advertising.
Mr. Armitage. And how many hits we get out of this.
Mr. Wolf. So no rewards have actually been paid?
Mr. Armitage. No, sir.
BORDER SECURITY POSITIONS AND FEES
Mr. Wolf. Border security, the department's primary
homeland security role, is in your consular and border security
activities which are funded through fees, not appropriated
funds. The budget includes a program increase of $78 million
for these activities from anticipated fee revenue including an
additional 98 new consular positions. What initiatives are you
undertaking to safeguard the Nation's borders and to improve
the visa application and review process? If somebody comes in
from Syria, they are making application for a visa, how does
that tie back in with regard to INS? How is that tied back in
with regard to the FBI?
Mr. Armitage. Let me give you sort of the long-winded
answer, if I may, and Grant probably wants to either correct it
or add to it.
Mr. Wolf. You are a great team.
Mr. Armitage. We have done this before. Sir, the consular
fees are one of our many ways of bringing some revenue to the
department, which obviously is applied to border security. We
have been down, since September 11th, 13 or 14 percent. We are
right now contemplating and have out for public comment a raise
in the visa fee from $45 to $65.
Mr. Green. $65, correct.
Mr. Armitage. Which will make up for that shortfall. We are
looking for 70 consular affairs people and 28 or so domestic.
Mr. Green. 98 new ones overseas and 36 domestic. That was
in 2002, and we are looking for 70 and 28--70 overseas and 28
domestic this year, which will permit us to strengthen further
our border security process.
Back to your question, though, on how do we--if somebody
applies for a visa in Syria, that goes into the CLASS system,
which is distributed and available to the border agencies, INS
and DEA. Then it is also distributed into the TIPOFF system
which gets into the law enforcement component of it. What
Homeland Security is doing now is attempting to rationalize,
systematize all of those various IT systems so that in the end,
hopefully, I think their objective is to get to one system that
everybody plugs into, where now you have different ones.
BORDER SECURITY AND VISAS
Mr. Wolf. Well, if somebody does come from Syria, does that
information first go to INS?
Mr. Green. Absolutely. It goes into the CLASS system which
is available to the INS.
Mr. Wolf. And also the FBI?
Mr. Green. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wolf. And that person is not granted a visa until----
Mr. Green. If they fit the category that we are looking
for, they will not get a visa for, I think, 20 days.
Mr. Wolf. That is the way that fellow Rahman came in. He
came from Egypt and the Sudan, there was a visa granted to him,
and now he is in a prison, and he was involved in the bombing
of the World Trade Center in 1993. So the more you can keep
this from coming to our shores by----
Mr. Armitage. Going to Grant's point, being the first line
of defense is how our consular officers are referred to by the
Secretary, by the senior leadership in the department.
Now we got a little bad publicity after 9/11 because we
changed--we profiled, frankly. We profiled people in our visa
application process. People who are of a certain age, primarily
male, who came from certain countries where the visa
application process was slowed down, just to make sure we could
look through all the various databases to make sure that we
were not letting a bad character in inadvertently. We took some
heat for it, but I think it has worked out fairly well.
TRAINING OF CONSULAR OFFICIALS
Mr. Wolf. What you are doing to upgrade the credibility and
reputation of the consular offices? Generally the reputation
has been it is staffed by the most junior person. They are not
going to go on and move up. It is not the best job. That has
been the history when you go around and talk to them. That does
not mean it is not a very important job. I think it is. The
Secretary ought to have an awards program and single out people
in the consular offices that are doing a good job.
Mr. Armitage. We are making sure that they are looked at,
and the consular cones are looked at when it comes time to get
a chief of mission. The executive secretary is now a consular
affairs officer. She was previously an ambassador. That is,
probably for a system like the Foreign Service, is the way you
really score and make it clear that the consular officer is
full-fledged foreign service family member, and that is where
the reward is. They see they are becoming chiefs of mission.
Mr. Green. We have to do that across those cones in which
we have difficulty in both recruiting and retaining.
Mr. Armitage. And public diplomacy.
Mr. Green. But it is in many cases, particularly in some of
the larger posts, drudgery. As you know, having visited. We try
to rotate people through there. They are not just consular
officers that serve in those positions. We rotate political
officers, ECON officers and so on, so that everybody gets a
bite of that apple. But it is difficult.
Mr. Wolf. Do they meet with the FBI before they go abroad?
Is there a training program at the Foreign Service Institute
whereby an FBI agent is brought in for one of the courses, to
tell them what they should be looking for? Is there some
mechanism?
Mr. Green. Rather than give you what I think is the answer,
let me give you some specifics. I have got to assume that in
the A100 course there is certainly exposure to many law
enforcement----
Mr. Armitage. They have a lecture, but that is not quite
the question that you raised.
Mr. Wolf. Particularly since 9/11.
Mr. Green. And as they go on in their consular training, I
have to assume that, but let me give you specifics.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
RETURN OF CRIMINAL ALIENS
Mr. Wolf. Certain countries refuse to accept the return of
criminal aliens who are currently being detained in the United
States. There are 3,000 of those detainees and the Justice
Department's costs of detention are substantial. $70 million a
year. Section 621 of last year's CJS bill prohibits the use of
funds by State and Justice to grant visas for countries that
deny the return of such aliens, Somalia, Vietnam.
Mr. Armitage. Cambodia.
Mr. Wolf. Cambodia. This restriction is triggered by
determination by the Attorney General. Mr. Ashcroft expressed a
willingness to make such a determination.
How are you coordinating this with your ambassadors and
with others? By the end of the year I may offer an amendment on
the floor, not put it in the bill, just put it out on the floor
and let members vote, that we do this legislatively to Vietnam.
If Vietnam cannot take back their 340 people. Give me a break.
Now if they take them back, good for them. Good for us. And
also good for the American people, because they will not get
out of jail and rob somebody in the United States or kill
somebody.
So could you talk to us a little bit about that?
Mr. Armitage. Yes, this is a very instructive issue. The
Attorney General not only has a willingness to do it, he has
done it. He invoked, I think it is 243D or B, whatever, in the
case of Guyana. Of course, the State Department took the
position that it would be the end of the world, you cannot do
that. What do you think happened after we--the Attorney General
did invoke it? Within a month Guyana has come to a decision
that they would accept their returnees. It worked just like the
legislation proposed.
We are now using that same threat with Vietnam and Cambodia
particularly. The Attorney General, there is no doubt in my
mind if he does not feel he is getting satisfaction, he will
invoke it in those cases. The most recent one, Guyana, worked
very well for them.
CENTER FOR SECURITY TRAINING
Mr. Wolf. I would encourage you. Armenia has 35 such
people. I am very supportive of Armenia. I was in Nagorno
Karabakh. I think what happened to the Armenian people has been
a tragedy. But I also think Armenia ought to take back these 35
people. Somalia, 51 from Somalia. I would encourage to you do
that. And hopefully we can wrap this up by the end of the year
and find out who really wants to trade with us or have dealings
with us. I did not serve in Vietnam. You did, and I appreciate
that. I have admired you. I have never voted for MFN for
Vietnam but if we are going to trade with them particularly
after the number of lives that we lost in Vietnam, and
colleagues that both of you must have had in Vietnam, clearly
the Vietnamese government better take these people back. If
they do not, we ought not grant any visas. And my sense is this
also goes to the diplomatic corps.
You are requesting 52 million for the establishment of a
Center for Antiterrorism and Security Training in the
Washington, D.C. area. The facility would host training for
State Department diplomatic security agents as well as foreign
law enforcement officers under the Antiterrorism Assistance
Program funded by Mr. Kolbe's foreign operations bill.
Why is this necessary and what will we be doing at this
center? Could you not work it in with Quantico or expanding
Quantico or develop some relationship there?
Mr. Green. Well, sir, the problem we have now, is that we
are spread all over the country.
Mr. Wolf. Yes.
Mr. Green. We have in theory a capacity to train about
3,000 of these people a year. We need to train more than that.
We would like to train 700 under the ATA program and 3,000 of
our diplomatic security agents. We lose a lot of training time.
We are out there with a tin cup begging for ranges and
defensive driving facilities. We need to have a location close
to Washington, which provides a couple of advantages. This
certainly eliminates lost training days, TDY, and travel time.
It also permits those individuals, particularly the foreign law
enforcement personnel who come here for training, to interface
with other law enforcement agencies here in town.
Mr. Wolf. I think it is a great idea.
Mr. Green. A full range of training from medical training
to dog training to ranges, and defensive driving. We will still
have a couple of specialized training facilities like in
Louisiana. We have got a pipeline security facility there
because Louisiana has got a lot of pipelines. We will retain a
small desert training facility in the Southwest. We really need
to bring this together so that we do not waste so much money in
shuttling people around the country and we can expand the
capability through additional training. We are looking at
several sites. Obviously Aberdeen is one that is high on our
list.
Mr. Wolf. I would encourage to you look in Virginia, too. I
mean, I am not trying to--let me say for the record, I do not
put things in my area that ought not be there. If it does not
fit in, then it ought not go. But you also have a facility out
in Warrenton that is a very large, large facility which used to
be with another government agency. And you have----
Mr. Green. Indian Town Gap has been looked at.
Mr. Wolf. You have AP Hill and others. But you feel this
would be an opportunity? Would you then close down other ones?
Where do they go now? Glynco now?
Mr. Green. They would still go to Glynco for normal law
enforcement training. For the foreign terrorists and
antiterrorist training program, the person would come from law
enforcement and individuals from other countries do not go to
Glynco. We have training facilities around the country where we
send them.
Mr. Wolf. Now you train a group in my district, you train
an Egyptian team in Front Royal with regard to the dogs. There
is a dog training facility, ATF and Customs have that. How
would that differ? Would they continue to be there or would
that be then moved to----
Mr. Green. I do not know specifically, sir, but I can
certainly get that.
Mr. Wolf. If you could let us know, because I am interested
in this.
Mr. Green. Okay.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Wolf. Also, how much of it would be diplomatic security
as opposed to the ATA program?
Mr. Green. If we get a single facility, what we are looking
at is 7,000 a year ATA and about 3,000 a year diplomatic
security.
Mr. Wolf. Okay.
Mr. Green. So 35 percent, 65 percent.
EMBASSY SECURITY FUNDING
Mr. Wolf. We are just beginning on the effort to upgrade
the security of all the overseas facilities. Only 3 programs
have been funded from the list of posts requiring urgent
replacement. With all that is left to do and with the current
environment of increased terrorist threats against U.S.
interests worldwide, is it the wrong time to be seeking less
money for embassy security?
Mr. Green. I do not know that we are seeking less. I think
maybe the confusion is in 2002, there was some AID money
included in that number. I think we are really, I think, $24
million higher than----
Mr. Armitage. We have $82 million in 2003 foreign ops
capital construction.
Mr. Wolf. 2002 was $665 million.
Mr. Green. But that included AID. That included about $80
million for AID and----
Mr. Wolf. So if you add that in.
Mr. Armitage. We put it in the foreign ops with Mr. Kolbe.
Mr. Green. So we are actually about a plus $25 million in
2003.
EMBASSY IN BEIJING
Mr. Wolf. We recently received a reprogramming request from
the Department to reallocate $224 million from other priority
fiscal year 2002 embassy security capital construction projects
to the project in Beijing, which your fiscal year 2003 budget
defines as a nonsecurity project. Why are you proposing to do
that, and is the Beijing project a security-driven project as
your reprogramming suggests, or is it driven by post
responsibilities and staffing outgrowing the existing facility?
Mr. Armitage. What it is driven by is a reciprocal
agreement with China. We completed our negotiations with them.
They are moving ahead on their embassy, and we want to move on
the exact same scheduling. We do not want them finishing their
embassy before ours is finished and then finding ourselves with
having difficulty with getting materials introduced. You are
right. The Beijing embassy is on the list and is in the second
tier, and we are using nonsecurity money or requesting to use
nonsecurity money. I think the fact of the matter is where
Beijing may not be a physical security post, it is clearly a
technical security post.
Mr. Wolf. But they do not even allow the Falun Gong to
unveil a banner in Tiananmen. So if they do not want somebody
to come to the embassy, they will not come to the embassy.
Mr. Armitage. It is not so much a physical security as it
is technical security and electronic surveillance. I could make
the argument that it really is a security expenditure.
Mr. Wolf. On that issue, in addition to China, in addition
to the threats of terrorists and criminals fraudulently
obtaining visas, I think there is an urgent need to prevent
visas to those who would commit espionage. I have read things
and have read articles and have talked to individuals talking
about this could potentially be a serious problem with regard
to China, that China may very well have people trying to steal
secrets from the United States, particularly from high-tech
companies. So what do we do to make sure that personnel who are
responsible for issuing visas in China are sensitive to this
issue?
Mr. Armitage. I know it is primarily a domestic law
enforcement issue with FBI, and it is a real problem,
particularly on the West Coast. But it has spread to the East
Coast. It is particularly, as you suggest, in high-tech
machinery, high-tech manufacturing processing. Industrial
espionage is a big factor in China's espionage plans.
I do not know that we have particularly raised this with
consular affairs office. I think it is a little difficult to
know the motives behind some of these people, if they otherwise
qualify for a visa, they are a business person and they want to
do business but they have a sideline of doing industrial
espionage, like the Japanese did for a number of years. Like
the French have had for some years. I guess I need more advice
on it.
INFORMATION SHARING IN GOVERNMENT
Mr. Green. Let me just add one thing, if I might, sir. Very
frankly, we have to do better--I do not mean State Department
necessarily, the Government--we have to do better in having the
FBI share some of that information with us. Of all the sharing
of information that is going on within the Federal Government,
the weakest link as far as our consular offices are concerned
is getting law enforcement information from the FBI. And they
get--I am not throwing rocks, they get into sources and methods
and all of those kinds of things. We have got to have better
cooperation there.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. Well, we will talk briefly. I wanted to
mention it because I wanted to ask you if you could do
something. I think you understand the point that I am trying to
make.
Mr. Green. Yes, sir.
LONG RANGE CONSTRUCTION PLAN
Mr. Wolf. Your testimony last year and this year referred
to the Bureau of Overseas Building Operations' long range
planning efforts, but the committee still has not seen the
plan. If it is linked to appropriation requests and spending
plans, this plan could potentially be a major step toward
making the embassy security and construction program function
more efficiently, including the congressional review process.
Mr. Green. You are going to see it 30 to 45 days. It is at
OMB right now.
Mr. Armitage. 30 to 45 days.
Mr. Green. It is a good document.
VICTIMS OF TERRORISM
Mr. Wolf. Section 626 of last year's bill asked the
President to submit a legislative proposal to establish a
comprehensive program to ensure fair, equitable compensation of
all U.S. victims of international terrorism, including those
with hostage claims against foreign states. The proposal has
not been submitted yet. State has taken the lead in developing
the proposal. I am not asking you to give me specifics at this
time, but could you talk about what type of proposal we might
see, what do you think would be fair, and when the Congress
might very well see something?
Mr. Armitage. We do have the lead. We are required by
legislation to develop such a proposal. Even last night
Assistant Secretary Paul Kelly and others were over at OMB
working on that proposal. Do you know what the timetable is?
Mr. Kelly. It is over at OMB. We are pushing them to get it
over here. Our proposal specifically contains $250,000
compensation across the board for anyone killed in the line of
duty. We are looking at a funding source. That seems to be the
potential concern with OMB, how is this going to be funded? Is
it going to be State's blocked funds? Is it going to be from
the Justice crime fund? Is it going to be appropriated funds?
We are trying to resolve that.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. So you think something will be up here by?
Mr. Kelly. A decision coming out of the OMB within the next
week.
Mr. Wolf. With that, I think what we will do is we will
just submit the rest of the questions for the record. And I
appreciate both of you taking the time, and the hearing is
adjourned.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, March 14, 2002.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE--INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
WITNESSES
JOHN D. NEGROPONTE, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED NATIONS
WILLIAM WOOD, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION AFFAIRS
Opening Remarks of Subcommittee Chairman Wolf
Mr. Wolf. The committee will come to order. The
subcommittee is pleased to welcome today Ambassador John
Negroponte, the U.S. Representative to the United Nations, and
let me say I appreciate your service, Mr. Ambassador, now and
particularly during the 1980s when you did such a great job
with regards to Central America; and, William Wood, the
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for International
Organization Affairs.
We will receive the testimony today regarding your budget
request for assessed contributions to international
organizations. This request represents a decrease of $77
million, or 4.5 percent below the current funding level. We
discussed this before, and I will just say this for the record,
I have been a strong supporter of paying our dues to the U.N. I
have been a strong supporter of the peacekeeping efforts. I
spoke on the floor 3 years ago, in opposition to this
Committee. I don't know, I think probably you would have agreed
with me at that time, but----
Mr. Serrano. I agree with you now.
Mr. Wolf. You don't know what I am going to say, though.
But I think when you join an organization you pay your dues. I
think we have an obligation, a moral obligation, to do it. That
gives you the right to then speak out and help shape that
organization. If you are part of a Democratic Caucus or a
Republican Caucus in the Congress and you pay your dues, you
have the right to articulate your values and try to get your
group, and whether it be the YMCA or the local Rotary Club or
the U.N., to expound the views that you believe very deeply.
America is a good country. We are decent. We have done a
lot of good things, and I think at the U.N. we should be
speaking out. This is not directed against you, because I know
you have just arrived there, and also with regard to September
11, which has changed a lot of things and taken a lot of time,
but I think we ought to articulate our values. I would have
hoped we would have spoken out at the U.N. with regard to the
fact that the Sudan Government killed 17 innocent southern
Sudanese at a World Food Program site. They just gunned them
down. I think that is the type of thing that you could have
gone to the Security Council, you could have gone to the
General Assembly and spoken out.
We do better when we articulate our values, and our values
are universal values. President Reagan made a comment that the
words of the Declaration of Independence that are constantly
quoted, ``life, liberty, pursuit of happiness'', ``all men and
women are created equal'', that is the way to govern the whole
world. Those words, in essence, came before the Constitution,
and so when we articulate those values, they are not any danger
to anybody. They are actually liberating, and we are, in
essence, siding with the people.
For instance, with regard to Iran, I agree with the
President's, ``axis of evil'' statement. Remember when Ronald
Reagan was criticized for the ``Evil Empire''? He was right.
That was the beginning of the end of the Soviet Union. I think
we should also make it clear that we speak out for human rights
in Iran and maybe articulate that the Iranian Government should
release some of the dissidents in jail. By doing that we will
send a message to the Iranian people that we are with them.
Like in the old days when we spoke out on behalf of human
rights in Romania, most of the Romanian people, except for
Securitate and Ceaucescu's henchmen, most of them wanted us to
take away the MFN because they knew that by doing that, it
showed we were identifying with them. So I really think at the
U.N. it is very important that we articulate our values.
Also I would say David Welch, who was here in Mr. Wood's
place last year, has kind of broken his promise. He said when
he became the Ambassador to Egypt, he would speak out for the
Coptic Christians. We have given Egypt, our good friend, $47
billion since Camp David, and life for a Coptic Christian in
Egypt is worse today than it was then.
Well, Mr. Ambassador, you knew that during the Reagan years
when Secretary Shultz would go to Moscow, he would articulate
on behalf of the dissidents, sometimes wear their bracelets,
meet with them in the embassy. Why isn't our Ambassador in
Egypt meeting with the Coptic Christians? Why isn't he
articulating freedom, liberty, freedom of worship? We have a
diversity in this country, it is one of our strongest assets.
We allow people to come here and build mosques, but you can't
build a church in Egypt.
In Saudi Arabia we saw the story of a young major, an
American military person, a woman, who didn't want to have to
wear the veil in Egypt. We should be standing with her. When
the Saudi Government, when Prince Bandar, who lives out in my
congressional district, comes to the United States, he can
worship and go wherever he wants to go. I would defend him and
stand next to him and say Prince Bandar has that right, and I
would go with him if anyone said he couldn't do it. But I also
would want a Christian, or somebody who is Jewish, or a Hindu,
or of the Muslim faith, or a Buddhist in Saudi Arabia to be
able to worship there. If you are Roman Catholic, why shouldn't
you be able to take holy communion from a priest? If you are in
the American military, why shouldn't you be able to go without
a veil? We are never going to offend anyone if we do it with
humility.
I didn't plan on getting into all of this, but it is just
now coming out. President Bush, who I admire very much, and as
a matter of fact I think the speech that the President gave at
the U.N. was an unbelievable speech. I have been at the U.N.
When people are speaking and nobody is listening. Everybody
listened to him. You could have heard a pin drop. If we do it
with humility, not arrogance, not beating people over the head,
people will listen. I think we are strong, we are certainly
strong with the people. So I would hope at the U.N. we could be
speaking out for the persecuted, speaking out on behalf of
human rights and religious freedom.
You are in a key spot with regard to the reputation the
United States has in the Middle East. I saw the Gallup poll. I
think it would be important to get up and give a major speech.
It was American military that brought peace to Bosnia. They
were all Muslims. I supported the bombing of Serbia, which is a
non-Muslim country, in support of the Kosovo Albanian Muslims.
I supported the effort with regard to the Gulf War, and our
poll numbers in Kuwait were worse than they were in any other
place.
So I think you have to tell the American story: good
people, decent people, open, liberty, freedom. Yesterday,
Justice Kennedy was talking about liberty, freedom, and
tolerance, that is what we are. We are open. We welcome other
people, but they have to do the same for us.
I think you are in a key spot, and, frankly, I think your
appointment was a great appointment, and you are a good person.
I know 9-11 has over taken everything, but now that we are
beginning to do other things in addition, I think it is
important to articulate our values. They are good values, and
we seek to dominate nobody. Frankly, some of these countries in
the Middle East would be in a very precarious situation if it
was not for the United States government. We have to tell
people who we are and what we stand for and what we believe and
verbalize it over and over. When you sell a product, sometimes
you have to say it 10 times before it sinks in. We know it. All
of us up here know it. The American people know it. Now we have
to take it out and tell them. We have to export that value and
not Baywatch or some of the stuff that is coming out.
I just hope you will use the opportunity to speak out on
these issues at the U.N. Once we resolve the 9-11 and get
things worked out. I think you should tell Ambassador Welch, I
have last year's hearing on the record. If I am wrong, I will
publicly apologize. If he can send me the speeches where he has
named names, then I will come in here and I will say that I was
wrong. But just to say, ``I am for human rights''; Mention the
names of the people in the prison. Sharansky will tell you that
when people mentioned his name when he was in the Perm, his
life got better. Wei will tell you that his life got better.
So you have to mention individuals. Mr. Serrano knows this.
People come up to you and say, I am really for you, but I just
don't want to say it publicly. Well, in political life if you
want to be neutral, that is okay, but if you are for me, you
ought to say so publicly. I think if we are for them, we should
be publicly identifying and speaking out for the persecuted
Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, the Baha'i faith--we
should be articulating more to the Baha'is in Iran. That is
what America is, and when we do that we are on very, very high
ground, and we can make a tremendous difference.
With that I recognize Mr. Serrano.
Opening Remarks of Ranking Minority Member Serrano
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I tell you, I am very
honored to be the senior Democrat on this subcommittee. I have
great respect for the fact that you have strong beliefs as I do
about some of these issues.
Let me welcome both of these gentlemen. It is an honor and
a pleasure to have you here. As my record will indicate, I am a
strong supporter of our participation in the U.N. and
international organizations. I have put my actions where my
mouth is and I am very supportive of paying our dues and
participating in every organization that we should.
However, our participation in the U.N. sometimes breaks my
heart because you have no choice but to toe the party line, the
administration line, whichever administration that is. I wasn't
happy with the last one on some of these international issues
either. So I know, for instance, the tensions that exist
between the American delegation and the Cuban delegation at the
U.N. There is some sort of a friendship established between the
American delegation and other delegations who may be accused of
the same thing that the Cubans are accused of.
Why do I bring up that? First because I have a long-
standing tradition in this subcommittee to try to bring up Cuba
and Puerto Rico at least once during every subcommittee
hearing, and I just accomplished both, and I will figure out
how to bring up Puerto Rico in terms of substance. But I
continue to be troubled by our foreign policy when it comes to
our ability to pick out on a case-by-case basis which
Socialists/Communists we deal with. On the House floor you find
people who are the hardest hard-liners on sinking the island of
Cuba, who are the strongest supporters of trading with China,
and they can explain that.
I believe in trading with everyone. I believe if you talk
to people, you may get them to see your way rather than
confronting them all the time. So I am troubled at what I know
will have to be your role at the U.N. Now that Mr. Otto Reich,
our Assistant Secretary of State, has made in a speech a
statement about the Cuban Government and the island of Cuba
that we haven't heard perhaps in all of the 42 years. It was
borrowed, I believe, from Nikita Khrushchev's line that ``we
will bury you,'' and his comment was that our policy will even
get tougher and stronger, and that we will not trade or sell
food or medicine, and we will just make them cry, ``Uncle
Sam.'' That troubles me a lot because I think there is a major
problem with our policy.
Having said that, I think it is important for all of you
who are involved in setting forth our policy and when you meet
together to keep in mind that while on one hand we have the
administration on the issue of Cuba being stronger than any
administration has been in a long time in terms of burying them
or making them cry uncle, we now have more Republican Members
of Congress joining Democrats in saying this policy has to ease
off or has to change, or it has to end. I knew that would
happen. I have been quoted for years as saying that the Cuban
embargo would either change or end when Wall Street and farmers
wanted it to end, but not when I or people who want political
changes say so. So Wall Street is saying, end it, and farmers
are saying they can certainly eat our wheat. Their bread tastes
better this month than it did two months ago.
Having said all that, and joining my Chairman in saying I
don't know why I got into this, but I support your efforts. You
will find that even though I don't agree with a lot of parts of
our policy, especially in Latin America, I do support our
peacekeeping efforts. I will do whatever I have to do to make
sure that we pay our dues, that we are never in arrears again,
and that we participate in peacekeeping efforts. So consider
me, if you will, a disagreeing at times ally, not disagreeable,
but disagreeing at times ally, who really believes that our
best policy should be divulged to everyone who understands
politics and understands Florida politics and Florida
reelection politics during the reelection year. So I thank you,
and I welcome you.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you.
Your full statement will appear in the record. You can
proceed as you wish.
Opening Remarks of Ambassador Negroponte
Ambassador Negroponte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just
briefly, before going into my summary remarks, which will be
quite brief, let me just answer in part some of the comments
you made.
I recall reading the testimony that Mr. Welch made before
you last year and the comments you made, if I recall correctly,
about the urgency of finding some kind of special envoy for the
country of Sudan. And I recall that, and if I remember, it was
quite an impassioned statement that you made, and I think that
you would agree that the administration has been responsive to
that.
Mr. Wolf. I do.
Ambassador Negroponte. I think that Senator Danforth,
assisted by Robert Oakley, has moved the issue along quite
nicely on that.
Mr. Wolf. I agree.
Ambassador Negroponte. I just wanted to mention that. On
the subject of human rights, I don't think there is anything
you said that I could possibly take issue with. I agree with
your statement, and I think we should speak out, and we do.
Just to cite a couple of examples: in Iran, we were supportive
of the Iranian resolution that went through the General
Assembly this year that was sponsored by the Europeans.
Our representative before the Economic and Social Council
of the United Nations is Sichan Siv, a Cambodian Holocaust
survivor, a man who left Cambodia in 1976, and 16 years later
he was the Deputy Assistant to the President of the United
States, and now he is our ambassador to the ECOSOC, and last
year he was one of our delegates to the Human Rights Commission
in Geneva.
Next, the work we have done in Afghanistan and for Afghan
women. Mrs. Bush spoke the other day at the Conference on Women
in New York. The initiatives of Mark Grossman in support of
freedom of religion. The Greek Orthodox Archbishop has praised
the work that Mark that has done with respect to trying to help
protect the interests of the Greek church in Istanbul. The
resolution on the protection of the religious sites that was
passed recently by the United Nations.
I suspect this is one of these situations where the glass
is sort of half empty and half full. Clearly there is always
more that can be done. I will take your comments to heart, Mr.
Chairman, and try to find ways to better bring to the
committee's attention what it is that is already being done,
and then also take a hard look at what more it is we can do.
You have my commitment in that regard, and I couldn't agree
with you more. I genuinely and sincerely agree with you that
the U.N. is a platform where we must articulate the fundamental
values of the United States. I wholeheartedly agree with you.
To Mr. Serrano, I would like to mention the fact that our
President is about to embark on a trip to Latin America. He is
going to the Monterrey Conference late next week, which is a
U.N.-sponsored conference on financing for development. Then he
is on to Peru and coming back to El Salvador. I think we will
see in the very near future an important statement of the
administration's interest in Latin America.
Let me just comment on the importance of our funding
request, and say that last summer as I prepared for my
potential responsibilities in New York, I contemplated an
ambitious U.N. agenda. Then September 11 happened. The pre-
September 11 agenda remains relevant and pressing. It is all
about building a lasting peace. But the post 9-11 agenda is
even more urgent. It is all about winning a complex war.
Let me itemize for you the elements of our agenda for peace
as we headed into the 56th General Assembly last year, that is
before September 11: maintaining U.N. budget discipline and
continuing the work of building a more effective and efficient
U.N. through reform; enhancing and rationalizing the capacity
of the U.N. Department of Peacekeeping Operations; following
through on the conclusions of a successful special U.N. General
Assembly session focusing on combating HIV/AIDS; meeting the
challenge of advancing sustainable global development; calling
for greater attention to fundamental freedoms; improving the
safety and security of U.N. personnel around the globe;
reaffirming our commitment to improve the lives of children and
the hungry. Mr. Chairman, I think we have made progress in each
dimension of this program, September 11 notwithstanding.
Let me turn briefly to our post-September 11 agenda. U.N.
actions in response to those tragic events underscore the value
of the United Nations to U.S. foreign policy and global
security. We have enjoyed an extraordinary level of solidarity,
support, and cooperation at the United Nations. Individual
member states, the U.N. General Assembly, the U.N. Security
Council, and the U.N. Secretary General have all stood by our
side.
The single most powerful response of the U.N. came on
September 28, when the Security Council passed Resolution 1373
instructing all member states to review their domestic laws and
practices to ensure that terrorists could not finance their
operations or find safe haven. To date 144 out of 189 member
states have submitted detailed reports on legislation and
practices in their countries. Those states that need our help
in this fight will benefit from technical assistance provided
by lateral and multilateral donors.
At the same time the Security Council initiated the
difficult work of helping rescue Afghanistan from the
accumulated ravages of serving as host to global terrorism's
headquarters. In a remarkably short time the U.N. brokered the
coordination of an interim government, fostered plans for a
longer-term, popularly chosen government, encouraged the
creation of the British-led International Security Assistance
Force, and played a major role in an international donors
conference that generated sufficient pledges to sustain
progress over the next 18 months. All the while, of course,
U.N. relief agencies with significant U.S. support rushed
humanitarian aid to the desperate Afghan people.
We must continue to work with the U.N. to guarantee that
terrorism never takes root in Afghanistan again. We also must
continue to keep close watch on states that have developed
weapons of mass destruction which could be used to enhance the
terrorists' destructive capabilities. In the case of Iraq, the
Baghdad regime refuses to comply with Security Council
resolutions, accepting the return of weapons inspectors, fully
declaring and destroying prohibited weapons of mass destruction
and missiles, and dismantling the programs that created them.
Let me emphasize that we do not pursue a policy to injure
the people of Iraq. In a major effort to free up trade and
goods, the Bush administration proposed revamping the U.N.
sanctions to focus on prohibited dual-use and military
technologies. We are now close to the agreement on the new so-
called ``Goods Review List'' that will guide this approach as
the Security Council decided that unanimously late last year.
Mr. Chairman, peacekeeping is a critical function of the
United Nations. It enables us to provide security in
postconflict areas without engaging U.S. troops. Let me cite
but a few examples of the most important operations currently
taking place.
In Sierra Leone, Unamasil has helped restore a new level of
stability. Forty-five thousand RUF rebels and progovernment
militia have turned in their weapons.
In Kosovo we have seen the successful election of Ibrahim
Rugova as the first President of the Kosovar Assembly.
In East Timor the peacekeeping operation there has
contributed to progress towards elections scheduled for April
14.
There is an important point that I would like to stress
here, Mr. Chairman. Beyond specific cases, I do want to
emphasize that we need to have the cap on peacekeeping
assessments lifted effective January 2001, to avoid accruing
arrears of some $78 million last year and a similar amount this
year.
Our effectiveness at the United Nations rests on the
goodwill we enjoy throughout the membership. Thanks to Congress
we were able to release $582 million in arrears last year. Now
we are making excellent progress on the benchmarks required for
final payments under the Helms-Biden legislation. We expect the
U.N. to fulfill these conditions this summer, enabling us to
release $30 million to the United Nations. This assumes that
the State authorization bill will be enacted shortly.
The funding we seek in this request is consistent with our
approach to maintaining budget discipline. It represents a 1.2
percent a year over the previous budget primarily because of
inflation and currency fluctuations, but it is far below the
U.N.'s threshold for zero real growth. It comes amidst the
Secretary General's continuing efforts, which we support, for
additional reforms, comprehensive reviews of major U.N.
departments, and in-depth analysis to determine low priority or
obsolete mandates.
Mr. Chairman, the war against global terrorism comes first,
but fortifying the conditions of peace is an agenda we will not
likely surrender. We will not be deterred on either front.
In conclusion, let me emphasize my conviction that our
efforts at the U.N. have been completely in line with President
Bush's broader agenda against global terrorism and
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Since September
11, the United Nations has repeatedly demonstrated its
relevance to our foreign policy goals and national security
objectives, be they with respect to terrorism, Afghanistan, or
Iraq. I would submit to you that under the circumstances, our
budget request for our U.N. contributions are deserving of full
and timely support.
I thank the committee for its attention and would welcome
any questions.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Wood.
Opening Remarks of William Wood
Mr. Wood. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple
of introductory comments regarding the points that you made.
You should know that just last evening, in fact, we instructed
our embassies in the capitals of all of the member states of
the Commission on Human Rights and our delegation in Geneva to
raise our priorities for the Commission on Human Rights
session, which convenes next Monday. We are observers in this
session, but we are not passive observers. The first priority
we raised in this cable was Sudan, and we asked for an accurate
and complete resolution that will cover the subjects of
slavery, interference with humanitarian relief, persecution of
religious minorities, and attacks against the civilian
population and humanitarian workers.
In Iran, we asked for a strong resolution focusing on
restrictions against women, the impediments to religious
freedom and the impediments to freedom of expression.
In the case of Cuba, Mr. Serrano, we are also seeking a
resolution, and our focus this year is the need for a
democratic opening in Cuba. That is our primary orientation
there.
HUMAN RIGHTS IN CHINA
Mr. Serrano. Are you seeking the same one for China?
Mr. Wood. The China resolution is still under review. We
are absolutely convinced that we have to take some action on
China. We are not sure what it is, following the President's
trip to Beijing where the President, of course, went through
the full agenda.
Mr. Serrano. But you are not seeking the same one on China
or North Korea?
Mr. Wood. I can only say we are certainly seeking a
resolution on North Korea.
Mr. Serrano. Did you mention that?
Mr. Wood. No. I was only addressing the ones you had
mentioned.
Mr. Serrano. I just want to know how many, quote/unquote,
bad states you are seeking one on, and how many bad states that
we are making money from we are not seeking one on.
Mr. Wood. Again, when you cast your priorities in a cable
like this, one of the things you want to do is advance your
priorities in areas where you think there may not be adequate
action taken by others, but I can assure you that North Korean
and Chinese human rights are high in our agenda.
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Chairman, I apologize for interrupting,
but you know how I feel about this. With all due respect, sir,
I think what should happen when you come to these hearings is
be straight, but don't ever insult my intelligence. You are
seeking it against Cuba because that is what the administration
wants to do. You are not seeking it against China in the same
way because we make money with China, and there is no one
running in China for reelection. They are running in Florida
for reelection.
So if we understand what is going on, we can get along;
otherwise this is a waste of time for me.
Ambassador Negroponte. Excuse me, but perhaps you saw
President Bush's appearance at Tsinghua University in China
when he was on his trip, and he spoke out very strongly on
human rights.
Mr. Serrano. Right. And I would like to see his appearance
in Havana, too.
Ambassador Negroponte. I am saying he spoke out very
strongly on Chinese human rights and freedom of religion.
Mr. Serrano. You could call me any name you want and still
vote for me, and I will be fine. You could trade with me and
call me names, I am fine. It is a problem when you try to
strangle me and 11 million people on an island in the Caribbean
and then come before a committee of Congress and say there is a
moral justification for what you are doing. There is no
morality involved in the fact that we deal with China and not
with Cuba, none whatsoever, except that the Chinese American
community is not as strong as Dade County, Miami, period. It is
that simple. If we know that, we can have a better, respectful
understanding.
Mr. Wood. Let me turn to my prepared statement. It is a
pleasure to appear here with Ambassador Negroponte, who heads
up what is really a dream team in New York that includes one of
our most distinguished Foreign Service officers who served as
charge d'affaires for 9 months, Ambassador Sichan Siv, who
personally experienced what it means to live under and escape
from a brutal regime; the former Assistant Secretary of
International Affairs, who has special responsibility in New
York with peacekeeping, and the most experienced Foreign
Service officer in the business on administrative matters, who
is watching budgetary and management matters in New York.
Let me also say that I think the relationship between the
United States and United Nations is supportive and mutually
reinforcing. Part of the reason for that is the very positive
role that the Secretary General Kofi Annan has been playing. He
was reelected in June for his second 5-month term in an
unprecedented manner, demonstrating international support for
his leadership, and the U.S. is in regular dialogue with him
primarily through Ambassador Negroponte.
In that regard we are very pleased at his continued efforts
to make the U.N. a sharper instrument for use by its members
and more efficient and effective. Just last week, for instance,
he announced a new initiative that was his initiative, no one
else's initiative, to try to make an even more efficient U.N.
Third, the U.N. completion of a number of steps permitted a
release of $582 million in arrears last year, which removed a
major irritant and an easy talking point for those who disagree
with us. As the Secretary of State made clear in his recent
testimony before this committee, it is important that the
Congress approve legislation lifting the 25 percent cap on our
peacekeeping rate effective January 1, 2001, so that we can
make good on the agreement that lowered our rate of assessment
effective that same day. It is also important that the Congress
approve legislation relating to the third tranche of our
arrears payments so that we can take better advantage of the
considerable progress mentioned by Ambassador Negroponte that
the U.N. institutions have achieved in reaching those
benchmarks, and so that we can make a final payment of $244
million, $30 million of it to the U.N. and $214 million to
other international organizations.
Mr. Chairman, the U.N. continues to act in areas of prime
importance to the United States. In my prepared statement I
discuss the areas of most urgent priority: counterterrorism,
Afghanistan, Iraq, and I demonstrate the range of U.N.
involvement in all of those issues, such as the U.N. political
role; its capacity for mobilizing international consensus and
compassion; its capacity for unifying the world behind a set of
values that since its founding has steadily moved in the
direction we favor, that is, the rights of the individual and
the dignity of the individual; its humanitarian role; its
developmental role; and its peacekeeping role. Although a
number of these activities are funded through voluntary
contributions and, therefore, do not fall under the
responsibilities of the U.N., I believe it is necessary to take
the full range of U.N. activities into account and assessing
its contributions to U.S. foreign policy interests.
Afghanistan is a classic case of the humanitarian side, the
political side, the peacekeeping side, and the developmental
side all coming together in a very positive synergy.
Another area of intense U.N. activity is Africa. In our
budget request for peacekeeping assessments, more than two-
thirds is for Africa. Sierra Leone and MONUC in the Democratic
Republic are the two largest items in our peacekeeping request.
I am pleased to report progress on the ground in both cases,
but not as much as we would like. U.N. peacekeepers are also
active in Ethiopia and Eritrea, where the U.N. plays a pivotal
role in defending the peace, and in the western Sahara building
ceasefires. The underlying question of the status of the region
still has to be resolved, however.
The U.N. has more than 15 special envoys of one form or
another for Africa confronting challenges in Sudan, Angola and
elsewhere. Just last week I joined Deputy Secretary Armitage in
meeting with the coordinator for Sudan, and the principal topic
of their discussion was the outrageous attack on the
humanitarian workers a few days earlier. In the interest of
starving aggression and in all political humanitarian
developmental activities in the U.N., the pathbreaking special
session of the General Assembly on AIDS had a special relevance
to Africa. In the interest of starving aggression and advancing
peace, targeted sanctions of the Security Council are also
enforced on Liberia, Somalia, Unita, Angola and nongovernmental
forces in Rwanda and Sierra Leone. Africa occupies more than 50
percent of the Security Council's time and is likely to
continue to do so.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, I am very grateful for this
opportunity to appear before you. The U.N. continues to take
action in areas that are urgent and areas that are merely
important, but it continues to take action around the world.
The U.S. is a full participant in every aspect of U.N.
activity, and with the support of the committee, we will
continue to be so. Thank you very much, sir.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Wolf. At the outset I want to make sure this is not an
adversarial relationship. Speaking for myself, I am very, very
supportive of what the Bush administration has done and,
frankly, what Secretary Powell has done with regards to the
Sudan. The President mentioned the Sudan in three different
speeches last year before the appointment of a special envoy.
This is my opportunity, though, and your opportunity to make
sure that we continue to sort of push the envelope even farther
on some of these issues.
There was a quote by Martin Luther King, Jr. He said, ``In
the end we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the
silence of our friends.'' We don't want there to be the silence
of our friends by abdicating the responsibility to speak out.
Also let me say what the U.N. World Food Program has
averted a fundamental famine that would have taken many more
lives in Afghanistan. So this is not meant to be adversarial.
But these are points that I think----
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Chairman, may I say something? Obviously
the word ``adversarial'' alludes to my behavior.
Mr. Wolf. No, it wasn't yours. It was me, because I started
it----
Mr. Serrano. But I followed it up.
Mr. Wolf. We are together, and let me just say----
Mr. Serrano. I think when you deal with the truth, and you
question the motives of our foreign policy towards one island
in the Caribbean and reelection politics in Florida, because
Dr. King also told us that the truth will set you free, and I
think it is because we all want to be free.
Mr. Wolf. On that, then we will move from this, Mr. Serrano
has a legitimate point in that point. I differ with him, but my
difference is that I was opposed to MFN for China because there
are Catholic bishops in jail and Protestant pastors. So I was
opposed to what we did for China with MFN, and I am opposed to
the Castro administration down in Cuba. I think his point is
well taken, what he says is the difference with regard to Cuba
and China, and he makes a very----
Mr. Serrano. I respect the fact, Mr. Chairman, that you
have taken the opposite side, but you have been consistent on
it. I support trading with China; I support trading with Cuba.
You do not support either. I respect that.
U.N. Sanctions on Liberia
Mr. Wolf. A U.N. panel of experts issued a report in
December of 2000 which found overwhelming evidence that Charles
Taylor continues to be a major source of instability plaguing
West Africa. There are U.N. Security Council sanctions on
travel and on arms and diamond trading, and we would like to
hear whether you think they are effective.
Secondly, Charles Taylor continues to destabilize in that
portion of the world. There are reports in the Washington Post
of the diamond trade coming out of there funding al Qaeda,
funding Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the experts panel found a
payment from the Liberian flag ship registry to a known arms
trafficker.
The ship registry and timber bring an estimated $220
million a year of revenue to the Liberian Government. Liberia's
maritime and corporate registry is of international repute. It
has also been a steady source of revenue for the Liberian
Government. From 1949 to 1999, the registry remitted around,
U.S. Dollars, $700 million to the government.
Charles Taylor helped--Charles Taylor is really responsible
for many of the atrocities. He and Foday Sankoh were partners
in that criminal activity. During the civil war, the revenue
from the ship registry represented 90 percent of the total
state budget. Previously it had been 10 to 15 percent. Today
the revenues account for about 50 percent of the country's
official budget, according to the Bureau of Maritime Affairs.
Could you comment on one, the effectiveness of the
sanctions; two, the idea of taking the Liberian flag away and
having our government be actively involved in that; and three,
dealing with the issue of sanctions on timber which is a major
environmental issue as well as a human rights issue.
Mr. Wood. Let me try to answer that, Mr. Chairman. First,
regarding the effectiveness of the sanctions on Liberia, I
think that our best indicator, because it is always hard to
know what the actions are that have not taken place because we
have levied sanctions, but our best indicator is that the
Government of Liberia just hates these sanctions. They have
launched major political efforts. They have protested to the
Security Council, to the United Nations. They have squirmed and
squealed, if I may say so, about the travel ban. They have made
it very clear that they are very unhappy, so we are actually
happy in almost direct proportion to their unhappiness.
Regarding further sanctions, we have studied the timber
issue. We have studied the ship registry issue. Right now
because of the Liberian diplomatic initiative that I have
mentioned among African states in particular, we are not
finding as much support for broader sanctions on Liberia as we
would like to see. We can be in favor of broader sanctions
within the Security Council, and we will continue to talk about
that. We are not the problem on that. The question is finding
the support and the votes.
Third, regarding ship registry, I know there have been some
discussions about the International Maritime Organization
taking some action. In fact, the International Maritime
Organization is oriented almost exclusively toward safety and
security of merchant shipping and really doesn't have anything
to do with the issuance of national flags and the registration
of ships under national flags. That will be a sanction that
would be carried out by the Security Council, if it could be
carried out by the Security Council. We are not finding
significant support for that in the Council in part because
there is a view that just might not be as targeted a sanction
as other steps. There is a real reluctance in the Security
Council to take steps that would damage the civilian economy of
countries rather than aiming at the decisionmakers who are the
source of the troubles.
Abuse of Children in west African Refugee camps
Mr. Wolf. I think, though, that the money from the flag
registry has enabled him to stay in power, and the hospital in
the capital of Monrovia is horrible. Life is horrible. And I
really think both the U.N. and the American Government ought to
look at taking the flag away from Liberia. We won't beat that
too much, but I think we ought to look at that, and I think we
also ought to look at the timber issue, because he has been
involved in the death of a lot of people. He also is creating
the problem in Sierra Leone.
I don't know if you read the piece in the Washington Post
about the diamond situation, but I think it isn't just one
country. It is that whole region, and what is taking place with
regard to terrorism.
The other issue is the abuse of children. Recently a U.N.
High Commissioner for Refugees study alleged that children in
refugee camps in West Africa are being sexually exploited by
camp officials. These officials in many cases are using
humanitarian aid in return for sexual favors. Over 40 aid
agencies were implicated, and U.N. peacekeepers are also
reported to be involved.
Taking advantage of the most vulnerable is reprehensible,
and especially when it is done on behalf of those who they are
supposedly helping. The U.N. appears to have been aware of the
reports since early December; yet they have appeared to have
only informed governments and NGOs after the press reported it.
When did the U.S. Mission learn of the allegations, number
one; and, two, does the UNHCR have an explanation as to why
they withheld this information and perhaps delayed corrective
action, thereby resulting in young people being every day
abused?
Ambassador Negroponte. Well, my----
Mr. Wolf. So be the first question would be when did the
U.S. Mission learn of the allegation?
Ambassador Negroponte. I am not certain that I have all the
information, although I have an indication here that in January
2, 2002, these allegations came from a report by consultants
who were engaged by the UNHCR and the nongovernmental
organization concern Save the Children U.K., and this
information was provided to UNHCR and the OIOS, which is the
Office of Internal Oversight at the U.N., at the end of
January.
Let me just add that we are appalled by these allegations,
and we are following the issue closely. We have had a series of
high-level meetings with the UNHCR urging immediate action to
prevent the sexual exploitation of children, and we are also in
touch with other U.N. agencies and nongovernmental
organizations whose staffs are alleged to have been involved.
The U.N. has a team right now in the region investigating the
complaints, and we expect a report once the investigation is
complete.
Mr. Wolf. Do you know when that will be?
Ambassador Negroponte. I do not, sir, but I can certainly
find out, and we certainly want to see this through to a
conclusion as quickly as possible in terms of getting the
necessary information on which to base some action.
Mr. Wolf. I think we ought to ask the UNHCR why they
withheld the information. When you are part of the dues-paying
group, the information certainly ought to come, and there are a
lot of American citizens who donate with regard to helping out,
and very compassionate, and I think in some of those camps, I
mean, the conditions are horrible, and then to add this on top
of it. So hopefully you can kind of keep us informed and get us
an assurance that the practices are ending, and the children
are being protected and that they are punishing the
individuals. I think that may be some of the problems. You are
really going to have to punish those who are involved;
otherwise it may continue in other places.
Ambassador Negroponte. Just to say I am not absolutely
certain that what was withheld when, but I will also look into
that, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. So you say the Office of Internal Oversight, they
are doing an investigation. We don't know when the report is
going to come, and hopefully there will be prosecution of
individuals involved if there is a crime.
Ambassador Negroponte. And whatever other forms of
disciplinary action would be required.
PEACEKEEPING IN CONGO
Mr. Wolf. I am going to ask one more, and then I will go to
Mr. Serrano. On the Congo, despite the overall reductions in
the peacekeeping request, the largest single item increase in
the entire State Department budget, an additional $190 million
for U.N. Peacekeeping in Congo. Did either of you see the Ted
Koppel Nightline piece? I think you ought to watch it. It was
about 2 hours. He was in eastern Congo, Goma and Lake Kivu. Two
thousand five hundred people are dying every day. By the end of
today another 2,500 there will die. That is really not a
success story.
I think we ought to try to be bringing parties together,
whether it be through the U.N., or you can't have 2,500 people
die every day. And then you overlay that with the volcano. Can
you tell us what you think about it? That is costing a lot of
money, too, and the results are not very good.
Mr. Wood. I think we would both like to respond because
while the Sierra Leone problem in Africa is a very intense one,
Congo, because of its size, an area the size from Chicago to
California, is the big problem. It receives constant attention
in the State Department. It is very high in the Secretary
General's personal agenda. It is a large peacekeeping
operation. The numbers in the budget submission for 2002 and
2003 are slightly misleading because there will have to be some
reprogramming in the course of 2002. Sierra Leone is going to
come in a little bit cheaper than we expected, and Congo is
going to come in more expensive.
We are prepared to pay that and support that. Indeed when
we made the initial budget estimate, there were only about 200
peacekeepers, and we were expecting 5,500 to be in place by the
end of the spring of this year.
The essence of the problem in the Congo is that both
Kinshasa and Kigali, both the Democratic Republic of Congo and
neighboring Rwanda, have legitimate security concerns which
they are attempting to address, which increases the security
concerns of the other.
It is an extremely difficult problem with huge humanitarian
consequences, although the humanitarian consequences now are
less acute than they were a couple of years ago when you had
refugees in groups of several hundred thousand on the move
through the most rural parts, the most inhospitable parts of
the country. So far, the U.N., the African leaders and the
United States and everyone who was involved in the problem have
succeeded in getting a disengagement by the foreign forces and
a sharp reduction in the fighting, but we are not even close to
peace there and we know we are not.
Speaking from the State Department headquarters
perspective, I can tell you that this is an issue that we have
spent lots of time on. At the same time, because of the
difficulties, because of the inaccessibility and because of the
size of the country, it is one where we are also very leery, or
our desire to resolve the problem leads to false hopes and to
either unnecessary risk for peacekeepers or unnecessary expense
for member states.
Our request is $273 million for fiscal year 2003 at roughly
27 percent. That will give you an idea of the overall cost of
the peacekeeping mission to the international community.
Roughly four times that amount is the overall cost of what the
U.N. is doing on the peacekeeping side, in addition to its
humanitarian, political, developmental activities in the Congo.
We are trying to help, but it is not easy.
Ambassador Negroponte. I think that the situation has
improved since Kabila's son has taken over. I think it has
improved. There is a heck of a long way to go, but it is much
better than it was under his father. That is one point I would
want to make.
On the AIDS issue, I think part of the contribution to the
very high death toll you are talking about is the HIV/AIDS rate
of infection, and anything that can be done in that area is
also helpful. It is an issue on which the Security Council gets
briefed very frequently. I don't think that I know of a more
complex issue that we are dealing with, because you have seven
foreign armies in the country. There is a very complicated
inter-Congolese dialogue that is being pulled together with the
help of both an African mediator and a special representative
of the Secretary General. It does get a lot of attention, but
it is a very difficult problem.
Some of the high costs involved in operating the Congo are
attributable to the almost total lack of infrastructure in that
country, due to either the total lack or destruction of the
existing infrastructure of that country.
PROBLEMS FACING AFRICA
Mr. Wolf. First, we ought to tell Uganda to get its troops
out and we ought to tell Rwanda to get its troops out. We have
to make a greater effort.
I think the administration, and I mentioned this to
Secretary Powell ought to put together a blue ribbon panel to
look at Africa. Africa is falling apart: Sudan, Algeria, the
Congo. The best minds ought to come together on AIDS, poverty,
hunger, to think what should our policy be with regard to
Africa. How do we make life better? The amount of money that we
are spending for peacekeeping, they are not keeping the peace.
They are all hunkered down. They are not out among the people
generally. The countries are so large, if there was a
peacekeeper on every square mile, you could not do it.
I think 90 days, tops, a group of knowledgeable people
maybe spend a week or two in Africa and come up with a new
concept. How do we forgive debt? What do we do with regard to
hunger and AIDS? Otherwise, more people are going to die and
the problems go on for years and years.
The Congolese do not hire powerful people here in town.
They do not have anybody. People get briefed and then they move
on, and 250,000 more die.
We will share the video with you, and you can give your
thoughts.
Mr. Serrano. I apologize ahead of time, but if you can,
take me through what I see as a little contradiction here.
On the one hand, there is a $118 million reduction in our
peacekeeping budget. Please comment, why you believe that we
can cut the budget.
Secondly, if we do not lift the cap, which you are asking
for, we will accrue arrears because I understand we are being
assessed on roughly 27 percent. There is a reduction and then a
desire for an increase? Take me through that, please.
PEACEKEEPING CAP AND FY03 REQUEST
Mr. Wood. First, thank you very much for your interest in
the cap. This is an important issue.
We accumulated roughly $78 million in arrears last year
because of the failure to lift the cap. We carried that money
forward, so once we are authorized to pay, we can pay without
any new appropriated funds for last year.
Our budget estimates this year are based on the assumption
of a cap. At the same time, we have provided information to
your staff directly and in the course of our regular monthly
briefings, which we think is a very good way of improving
transparency and communication all of the relevant information.
I would be wrong if I said that our submission for peacekeeping
for fiscal year 2003 is anything but austere; it is austere. It
is austere based on our projections, but we think that they are
good projections. We think that we have given you a good
number. The President has given you a good number.
We think that there will be some decreases year to year
because of changes in operations. We expect the peacekeeping
operation in Bosnia to terminate. We are also looking at a
reduction in expenses in East Timor. As intensive peacekeeping
comes to an end and we go into a maintenance program which is
more appropriately handled by developmental and unassessed U.N.
activities, which will take place over a period of years, we
expect there to be a follow-on peacekeeping mission, but it
will be small.
We also think that there are savings due to increased
efficiencies in operations, and the biggest one there relates
to Kosovo. We think that there is going to be a sizable cut
there.
Sierra Leone, first of all, has been a real success in the
last 2 years. I remember where it was 2 years ago. I remember
when U.N. peacekeepers were being taken hostage and being
killed. In the last 2 years, that situation has changed. There
are going to be elections held. We expect large savings there.
If you are asking if we would like to have more money, that
puts me in a very awkward position because I would always like
to have more money. However, we think that we are giving you a
very good number in an area that is inherently uncertain. For
instance, in the case of East Timor, between January and
September of 1999, not one but two sequential peacekeeping
missions were created, and an entire political process in East
Timor was created, none of which could have been known even 1
month before President Habibi announced the possibility of a
referendum.
There is an inherent uncertainty in these numbers, but we
think that we are giving you good estimates.
Mr. Serrano. Do your estimates deal with the possibility of
any new situations arising, number one?
Number two, if you already have some thoughts about some
other missions, when will the subcommittee be informed? When
will Congress be informed?
Lastly, are there any discussions going on for peacekeeping
missions in Afghanistan itself?
PEACEKEEPING IN AFGHANISTAN
Mr. Wood. First, there really is not--are no contingency
fundings in here because of, in part, the uncertainty on the
ground in all of these conflicts. It does not always get worse,
it only sometimes seems that it always gets worse. There are
fewer peacekeepers on the ground than at the beginning of the
year, and that is because we have been able to consolidate and
make some gains. Ethiopia and Eritrea is another area where
things are getting steadily better.
Second, in Afghanistan, we have found that in situations of
real conflict, a traditional blue-headed force which is subject
to periodic renewal by the Security Council and subject to a
variety of political influences, which has the internally
contradictory mandate of going to war for peace, is not the
best way to confront a situation in which offensive conflict
may be necessary.
We have found in Bosnia, in Kosovo, and in East Timor, that
when interfeds came in, following the referendum, to resolve
the violence that had broken out, a coalition authorized by the
Security Council is a more effective force. Our selection of
that mode is really based on our assessment of its
effectiveness rather than on cost considerations.
The same is true in Afghanistan. The Security Council
authorized in December on ISAF which is doing a good job of
providing, under British leadership, security in the capital
city, in particular providing a safety zone where diverse
political leaders can come together and lay the groundwork for
a more permanent Afghan Government.
As you know, there is discussion under way about expanding
ISAF beyond Kabul, which depends on there being a coalition of
members who are willing to do that. Lots of discussions are
going on among potential troop contributors as to who would be
willing to do what, where, for how much and with how much
assistance and backup training. That is an issue that will gel
over the next few months, but it has not gelled quite yet.
There is no discussion right now about putting in a blue-
headed traditional peacekeeping force at this time. The
challenges in Afghanistan are so daunting that we want to solve
the problems of today as they come up, and we think that we are
doing that in the military area in the best possible way.
Once an acceptable level of stability and security has been
reached, once we are confident that the Taliban and the al
Qaeda terrorists have been expunged from the Afghanistan
equation, there may be talk at that time about moving to more
traditional efforts. The Afghanistan story has not been
traditional in any sense. So far, we have done it right; we
want to keep doing it right.
Mr. Serrano. My question is inspired by your comment. It is
probably better asked of a military person, but I am not on
those committees.
I guess we are also, while fighting this war, fighting a
public relations war in Afghanistan. Are we doing other things
that would set the groundwork for things that will happen
later? Do you have any comment?
Mr. Wood. I can only say that providing humanitarian
assistance was always part of our military strategy while we
were conducting operations in Afghanistan, and working with the
World Food Program.
We worked very hard, for instance, to open up access,
including political access, while the World Food Program
provided the goods. At the same time, it is a little known fact
that in November, at the height of the fighting, an inoculation
program took place in Afghanistan. In one day tens of thousands
of children were inoculated against smallpox and some other
diseases with medicines provided by UNICEF, with Afghan medical
personnel trained by the WHO, and with CENTCOM fully aware of
what was going on and taking care that its military operations
facilitated rather than impeded this operation.
This is one of the things that we have done right, even
though it is intuitively clear that it is hard to conduct an
effective military campaign against a targeted enemy while at
the same time not only avoiding unnecessary damage to the
civilian population, but in fact supporting that civilian
population in many ways. I think that is recognized widely in
Afghanistan.
Mr. Serrano. I commend the administration for that. I
really think that while we win the war against the bad guys, we
also have to make sure that we extend a hand to those that are
innocent and happen to be there while other people were doing
other things.
As we know, that country was basically taken over and shop
was set up basically under their noses, and they had nothing to
say about it. I think it speaks well in terms of our behavior
to fight the war and at the same time plant the seeds for a
relationship that has to be established after the war so that
resentment is not there.
U.N. AND AFGHANISTAN
Ambassador Negroponte. Just two quick points on Afghanistan
that have a bearing on the U.N.
I just think that the Secretary General's Special
Representative to Afghanistan, Lakhdar Brahimi, the former
Foreign Minister of Algeria, has done an extraordinary job in
brokering the creation of the interim Afghan authority. I think
they deserve credit for that, and I think Kofi Annan deserves
credit for having gotten the donors together in Tokyo to pledge
$4.5 billion for Afghan reconstruction, which goes to your
point about dealing with the repair of that damaged society
over the longer term.
WAR CRIMES TRIBUNALS
Mr. Serrano. On this war crime issue, how much in total is
being requested for war crimes tribunals and does this
represent a change in administration policy?
Also, we know that our ambassador at large for war crimes
has criticized the tribunals. Is that still an ongoing
criticism, and what is the message that you are sending
Congress in your request here on this particular issue?
Ambassador Negroponte. I don't have the numbers in front of
me, but maybe I can answer the general point.
I have a very close relationship with Mr. Pierre Prosper.
He comes to visit us often in New York, and we are very
interested in both the work of the tribunal with respect to
Kosovo and the one in Rwanda, and also the one that we are
trying to get set up with respect to Sierra Leone, which is
kind of a hybrid tribunal. We think that it is very important
that these war criminals be brought to justice, and I know that
Mr. Prosper is very committed to that outcome as well.
In the case of Yugoslavia, I think that it is very
important that criminals who are still at large and were
masterminds in support of Slobodan Milosevic must be captured
and brought to justice.
Yes, we are committed to providing strong support to those
courts.
At the same time, there is an issue of balancing the agenda
of those courts at the moment and, over the longer term,
relying and enhancing the capacity of these various countries
to improve their own justice systems to deal with the lesser
criminals. I think it is a question of also thinking about what
the end game might be 5, 6, 7, 8 years down the road. However I
don't think that there is any desire to undercut the excellent
work that is being done at this stage.
Mr. Wood. I have the numbers. It is slightly complicated
because part of the funding is in the CIO account and part of
the funding is in the CIPA account. In total, we are asking for
$58 million for the ICTY, the Yugoslav tribunal; the ICTR, the
Rwanda tribunal; and about $4 million for an Iraq tribunal
which has not yet been established, but if we have the
opportunity to try someone in it, we want to be ready.
Just to note, there was some press coverage of Ambassador
Prosper's remarks, and I am not saying that the press coverage
was wrong, but there was a nuance, we believe, that the
tribunals should do their job in the time frame that they
themselves have been aiming for.
We are concerned that, in some cases, they are not moving
and taking as effective or rapid action as they could and that
we encourage them to do. But this should not be interpreted as
lack of support for the tribunals. It should be interpreted as
support for the work that the tribunals are supposed to be
doing.
Mr. Serrano. I thank you for your comments.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
RWANDA TRIBUNAL
Mr. Wolf. I think you are right. How much have we spent for
Rwanda Tribunal?
Mr. Wood. I don't have that information in front of me.
Mr. Wolf. When was the Rwanda court set up?
Ambassador Negroponte. I just met with the registrar of
Rwanda.
Mr. Wood. The Rwanda Tribunal began work in 1997.
Mr. Wolf. So 5 years ago.
Mr. Wood. And to date, through fiscal year 2002, we have
directed roughly $455 million.
Mr. Wolf. Just for the record, 5 years, how much money has
been expended?
Mr. Wood. I am sorry, that is the total U.N. Contribution.
Mr. Wolf. $450 million, and the U.S. portion is what?
Mr. Wood. Roughly a quarter.
Ambassador Negroponte. I see $126.6 million.
Mr. Wolf. And how many people have been convicted?
Ambassador Negroponte. There are 53 indictments and 8
convictions.
Mr. Wolf. Eight convictions for a half a billion dollars.
And how many people are in prison now in Rwanda?
Mr. Wood. Outside of this system?
Ambassador Negroponte. Fifty-one in custody.
Mr. Wolf. How many Hutus are in prison in Rwanda for the
genocide?
Mr. Wood. Thousands.
Mr. Wolf. Hundreds of thousands. Half a billion dollars;
eight people have been convicted. It was on film. I visited one
of the sites where all of the bodies are still--have you been
to Rwanda?
Ambassador Negroponte. I have not.
Mr. Wolf. The bodies are still there. They put lime on
them. They are contorted.
I think the administration is right in saying, let us move
on and get this over with. This is draining the Rwandan
Government because they have hundreds of thousands of people in
prison, and there should be some effort to come in and deal
with reconciliation and move on.
What is the population of Rwanda?
Mr. Wood. Four-point-five million people is my rough
estimate.
Mr. Wolf. And how many people do we think are in prison,
maybe a half million?
Mr. Wood. I would be pleased to provide detailed
information. I don't think that we know in detail offhand.
Mr. Wolf. If you can.
Mr. Wood. It is a big number.
[The information follows:]
Question. How many people do we think are in prison in
Rwanda, maybe half a million?
Answer. There are more than 100,000 people in Rwandan
prisons accused of complicity in the genocide. This has taxed
the Rwandan judicial system. The Government of Rwanda has
launched a program of community-based justice, called gacaca,
as a means of dealing with the mass of lower-level offenders,
while major offenders are prosecuted in the criminal system.
The gacaca program provides for grassroots or average citizen
participation in the adjudication of cases based on a
traditional method of dispute resolution. The Rwandan
government hopes to begin the community-based gacaca trials by
mid-2002; the judges have been elected and are being trained.
The U.S. has contributed to the gacaca process through the
Great Lakes Justice Initiative.
FEE SPLITTING IN THE TRIBUNAL COURTS
Mr. Wolf. And what is it costing the Rwanda Government to
keep them there?
What is being done for reconciliation?
A half billion dollars, do you know how many people could
be fed for a half billion dollars? That is one of the defects
of this.
And, also, they have not done a great job in The Hague
because the preparation of the trial of Slobodan Milosevic is
turning the other way.
What about the fee splitting with regard to the courts?
Mr. Wood. There are several things there. First, I would
like to note that in the case of Rwanda, it has never been
conceived that the international tribunal would try all of the
people.
Mr. Wolf. I know that. You could never.
Mr. Wood. Right.
The fee-splitting problem has been a source of real
concern. Steps have been taken to remedy it. We are continuing
to follow up.
Mr. Wolf. Have people been fired?
Mr. Wood. People have been disciplined. I don't know that
people have actually been dismissed. At least one that we know
was fired.
Mr. Wolf. Can you explain fee splitting?
Mr. Wood. Fee splitting is when because the lawyers are
funded internationally, a lawyer makes a deal with a defendant
to keep some of his remuneration and give the rest of it to the
defendant in exchange for the defendant accepting him as his
lawyer. That provides the lawyer with income and provides the
defendant with counsel. That is my understanding.
Mr. Wolf. Talk about a scandal, that is a big scandal.
Ambassador Negroponte. A Scottish lawyer was just fired,
Mr. Chairman, and he has been referred to the Scottish bar
association for discipline. Also, the Office of Inspection and
Oversight Services now has a resident team. I met the new
registrar, who is a jurist from Senegal and I think he has
brought improvements to the situation.
Mr. Wood. I met 10 days ago with the head of the Office of
General Oversight Services who visited us in Washington, and
one of the points we made is the importance of keeping the
tribunals effective and clean. That is a priority for the U.N.
Mr. Wolf. If you can, please submit for the record a little
bit about the fee splitting and how many people are involved
and how much money is involved and how many defendants.
[The information follows:]
Question. If you can, please submit for the record a little
bit about the fee splitting and how many people are involved
and how much money is involved and how many defendants.
Answer. In February 2001, the Office of Internal Oversight
Services (OIOS) reported to the UN General Assembly that it had
initiated and was continuing inquiries into the possibility of
fee splitting at the International Criminal Tribunal for the
Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal
Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). OIOS found evidence that some
former and current defense attorneys has accepted requests from
indigent detainees to share their legal fees. As a result of
this and other findings, OIOS issued 16 recommendations to
correct and prevent their occurrence in the future. In February
2002, OIOS issued a follow-up report indicating that both
Tribunals has implemented most of their previous
recommendations in a timely manner and were in the process of
responding to the remaining recommendations. For example, on
February 6, 2002, as part of the ongoing efforts in investigate
abuses, ICTR dismissed a Scottish defense attorney and reported
him to his home bar association for disciplinary action. OIOS
also issued more recommendations designed to prevent abusive
practices by detainees and defense counsel.
OIOS reports indicate that only a few detainees have
admitted to soliciting fee sharing arrangements. Also, fewer
than 10 cases have been confirmed where defense counsel had
been solicited for or agreed to such arrangements. In two
separate cases defense counsel had been solicited but
apparently declined to share fees, equal to $2,500 and $5,000
per month. OIOS has indicated it will continue to pursue
inappropriate legal aid issues in consultation with the
Tribunals' Registries.
OVERSIGHT OF PEACEKEEPING EXPENDITURES
Mr. Wolf. A primary driver of the U.N. Peacekeeping cost is
military expenditures for troops and equipment. The committee
understands there is no independent oversight for these
expenditures and that they are outside the jurisdiction of the
Office of Internal Oversight Services. Is that accurate?
Mr. Wood. I am sorry.
Mr. Wolf. Regarding the peacekeeping missions in Congo and
Sierra Leone, the committee is under the impression that there
is no independent oversight of these expenditures and that they
are outside the jurisdiction of the Office of Internal
Oversight Services. Are they?
Mr. Wood. Are these expenses incurred in the field?
Mr. Wolf. Yes.
Mr. Wood. First, there are now U.N. inspectors with every
peacekeeping mission with a budget of over $100 million, except
for a temporary vacancy in Bosnia.
Mr. Wolf. This is the Office of Internal Oversight
Services. There is somebody in Sierra Leone, somebody in the
Congo. Bosnia is not filled, however.
Mr. Wood. That is right. Again, in my conversations just 10
days ago with the head of the OIOS, he said that the Secretary
General was moving forward with an initiative to increase the
inspections presence at peacekeeping missions.
SEXUAL TRAFFICKING IN BOSNIA
Mr. Wolf. I think they should.
Speaking of Bosnia, regarding the sexual trafficking by the
U.N. Officials, which damages the U.N., were there any American
citizens involved in that?
Mr. Wood. The most recent allegations were investigated,
and according to the American head of the operation, Jacques
Klein, were not found to be accurate. In previous cases where
there were such allegations, indeed, in at least one case, an
American--I believe he was a policeman--was found to be
implicated. He was removed from service in Bosnia, and was sent
back to the United States for appropriate action here.
Mr. Wolf. What was that action?
Mr. Wood. I am not sure, sir.
Mr. Wolf. Can you tell the committee what happened to him?
Mr. Wood. I will.
Mr. Wolf. Was he prosecuted?
Mr. Wood. I am not sure. We, of course, would not have a
role in determining whether or not charges were brought in the
United States by prosecuting authorities.
Mr. Wolf. If a U.S. citizen was involved in sexual
trafficking in Bosnia, exploiting his position, would that not
be a violation of American law?
Mr. Wood. I am only saying that it is not the State
Department's responsibility to reach a conclusion as to whether
or not a prosecution should be brought.
Mr. Wolf. Whose responsibility is it?
Mr. Wood. Whatever the appropriate law enforcement
authority is.
Mr. Wolf. Would you see if the Department of Justice did
something? A lot of times the country sends them back and they
live happily ever after. Things like that really hurt the U.N.,
the cause, and hurt the support for it.
I know that you have to go by 12:15.
Ambassador Negroponte. The President is giving a speech.
AMBASSADOR TO EAST TIMOR
Mr. Wolf. On East Timor, will you tell us a little bit
regarding where we are regarding appointing an ambassador for
East Timor? That has been a successful effort for the U.N. What
is that status now?
Ambassador Negroponte. They are not going to gain their
independence until the 20th of May. I am not privy to our
internal thinking on that subject. However, even if we were
getting ready to appoint an ambassador, we could not go to the
government to get its consent because it is not yet an
independent country.
I am not aware which individual might represent us there,
or whether we might be represented by an individual who is
accredited to another country in the region. That frequently
happens with a country that size. I know when Palau became
independent, the resident ambassador in the Philippines was
accredited to Palau as well.
Mr. Wolf. I hope we do have someone.
Mr. Wood. I can only say, and this is not particularly
something that affects the IO, we would not be privy to the
discussions, but I can say that there has been extensive
discussion and real awareness of the need for effective senior
U.S. diplomatic leadership in East Timor.
Also, I know that there has been a discussion about the
possibility of an ambassador. I am not sure where that stands.
RENOVATION OF U.S./U.N. BUILDING
Mr. Wolf. The United Nations master plan, the GAO cautioned
that the U.S. Government had not yet developed a comprehensive
position on the renovation. What are you doing to ensure full
government coordination, approval and oversight of the
renovation plan?
Ambassador Negroponte. Some funds have been requested for
the development of this project. I don't think that we have yet
reached the point where we have decided if we will support this
project.
Mr. Wolf. The building needs----
Ambassador Negroponte. The building needs renovation and
improvement for a whole variety of reasons, not the least of
which are safety and fire concerns. I can assure you that
whatever plans are developed, we will coordinate and consult
fully with the Congress on them because we realize that it
raises issues about how this project will be funded.
Mr. Wood. We understand that the U.N. is going to present
its updated renovation plans this spring for the approval of
members. Until we get those plans, we cannot accurately know
what they have in mind.
We know they have something in mind. We know that the
buildings are falling down and are dangerous to the occupants.
Therefore, we have requested $8 million, which we feel safe in
saying is a necessary amount in order to fund the first steps
necessary to do design work. Once we have the initial plans and
once we have a better idea of exactly what they want to do, the
next step is to fund design work to see how they are going to
do it.
We are trying to participate in what I think the GAO found
to be a professional and orderly process on the part of the
U.N. We are trying to participate in a professional and orderly
way by providing timely budgeting.
Mr. Wolf. I guess New York City is involved in that, too?
Mr. Wood. I am sure that they are.
U.N. AUDITORS AT TRIBUNALS
Mr. Wolf. I agree with your comment about Mr. Brahimi in
Afghanistan. I think it is important to make sure that all of
the countries that pledge, you have to make sure that the
pledges clear the bank.
Also, I do worry about the safety of people. I think the
British ought to make sure that they are protecting the good
people over there, too. We know what happened to the tourists,
a minister, over there.
Auditors at the tribunal, we were given the impression that
the U.N. had independent auditors at all of the tribunals. Was
that as of last year?
Mr. Wood. I am not sure when they arrived, but yes, they do
have auditors, and they have been there for awhile.
Mr. Wolf. Are you sure? We were under the impression that
they said that they were going to do it, and they didn't, and
they were not there.
Mr. Wood. I meant a matter of a month or so. They have been
there this year.
Mr. Wolf. Everyone has somebody there now?
Mr. Wood. That is my understanding. We are talking about
two tribunals, the ICTY and the ICTR. My understanding is that
there are auditors at each one.
Mr. Wolf. We were told that there is no resident oversight
staff at the mission in Sierra Leone.
Mr. Wood. That is not correct.
Mr. Wolf. When did he or she come?
Mr. Wood. I am not sure.
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
Mr. Wolf. The Human Rights Commission, can you state how we
are doing with regard to having our voice heard on human
rights, and are the rules being changed? There was some talk
about public voting, that if you say you are going to be for
somebody, or how are we doing with regard to the next round
when the openings come up.
Mr. Wood. First, we are going to be observers at the
session that begins next Monday. We are going to be active
observers.
Mr. Wolf. Who will do that for our government?
Mr. Wood. Kevin Moley, who is our Ambassador in Geneva,
will be leading the delegation. He will also be supported by
experts from Washington. We intend to participate actively
across the agenda of the commission. There are some things that
we are not going to be able to do as observers that we were
able to do as members.
Mr. Wolf. What is that? Just vote, isn't it?
Mr. Wood. Vote, and introduce resolutions unilaterally.
In tactical terms, being observers, although we have a
voice, we cannot determine whether or not consensus is going to
be formed because we would not be part of the consensus in
resolutions relating to the Middle East, for instance, or
relating to Sudan.
Mr. Wolf. They are on it, aren't they?
Mr. Wood. Sudan is, yes.
In the past we have been able to threaten to withhold
consensus on a resolution unless it moved in the right
direction. So tactically our position is nowhere near as
strong. However, we intend to be active and active with other
delegations and working with NGOs, and we intend to be speaking
out.
Mr. Wolf. I hope that the gentleman speaks out. If you call
him and say, we would like to see a copy of the statement, we
will put it in the record just to see what he says. It would be
good to talk about these different cases and things and explain
them. That is a unique opportunity. Everybody is there, and it
would be well covered by American and European media. He will
have an opportunity to speak?
Mr. Wood. Oh, yes.
Mr. Wolf. Do you expect to be on it next year?
Ambassador Negroponte. We expect to be a candidate. Yes, I
do expect we will be on it next year, because we are part of
the Western European and Other group. That is the regional
grouping in which we participate in the U.N., and now they have
created a so-called ``clean slate'' for the four candidates.
Mr. Wolf. So everyone running will win?
Ambassador Negroponte. That's correct, and we will be one
of the candidates to be filled at the year 2002 election. This
needs to be formalized, but that decision has been taken within
the Western European and Other group, and that will be for a 3-
year term beginning in 2003.
Mr. Wolf. I know we were at a disadvantage because we did
not have anybody. You were not there at the time.
Mr. Serrano, do you have any other questions?
U.N. AND A PALESTINIAN STATE
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The United Nations Security Council just sponsored a
resolution which speaks about endorsing a vision of a
Palestinian state. Can you take a moment to discuss that
resolution and tell us what we may not know in terms of any
opposition that we got and from where?
Ambassador Negroponte. I am losing track of time because it
has been a busy week, but a couple of days ago we had a
briefing from the Secretary General on the Middle East in a
plenary session of the Security Council. We have established a
practice of having monthly meetings on the Middle East
situation, at which he made some statements which were fully
reported in the press.
In the wake of that, the Arab group led by Syria, and
supported by Jordan, cosponsored a resolution on the situation
in the Middle East that I think we would inevitably have had to
veto. In response to that situation, we proposed the resolution
to which you are just referring. As it turned out, late Tuesday
night, we succeeded in getting it passed by the Security
Council, 14-0, with Syria abstaining.
We think that it is a positive resolution, and it is
supportive of General Zinni's mission to the region, and it
keeps the focus on getting the parties to de-escalate and start
the parties talking seriously about the Tenet and Mitchell
plans and moving this process forward.
In the process of debating that resolution, one of the
issues that was not in the draft that we originally submitted
was a vision of a Palestinian and an Israeli state living side
by side with secure and recognized borders.
That was a provision that was urged upon us by other
members of the council, and Washington concurred in that
language being included. It is language that has been used
before by us in President Bush's speech to the General Assembly
November 10 and in a subsequent speech by Secretary Powell in
Louisville.
Mr. Serrano. So our original resolution did not have that
provision. It spoke about people coming together and working
things out, but the Syria resolution was more direct?
Ambassador Negroponte. No, there was no reference in the
Syrian resolution either. This was actually language that was
urged upon us by a variety of other members of the council,
including the Palestinian observer to the United Nations and
others.
I think we felt comfortable including that in the preamble,
and I think that it was, on balance, a positive resolution. I
think what distinguishes it from many of the past resolutions
that we have had to resist or veto, that have come out of the
Security Council on the Middle East, has been the fact that it
was not lopsided in favor of the Palestinian position, and it
was not designed to isolate Israel. Rather, it was designed to
help move the peace process forward and to focus on points of
convergence within the Security Council rather than points of
difference.
Mr. Serrano. The New York City Council, the local
government, has a resolution before it asking the White House,
the administration, to close down the Palestinian Authority
office. I realize that those resolutions are just from people
saying what they need to say, but if asked, does the
administration have anything to say about that? What is your
sense on the whole idea of closing down any mission and this
particular mission in New York as an act of our government
saying give us the keys and you cannot be in the building
anymore.
Ambassador Negroponte. The first thing I would do is ask my
lawyers, even if I was inclined to follow the advice of such a
resolution.
Secondly, of course, our administration's position has been
fairly consistent in recent years, and that is that the
Palestinian authority is a valid diplomatic interlocutor. There
are elements over which we think they have influence within the
Occupied Territories that do carry out acts of violence which
we have urged upon them, and continue to urge upon them, to
bring under control, and to de-escalate the level of violence.
I do not think we would be supportive of any effort to shut
down the Palestinian mission at this point.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I have to go to a Hispanic congressional
caucus meeting on immigration, but I want to thank the
witnesses for the record.
Also, when the chairman was attacking Charles Taylor, it
was not Representative Taylor.
Mr. Wolf. I am glad you pointed that out.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you so much.
FY03 REQUEST FOR PEACEKEEPING ACTIVITIES
Mr. Wolf. I am glad you cleared that up, Mr. Serrano.
Focusing on the current year, fiscal year 2002, is the $844
million that you requested and we provided going to be enough
to cover all anticipated assessments; and if not, are you
seeking supplemental funding?
Mr. Wood. I think the Secretary of State in his recent
testimony indicated that the possibility of a supplemental is
under consideration, and no final decision has been made. We
are not in a position to say at this time.
Mr. Wolf. I have some other questions that I will just
submit for the record.
U.N. BAN ON HUMAN CLONING
Mr. Wolf. On cloning, while the West is debating the ethics
of human cloning, the Chinese are forging ahead. Are we doing
anything at the U.N. To bring about an enforceable ban on human
cloning?
Ambassador Negroponte. There was a meeting a couple of
weeks ago, a preparatory conference on the question of a
convention on cloning. Yes, we have a delegation to that
conference and we also have a position that we oppose cloning
of any kind, whether it is reproductive or therapeutic. We have
experts whom I have met with personally on that issue. I think
we are well represented on the issue.
U.N. AND SEXUAL TRAFFICKING
Mr. Wolf. Have there been any actions recently at this U.N.
with regard to sexual trafficking? That is a big problem in the
country, 50,000 people brought to this country every year. And
as you know, Congressman Chris Smith and Senator Brownback had
a bill passed, and there is a report coming out rating
countries. Is there any plan with regard to the U.N. on this
issue? There will be an international conference next year,
early in the year here in Washington.
Mr. Wood. The U.N. has been focused on trafficking in
persons, and we have been full participants and have moved
forward on agreements.
There is something that is directly related, which is
coming up shortly. The administration supports and has sent to
the Senate ratification of a national protocol on the rights of
the child which does not imply any support for the underlying
convention, which is a different issue. The protocol relates to
the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography.
Trafficking in children is an element of that convention.
The administration is asking for the Senate to provide advice
and consent on an urgent basis for the General Assembly
Children's Summit May 8, and the special session that starts
shortly thereafter concerning trafficking in persons as it
relates to children. There is a new convention that we hope to
be able to join very soon.
The Committee on the Status of Women and other women's
related activities also address this question. There are a
number of forums in the U.N., including the Commission on Human
Rights, and we will be active participants in all of them. It
is an issue that people are aware of and we are trying to work
on it in a number of different ways.
U.S. REJOINING UNESCO
Mr. Wolf. I don't know when the report is coming out. I
take it, at that time, it will mention the countries, and some
are countries that are our friends, and it will have a
significant impact.
The House authorization bill last year included an
authorization of appropriations to rejoin UNESCO. Your budget
does not include any funding for this purpose. What is your
position on the U.N.'s rejoining UNESCO?
Mr. Wood. The issue of UNESCO is under discussion. There is
no question it is not the organization that it was previously.
We think that Director General Matsuura is doing a good job,
and we are examining the issue carefully.
We cooperate in UNESCO in many ways. The ``S'' is for
science, and you cannot do science in the world without having
the United States there. We participate actively in these
things even as nonmembers.
At the same time, we are absolutely clear about one
element, and that is that no decision to rejoin UNESCO can be
separated from a decision that we are going to pay our dues to
it if we do rejoin.
Mr. Wolf. How much would that be?
Mr. Wood. In excess of $60 million a year. And that comes
from the CIO account.
Mr. Wolf. You can't get temporary membership like health
clubs do; that is the problem.
Mr. Wood. It is certainly a big part of it.
WEAPONS INSPECTORS IN IRAQ
Mr. Wolf. The last issue is, President Bush said yesterday
that the U.S. will take action against Iraq and that all
options are on the table.
Kofi Annan met on March 7 with the Iraqi foreign minister
about possible return of U.N. Weapons inspectors. Today, the
New York Times reports that President Mubarak of Egypt, in an
effort to avert military action, will press Iraq to admit the
inspectors, and that he did not receive any indication Iraq
would now agree. What is the prospect of Iraq accepting
unrestricted inspections; and what additional actions are we
looking at from Iraq to avoid other options being exercised?
Ambassador Negroponte. I mentioned the ``Goods Review
List'' and the ``Smart Sanctions'' and improving that. That is
one thing that we are working on very hard in the Security
Council regarding Iraq, and we expect this new, I guess I would
call it an ``Export Control Regime'' to go into effect by the
1st of June.
The second issue is the inspectors. The foreign minister of
Iraq did meet with Kofi Annan the other day, and my
understanding is that they have agreed to come back and meet
again in April after the summit, the Arab summit that is going
to take place in Beirut.
Our position, and we believe this is also the position of
Kofi Annan and Hans Blix, the head of the Iraq inspection group
that would go in there, is that the inspectors should have
unrestricted access to the different sites so they could
conduct meaningful inspections, and that the Iraqis should
fully comply with the existing resolution.
You asked me, what chance I saw that they might in fact
agree to this. Well, the past history is not very good. We left
in 1998 because it turned out to be impossible for the old
UNSCOM to cooperate with the Government in Iraq. Maybe pressure
is building on them to reconsider that position, so we will
have to wait and see.
I think it would be foolhardy for me to predict that I see
a high degree of likelihood that they will agree to this. I
think we need to wait and see.
Concluding Remarks of Subcommittee Chairman Wolf
Mr. Wolf. There may be an opportunity. Obviously, President
Bush is a man of his word. He has been very candid with the
American people and very candid--when I heard the speech up at
the U.N., it was very, very clear; and I think he has followed
through on everything that he said.
Also with regard to some of the other countries, we are
assisting the Philippine Government, we are assisting the
Georgian Government, and so I think President Bush is a man of
his word; and I think he is approaching it on a very systematic
basis.
My sense is that it would be good for the Iraqi people and
for everybody involved. I think they ought to be given an
opportunity to say yes or no, and I think the people that are
involved ought to be someone from our government, too, who can
understand a yes is a yes and a no is a no, so there is no
misunderstanding.
If it is yes, you want to make sure that they have full
access because they have actually agreed to this. This was
their agreement after the Gulf War. I think they have to keep
that, and that would certainly be beneficial for everybody. We
are going to submit the other questions for the record. I thank
both of you for your testimony and service.
I would just ask any time you get an opportunity, to move
the ball forward on our values. Words really count for a lot.
You remember, to go back to what I started with, when President
Reagan was severely criticized for his speech in Orlando,
Florida. I have since seen statements from people in the Soviet
Union that believe his comment changed the dynamics.
I visited a Russian prison camp in 1988. The prisoners in
that camp, this was still during communism, they knew of Ronald
Reagan's statement and they knew of the rally that was held on
the Mall in 1985 on behalf of Soviet dissidents. Even if you do
not necessarily see the progress, if you were in prison in some
country as a dissident, you knew that the ambassador was
speaking out on your behalf.
And I want to commend the ambassador in China who listed
individual cases. I don't think that had been done, certainly
not for awhile. For that individual, the warden is going to
say, my goodness, I didn't know anybody knew he was here, so we
had better not beat him or kill him. It moves it forward in so
many ways. I think doing that is very positive.
The last thing I would ask you to do--and this is not a
fair question because it is not directly on your areas--there
is a provision in law that says if we have a prisoner in this
country who has committed a violent crime, from a particular
country, Vietnam as an example, and we have 3,400, they should
take them back.
There are 10 countries that will not take them back.
Vietnam will not, Somalia. I would urge that you get a copy of
that list, sidle up to the country's ambassador, and tell them,
we want you to take them back. They want to trade with us.
Otherwise, there is a provision in the law that says that we
will deny them visas.
And I am certainly willing to offer this amendment on the
floor to deny visas. It is section 621 which says, ``None of
the funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the
Department of State and the Department of Justice shall be
available for the purpose of granting either immigrant or
nonimmigrant visas, or both, consistent with the Secretary's
determination under section 243(d) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, to citizens, subjects, nationals, or residents
of countries that the Attorney General has determined deny or
unreasonably delay accepting the return of citizens, subjects,
nationals, or residents under that section.''.
Attorney General Ashcroft did this with Guyana, and they
have taken them back. Otherwise, there could be no visas for
anybody, diplomatic, business. There is a good-faith effort on
the part of our government to develop a good relationship,
which is appropriate now, and we do not seek to have problems
with all these countries, but I think they have an obligation
to take their people back.
Some of these are very hardened criminals, and under a
recent Supreme Court decision, some may have to be let out of
jail and American citizens may very well be harmed, killed, if
you will.
We will send you the list. If you can just talk to them and
say, just take these people back. I think Somalia has 51. Just
take them back.
Another is Cuba. I think it would be a good thing to help
relationships between the two countries. If Cuba were to take
these prisoners back, it would certainly have an impact on some
of us who are opposed to the Castro government.
If you can take a look at that list and try to help the
State Department advocate with these countries; otherwise, I
don't think that we should give their people visas--there may
be some exceptions in that group, too.
If you would do that, I would appreciate it.
With that, I thank you both and the hearing is adjourned.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, April 24, 2002.
PUBLIC DIPLOMACY
WITNESS
PROFESSOR SHIBLEY TELHAMI, ANWAR SADAT CHAIR FOR PEACE AND DEVELOPMENT,
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND AND SENIOR FELLOW, BROOKINGS INSTITUTE
Opening Remarks of Subcommittee Chairman Wolf
Mr. Wolf. Welcome. The committee will come to order.
Today, the Committee will hear testimony regarding the
public diplomacy programs and activities of the U.S.
Government. These days one has to look no further than the
daily news to see evidence of widespread anger and negative
attitudes among foreign publics directed toward the United
States.
No matter how commonplace this becomes, it is always
somewhat disappointing and surprising. We wonder how they
cannot see the things about this country that are positive and
good that we cherish. This represents the great challenge of
public diplomacy to communicate directly with foreign publics
in order that they should better understand and appreciate our
policies, our culture and our values.
When we hear the word diplomacy, most of us probably think
of traditional government to government interactions such as
negotiations of a peace treaty or building a multilateral
coalition at the United Nations. However, increasingly some of
the most important diplomatic activities the U.S. Government
undertakes are public diplomacy where the interaction is not
with a foreign government, but rather with a foreign public.
The subcommittee funds a variety of public diplomacy
programs, including information and international exchange
programs at the State Department and TV, internet and broadcast
programs at the Broadcasting Board of Governors. All these
programs play a vital role in making ourselves, our country,
our policies and our culture understood to people in other
countries.
Why is public diplomacy growing in importance? Two reasons
perhaps. The world is less centralized and more democratic than
it was just a few years ago with fewer authoritarian and
totalitarian governments, particularly in the Eastern Bloc and
the Soviet Union, and populations all over the world are more
empowered, and their political leaders are more answerable to
public opinion. In short, even countries that have
authoritarian governments are answering their foreign public
opinion, and foreign public opinion now matters more than ever.
Also, the continuing proliferation of television and radio
resources and the development of newer technologies like
satellite communications and the internet, means that we can
reach more people more quickly and directly than ever before.
The need to strengthen our public diplomacy has gained a
sense of urgency as we have seen in the startling foreign
public opinion polls and foreign media content related to the
war on terrorism that reveals profound anti-American sentiment
and often a thorough rejection because they do not understand
our policies.
As foreign publics are growing in both number and
influence, many hold opinions and come from points of view that
are significantly different from our own. This raises
questions, such as, what specific audiences is it most critical
for us to communicate with? What are the messages and ideas we
need to communicate? How can we most successfully deliver the
right messages to the most important audiences? Finally, how do
we measure results of these programs so that they can be
continuously improved?
To help us work towards some answers to these questions, we
are honored to have before us today witnesses from both inside
and outside the U.S. Government. We look forward to a frank
exchange today based on each of your expertise, and I would
encourage you today in sharing new and bold ideas. We have a
renewed appreciation both in Congress and the Administration of
the importance of public diplomacy, and my hope is that
discussion today will contribute to improving these efforts.
Also, just in closing comment, I do not think the answer is
to solve the problem in the Middle East. Obviously we all know
that the problem in the Middle East has to be solved, but we
are talking about what do we do aside from that.
Secondly, I have had the opportunity in the last year and a
half to spend five days in Pakistan and two days in Afghanistan
and then last year to spend a week in Lebanon going down and
throughout all of Lebanon just talking and listening to people.
When you look at the surveys that I have seen and some of
the news stories that we hear and knowing full well
particularly with regard to what is taking place in the Middle
East, the United States was in essence the country that led the
effort to help Muslims in Bosnia and Herzgovina. Many of us--
Congressman Hoyer, Congressman Smith and I--would get up daily
to speak out on behalf of arming the government of Bosnia and
Herzgovina.
We, the majority of Congress, supported very strongly, the
bombing with regard to helping the people of Kosovo that are 85
to 90 percent Muslim. The same held true with Desert Storm and
Desert Shield with regard to Kuwait.
In some respects the Muslim community in China, the best
friend it has, is frankly, the United States Government and the
pressure with regard to speaking out on behalf of the Muslim
community that are being persecuted by the Chinese Government.
To even take it a stretch farther, I would think the United
States Government has probably been the best friend of the
Muslim Chechens, those in Chechnya who are trying to reach some
sort of self-determination.
We have not been anti-Muslim. We have to tell the story of
the goodness and the decency of our country. We do not seek to
dominate any nation. We are not seeking to conquer. We engaged
in nation building after we defeated Japan, the same way with
regard to Germany. Many of you remember the Berlin Brigade and
the Berlin Wall and the efforts with regard to that.
What we are trying to do is come up with some idea today,
both from a funding level, which I think is perhaps inadequate,
and also some new and creative ideas to begin discussions to
help the Administration come up with some ways to do a better
job telling the good story that I believe we have to tell.
With that I recognize Mr. Serrano, and then we will go
straight to the witnesses. Mr. Serrano.
Opening Remarks of Ranking Minority Member Serrano
Mr. Serrano. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
for your vision in calling this hearing, which addresses a very
important issue.
When I look, Mr. Chairman, at the New York Times
enlargement there, ``U.S. Attacked, Highjacked Jets Destroy
Twin Towers and Hit Pentagon in Day of Terror,'' that day
obviously changed our lives forever as Americans and in my case
obviously as a New Yorker.
That day a lot of people forget the terrorists accomplished
a few things. One of the things they accomplished momentarily
is that they disrupted in New York City our electoral process.
It was primary day, and I publicly admit, as I have on other
occasions, that I was not in Congress that day.
I was in front of a school, a polling site in the Bronx,
trying to convince some of my constituents to vote for a
candidate who was running for the city council, who happened to
be Jose Serrano, Jr. I did not take anything for granted that
they would support him just because they love me. We were
working hard.
As we saw the police leave the polling sites, in typical
political fashion our first concern was who is going to watch
the voting machines if the police are gone? Then we realized
that there was a reason why they were leaving, and when the
elections were suspended and all the pain hit us, we realized
that we had changed forever.
The next day I left New York the only way that you could
leave that day, by car. As I was heading onto the turnpike to
get on 95, I turned over and saw the missing twin towers. As a
typical New Yorker, I had not paid much attention to them when
they were there. All of a sudden I had this empty feeling that
they were gone forever. Two buildings have become the symbol,
along with the Pentagon, of the pain that we suffered that day.
When you called this hearing, Mr. Chairman, I felt that
this was one of the more important hearings you could call
because it is now more than ever that we need to tell the world
that we are a good people, that we are a good country, that we
are a people who care about other people. We have to tell the
story of Arab Americans and other folks in this country who
have done well.
At the same time, I feel a certain frustration at the fact
that perhaps the people that are in front of me today who will
testify, Mr. Chairman, have their hands tied in terms of how
much they can do to change the behavior of this country so that
it does not contradict at times in our foreign policy that
which we know the people to be.
There is the problem. At times our foreign policy does not
reflect who we are as a people, and so while you are out there
telling the people that we are a good people, I just finished
meeting with the Ambassador from Colombia because he wants more
and more of our help, and I have more and more concern about
military involvement on our part. You are out there trying to
tell the world that we are good people, and we are. In
Colombia, if they see military uniforms from the U.S. the
feeling will not be the feeling you are trying to portray.
Last week or two weeks ago, all indications are we
participated one way or another, either by not participating as
we should or by participating as we should not have, in an
attempted coup, a failed coup, in Venezuela. That will make
your job harder because there are segments of the Venezuelan
population right now who do not see us as good people; not for
anything we are doing anywhere else, but rather something we
did not do or did do right there in Venezuela.
Then we have a situation where we just found out this
morning, Mr. Chairman, that the President of Mexico was asked
by this government to ask a leader of another country, Cuba, to
leave a meeting prior to him arriving because they did not want
to be in the same room at the same time.
Throughout Latin America and other parts of the world, your
job is a challenging one because we are doing the right thing
and we are the right people, but some of our statements, some
of our mistakes, are coming to haunt us.
We have to do two things. We have to continue on the road
to being who we are and telling the world who we are, and at
the same time hopefully when you folks are asked, either by
those from the private sector or those from government, what
our policy should be just continue to make the point that our
policies cannot contradict our public relations. They have to
be the same.
One last point. When you are carrying out this mission of
public relations, if you will, for us, make sure in those
countries you deal with you talk to all sides of the equation
because if there is one thing we learned in Venezuela which we
should have learned a thousand years ago and we keep making the
same mistake, is that we spoke to this guy and asked him how he
felt about his President. We spoke to this corporation and
asked them how they felt about their President. We talked to
this media mogul and asked him how he felt about his President.
Then when the dark-skinned, poor, countryside people took
to the streets to demand the return of their President we were
startled that they would want to go back to having him as
President. Well, maybe we should have asked them at the same
time we asked other people how do you feel about your
President. Maybe we could have seen a balance.
With that in mind, I welcome all of you here. I am looking
forward to your testimony, and I stand ready with the Chairman
to help you as appropriators in any way we can to make your job
easier and a full success.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. I thank you, Mr. Serrano. I think as Paul Harvey
says, the rest of the story is Jose Serrano, Jr., won the
election. We will put that in the record.
Mr. Serrano. Big.
Mr. Wolf. Big.
Our first panel today will consist of Mr. Shibley Telhami,
Anwar Sadat Chair for Peace and Development at the University
of Maryland, and an expert on the role of the media in public
opinion in the Middle East.
Ambassador Kenton Keith, who chairs the Alliance for
International Educational and Cultural Exchange, and is senior
vice-president of Meridian International Center, has served as
U.S. Ambassador in Qatar, home base of Al-Jazeera, and, as a
career practitioner of public diplomacy most recently led the
coalition's public affairs effort in conjunction with the war
in Afghanistan.
If both of the witnesses would come up? Mr. Telhami and Mr.
Keith will be on the first panel. Secretary Beers will be on
the second panel, and the two Broadcasting Board members will
be on the third panel.
You are welcome to proceed.
Opening Remarks of Shibley Telhami
Mr. Telhami. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is really a great
honor for me to be here and in this building particularly where
I helped myself organize many hearings before the Foreign
Affairs Committee; at least it was called that when Congressman
Lee Hamilton chaired it. I helped organize many of the hearings
in this building.
It is important to begin our discussion of public diplomacy
toward Arab and Muslim countries by putting regional
perceptions towards the U.S. in a broader perspective.
First, it is clear from recent public opinion surveys
across Arab and Muslim countries that there is much resentment,
anger and mistrust toward the United States and especially
toward its policies, but it is important to note that these
attitudes are also pervasive in other regions of the world,
including Latin America, Asia, even western Europe.
While the intensity of these feelings in the Middle East
may be at a higher level, it is important to highlight the
prevalence of these attitudes globally. Certainly some of these
attitudes are simply a function of our role as a superpower and
in some cases even jealousy, but to the extent that there is a
problem in projecting a positive image of America we must think
globally, as well as regionally.
Second, while Arab and Muslim countries have much in
common, especially on issues of identity and on core issues of
foreign policy, it is important to note that Arabs and Muslims
are highly diverse culturally, politically, even religiously.
As such, we must not lose sight of that diversity in designing
our public policy toward the Middle East.
Third, recent public opinion surveys, including ones that I
have conducted in the region, clearly reveal that the primary
source of resentment and anger toward the United States is not
American or western values, but central foreign policy issues,
especially the Arab-Israeli conflict. Certainly the United
States will not change its policies on the basis of public
attitudes, but American diplomacy must find a way to explain
these policies to people of the region.
Fourth, to the extent that events of 9-11 have increased
the gap of perception between the United States and Muslim and
Arab countries or at least highlighted it, it is also important
to note that there has emerged a deep division between Arab and
Muslim countries between voices of militancy and voices of
moderation, between advocates of tolerance and advocates of
intolerance.
It is important in the pursuit of American public diplomacy
toward the region not to portray the global campaign as a
campaign between us and them, between the United States and the
Muslim world, between the west and the Middle East. A more
prudent strategy would focus on supporting the voices of
moderation and tolerance in the region, empowering them and
helping them to wage their own battle for the hearts and minds
of people in the region.
Fifth, in projecting our message toward the region, we must
be especially mindful of the fact that every good salesman
understands. If you do not trust the messenger, you do not
trust the message. It is, therefore, essential in the design of
our public diplomacy to be especially careful about the
messengers who spread our message.
In particular, we have not made good use of our own
resources, especially among Muslim and Arab-Americans who have
every interest in building bridges between the United States
and Muslim countries. In addition, we must encourage those in
the region whose voices are trusted and who share our message,
and we must work with the existing media in the region and not
only put forth our own media outlets.
Sixth, it is important to understand that there has been an
information revolution in the region that has resulted in new,
more independent and diverse media outlets, especially
television, such as Al-Jazeera TV out of Qatar that has been
made famous in the past several months.
While certainly there is room for additional media outlets,
including ones that would project messages that are compatible
with the aims of our public diplomacy, we must be clear on why
stations like Al-Jazeera are successful today and what the
logic of the information revolution is.
The most important change generated by the dozens of new
media outlets available to the public in the region is that
governments lost their monopoly on information. Any station
that hopes to get a sizeable market share of viewers must take
into account consumer demand and consumer taste. Those who
understand what the public wants to see and create programming
that reflects consumer demand are the ones who succeed.
In large part, Al-Jazeera's success is a function of its
ability to reflect public opinion, not so much shaping it. As
such, it is important to understand the limits of any new
television or radio outlet supported by the United States
intended to compete regionally.
Seventh, experts on the Middle East, as well as our public
opinion surveys, indicate that a primary source of regional
frustration and anger toward the United States is a perceived
lack of empathy by the United States toward pain and hardship
in the region. This comes across in almost every country in
which we do a survey. As such, it is incumbent upon any
effective public diplomacy strategy to find ways to project
empathy toward the people of the region, especially where there
is obvious pain and suffering.
A good example is in the recent hardship of Palestinians in
the West Bank. Regardless of our view of the rights and wrongs
of policies toward Israel and the Palestinians, it is important
to project at the highest level our empathy with the almost
unbearable pain that Palestinians have endured, just as we must
also project empathy with Israelis as they endure the
unbearable pain of terrorist bombings. This is an issue that
must transcend policy.
In addition, the United States always has important
humanitarian projects across Arab and Muslim countries, and
those must be increased, highlighted and brought to the
attention of people in the region.
Eighth, to the extent that many in the region remain
suspicious of our policies and often jump to conspiracy
theories as a favorite form of explanation, this appears to be
in part a function of a broad cultural and political psychology
in the region that is difficult to significantly alter at least
in the short term.
To the extent that we can make a difference at all, it is
clear that many in the region feel that we take them for
granted and we do not bother to explain to them why we do what
we do and expect them simply to accept and follow. It is,
therefore, extremely important in the conduct of our policy, in
the conduct of our public diplomacy, to have careful and
credible explanations for all our important policies, even
those that are controversial in the region. If we shy away from
doing it, conspiracy theories will have even a bigger field
day.
Ninth, it is obvious that people in the Arab and Muslim
countries have a mixed view of American life and values, but
mostly a negative one. For example, most have a positive image
of America as a free economy, as a free country, of our
accomplishments in science and technology, but most see our
values through the prism of sensational Hollywood movies and
thus have little understanding of the importance of faith,
family and charity in America. To the extent that public
diplomacy can affect this image, it can certainly serve to
highlight the richness and diversity of American life.
Tenth, although much of public diplomacy has to be carried
out through specific agencies of government and through
specific programs, it is extremely important that the public
utterances of our high-level officials, especially at the White
House and State Department, often have more power in shaping
public images in the region than all our programs and the
hundreds of millions of dollars we put behind them.
A single word by the President or Secretary of State could
outweigh months or years of efforts. We seem to understand this
issue well in the conduct of our domestic policy as all of our
officials have their statements scrutinized by dedicated
advisors whose role is to assure the projection of the right
public image. The global stakes today are so high that we must
find a way to have dedicated advisors to scrutinize the impact
of our utterances globally.
Mr. Chairman, it is clear that bridging the gap of
perception between Arabs and Muslims abroad and the United
States will be a difficult one and will require a substantial
long-term strategy, as well as short-term efforts. It is also
clear that above all the strategy must be based on dialogue
with the region. Such a dialogue is important not only for us
in understanding the sources of resentment and anger, but also
for governments and elites in the region who clearly must
understand us and do their own part in bridging the gap. It is
a two-way street.
A good place to begin is by encouraging the establishment
of Centers of American Studies in major universities in the
Middle East. Remarkably, there is little knowledge about our
culture and our politics even in institutions of higher
learning in the region, which allows conspiracy theories to
prevail without answer.
We must also encourage educational exchanges, media
exchanges and people-to-people contacts more broadly. One of
the sad consequences of our security concerns following the
horror of 9-11 is that more people from the region and more
Americans are discouraged from participating in such exchanges
that are more needed today than ever.
Let me end by saying how important it is that we succeed in
our efforts to reduce the gap of perception between the United
States and Arab and Muslim states even as we know that we
cannot fully bridge this gap.
As we live with such a gap of perception with other regions
of the world, we can certainly live with some gap in the
relationship with the Muslim world, but we also know that if
the gap is too wide, the anger is too deep, there are enemies
of our interests who will be able to exploit it. In the era of
globalization, the costs are too high. We cannot afford not to
try.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Serrano [presiding]. Let me just take a second to
explain the Chairman's absence. We have three votes coming
here, and if we were to take a break it would be like a 40
minute break, so we are going to try to put some fancy footwork
here back and forth to vote.
Wednesday, April 24, 2002.
ALLIANCE FOR INTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL EXCHANGE
WITNESS
AMBASSADOR KENTON KEITH, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, AND SENIOR VICE
PRESIDENT, MERIDIAN INTERNATIONAL CENTER
Opening Remarks of Ambassador Keith
Mr. Keith. Thank you, Mr. Serrano. I am Kenton Keith,
senior vice president of the Meridian International Center and
chair of the board of directors of the Alliance for
International Educational and Cultural Exchange. The Alliance
is an association of 65 U.S. based exchange organizations, and,
as you know and as the Committee knows, we have worked with
this subcommittee over the years on a variety of issues.
Prior to taking up my current positions, I spent 32 years
as a Foreign Service Officer with the U.S. Information Agency,
including my appointment by President Bush in 1992 to be U.S.
Ambassador to Qatar. More recently, I took on a temporary
assignment for the State Department during which I established
and directed the Coalition Information Center in Islamabad. In
that intense period of the early days of the war on terrorism,
I was particularly grateful to the Chairman for his visit to
the region and for those of his congressional colleagues.
I have submitted some written testimony, which I would
greatly appreciate having made a part of the record. Meanwhile,
I would just like to summarize some of the points that are in
that testimony.
I welcome the opportunity to testify today about the
importance of public diplomacy in our war against international
terrorism. To win the war on terrorism, the U.S. will need more
than the might and skill of our armed forces. We must also
engage the Muslim world in the realm of ideas, values and
beliefs. No previous foreign affairs crisis has been so deeply
rooted in cultural misunderstanding. We must address the gulf
between us and the Muslim world if we are to succeed.
There is no doubt that many in the Islamic world deeply
disagree with aspects of American policy in the Middle East,
but policy disagreements alone cannot account for the fact that
many Muslims regard the U.S., the greatest force for good in
human history, as a source of evil. As a nation, we have not
done an adequate job of explaining ourselves to the world or of
building the personal and institutional connections with these
countries that support healthy binational, bilateral
relationships.
The exchange community welcomes the leadership of Chairman
Wolf and that of his subcommittee in focusing attention on
public diplomacy as a critical element and a successful anti-
terrorism strategy. A February Gallup poll reports that 61
percent of Muslims believe the attack on the U.S. was not
carried out by Arabs, and that statistic alone speaks somber
volumes about our failure to project our values and ideals
effectively in Islamic nations.
Changing minds or merely opening them is a long,
painstaking process, and there are no quick fixes, but we must
put new energy and resources into the effort, and we should do
it quickly.
We are calling for an increase in the State Department's
exchanges with the Islamic world, which will give us the means
to build a range of productive relationships based on shared
interests. Such an initiative will engage the American public
in our communities, schools and universities in an effort to
project American values and begin to deal seriously with our
public diplomacy deficit. We believe that an effective Islamic
exchange effort will require $75 million.
Members of the Subcommittee, I would stress that this has
to be new money, not merely a shift of resources within
existing exchange programs. Already reductions in public
diplomacy over time have limited our reach throughout the
world. We have closed posts and cultural centers. We have
reduced numbers of public diplomacy positions in our embassies.
We have steeply reduced the number of exchange participants.
As populations in significant Muslim countries have
increased by some 15 percent over the last ten years, the
numbers of exchange participants from these countries have
declined by about 25 percent. The funding level we request is
both necessary and appropriate.
We welcomed the opportunity to discuss the proposal earlier
with Chairman Wolf and his staff, and we have found broad
bipartisan support for an Islamic exchange initiative in both
chambers. Chairman Hyde's Freedom Promotion Act, to be marked
up this week, authorizes new funds for exchanges with the
Muslim world. The exchange community is supportive of the Hyde
bill and welcomes its call for an additional $35 million
annually over the next two years. We also appreciate his
attention to the need to rethink the way public diplomacy is
structured in the State Department.
In the Senate, Senators Lugar and Kennedy will soon
introduce the Cultural Bridges Act calling for an additional
$95 million for such exchanges. Their bill has attracted six
additional co-sponsors drawn from both sides of the aisle.
This level of support from senior Members of both parties
and both chambers underscores the timeliness and importance of
this initiative. This is a moment when our national interest
requires Congressional leadership to build these cultural
bridges. The U.S. exchange community stands ready to assist you
in this effort and is grateful for your support.
Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Ambassador.
We are running out of time. I apologize. It is the
situation around here. There are going to be two more votes in
a few minutes, but they are back to back so I will wait until
the end of the first vote and leave and then come back.
[Recess.]
Mr. Wolf [presiding]. I apologize, Mr. Keith. Did you
finish?
Mr. Keith. I did, sir.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. I read your testimony. Is it different than
what you submitted?
Mr. Keith. No. It is approximately the same; just
summarized, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. Let me collect my thoughts here.
Mr. Telhami, the aftermath of September 11 revealed a
reality that many Americans previously had not noticed or
thought important that in many parts of the world America is
perceived as an enemy. There was that news magazine that you
may have seen, ``Why Do They Hate Us?''
Aside from the legitimate policy differences, and I know
you referenced that once or twice in the hearing, what explains
the negative opinions and the vehemence behind them? Is it the
level of funding? Is it just the message? Are the right words
being said? Is it the advertising package?
If you had to fix this problem what would you do?
NEGATIVE OPINIONS OF THE U.S.
Mr. Telhami. First, Mr. Chairman, I like the way you framed
the issue even at the outset, which is you are looking at it
globally and not only looking at the region because in fact we
do have a global problem. It is not just in the Middle East and
Arab and Muslim countries. It is more of a higher magnitude
obviously in the Arab and Muslim countries. Unfortunately, we
see that it is consequential and so in that sense, you know, we
have to focus on some of the particulars of that situation.
I think that there is always a gap between the role of a
superpower and other countries. We can live with some gap. I
mean, the question is at what point does it become dangerous?
In the surveys that we have conducted, two issues have
become very clear. In a survey, for example, I conducted in
Saudi Arabia I asked the question ``Are your attitudes toward
the United States mostly based on, A, its values or, B, its
policies?'' Among the elites, 86 percent said mostly based on
its policies. Only six percent said mostly based on its values.
Among the general public, 59 percent said mostly based on its
policies. Only 19 percent said based on its values.
Clearly the policies are important in the attitudes, but
the most important issue that comes up when you try to unpack
it is really the issue of absence of empathy, the sense that we
do not care, the sense that we are not feeling their pain, the
sense that we are not doing enough to care about their
hardship.
Maybe they expect too much of us again because we are a
superpower and maybe now because we are the sole superpower,
but clearly that comes across not only in the Middle East, but
if you look at the survey among elites across the globe and you
ask them even after 9-11 when there was tremendous sympathy for
the U.S. across the globe, you ask them do you believe that the
U.S. is behaving in the coalition on global terrorism, is it
serving all of its interests or is it also taking into account
the interests of its coalition partners, the majority across
every region in the globe said it is mostly focused on its
interest and not taking into account the interest of its
partners. I think that is the problem right there.
Mr. Wolf. How do we deal with that? We are trying to
develop some process, and what we do here will hopefully help
the Administration to deal with the problem.
I do not believe, though, that the perception of a lack of
empathy is accurate. Many Members of Congress, and I know that
the President, all care deeply. I have heard him speak
personally with quite significant passion. I think President
Bush is a compassionate man who cares very, very deeply.
When I was in Afghanistan, they told us that 43 to 47
percent of the food that was fed to the people in Afghanistan
before we defeated the Taliban was funded by the United States
through the World Food Program. It was therefore somewhat
disappointing to see bags of grain with the Japanese flag, and
I saw bags with American words, which many people could not
even understand. So I think maybe we do not do a very good job
promoting ourselves, but it is clearly not the case that there
is a lack of empathy.
When we were in Lebanon, we spent a lot of time going to
AUB University, spent a lot of time listening. I would
periodically say ``But do you not understand that 243 American
Marines died not very far from here, and there is not even a
little plaque or a little monument? There is nothing but the
airport. We sent those people. We cared.''
I think if you look all over the world, in Kosovo the
Americans were the first people on the ground with regard to
food, with regard to shelter, with regard to tents. The World
Food Program, probably 50 percent of the funding now comes
through the U.S. UNICEF is the same thing.
We are doing those things, and my sense is that there is
strong support in the Congress for those efforts. Is it that we
are just not doing a good enough job to tell people, or is it
we are so busy that we do not express our empathy, just as a
doctor in the hospital who says I understand to his patient?
How do we deal with that?
DEALING WITH NEGATIVE OPINIONS
Mr. Telhami. That is a good question. First of all, I do
not think it is a question of a problem of this Administration
or this President. I think you would have found the same thing
in the previous Administration. I think it is a problem in the
perception that we have had probably over the years and
certainly since the end of the Cold War. It is not a problem of
this Administration per se, the conduct of policies since 9-11.
I think it is just a broader problem.
I think to the extent that we have a story to tell,
certainly we have not been telling it well. We have people in
the region look for symbols, for cues, for ideas, in the same
way that we look for ideas that form our opinions about the
region. We think of the Islamic world mostly through the
terrorism that we have seen often at the public level. We are
looking for cues.
As I have suggested in the testimony, I do not think we
have taken special care to project empathy as we must, I think.
Even inadvertent statements by the President and the Secretary
of State are magnified in the region and in fact overwhelm all
of our efforts because they look at them as indications of
policy even if they are not.
I also think we have not done a good job in highlighting
some of the good things that we do in projecting empathy.
Projecting empathy also means that we tell people about the
good things that we do, including the humanitarian efforts that
we are doing, the programs that we conduct, the issues
pertaining to causes that we have supported that were Islamic
causes. All of that clearly we have not done a good job at, and
I think we need to do that.
Mr. Wolf. The first funding initiative for public diplomacy
in the aftermath of 9-11 was $15 million for a State Department
campaign to market the United States as a brand in foreign
media.
We are going to have an opportunity later on to talk to
Undersecretary Beers who will be here, but what do you think
about the likelihood that such a campaign will significantly
impact attitudes particularly in the Middle East and in the
larger Muslim world? A brand?
Mr. Telhami. I think there is no question there is room for
that. I think it has to be carefully done, and when I say
carefully done I think we have to pay attention to the
following:
One is that the messenger is as important as the message.
You know, when you do not trust the messenger you do not trust
the message. People ask, as you said earlier, about how is it
possible that you have so many Muslims and Arabs not believing
the obvious evidence that bin Laden was responsible? How could
this be in that particular case?
I think the way to think about it is to think about it in a
way akin to how some African-Americans reacted to the O.J.
Simpson case, to the same evidence that many white Americans
reacted to, which is that they did not trust the system. They
did not trust the evidence. They simply did not trust the
messenger. The whole package was essentially not trusting the
system.
You have a lot of that in the Middle East, and we have to
find a way to communicate that does not go through the channel
that people mistrust. I think there is room for structuring a
campaign that employs messengers that are trusted, including
media outlets that are already there that are trusted,
including using individuals and organizations who share our
message, but who have more clout and----
Mr. Wolf. What groups?
Mr. Telhami. For example, there should be better use made
of respected Arab and Muslim Americans in all walks of life, in
business, in culture, in the academy, people who already have
clout and who are respected by virtue of being able to
communicate the same language.
There has not been enough in the pursuit of our foreign
policy broadly, whether it is in the State Department or
elsewhere.
Mr. Wolf. Do you mean you think we should, and I agree if
this is what you are saying, use someone from the American
Muslim community as a spokesperson back in Syria and Yemen or
wherever the case may be?
Mr. Telhami. Absolutely. You know, the term ``use'' is----
Mr. Wolf. Many are anxious to do that.
Mr. Telhami. Exactly. That is the point. Exactly. It is not
``using'' in the sense that we are ``using'' them. They want to
participate. It is in their interest to highlight the bridges.
They have more to gain by this for more reasons than one.
They want to build those relations. They want the friendships
to be built. They also, frankly, are worried about the
consequences here at home when the tension grows, so they want
to reduce the tensions.
You have a lot of willing people, and clearly you also have
to use people there. We have to understand that this is not
``us versus them.'' We have to understand that there are
segments of society, respected segments of society, elites, who
truly want to be empowered to be able to stand up to those
intolerant forces and militant forces in society. We have to
work with them. We have to empower them. We have to help them
in a way that does not portray this as a war between us and
them, but as a conflict from within the region, as something
that is ongoing within the region.
There is a battle for the soul of the region, and it is
more really within the region than it is between the region and
the rest of the world. In a way we have to be very, very
careful in not showing ourselves to be sliding into a war of
civilizations, into a clash of civilizations, because that will
rally all of the forces on the other side instead of us, as the
President in fact did start doing after 9-11, to his credit, of
saying this is not a clash of civilization. This is a conflict
of forces of good and forces of evil within the region.
Mr. Wolf. Right.
Mr. Telhami. I think that is something that we have to go
back to. I see that there is a process that has inadvertently
taken us back into a clash that we really do not have anything
to gain from, and they do not have anything to gain from.
SUPPORT IN MODERATE STATES
Mr. Wolf. How do we deal with a country, such as Egypt,
where we have funded since Camp David $47 billion in aid? Do we
have any control over the very antisemitic cartoons, very anti-
U.S. cartoons and articles? How do we deal with that? Do we go
to President Mubarak? What do we do because we are trying, plus
we are very generous with American foreign aid. We appreciate
the support we have had from President Mubarak on a number of
issues, but yet we do one or two good things in a statement,
and then you pick up a leading newspaper in Cairo, and you have
an antisemitic cartoon. How do we deal with that?
Mr. Telhami. Let me say there are two different kinds of
things. The racism should be absolutely unacceptable. We should
make it clear consistently. It cannot be accepted, it should
not be tolerated, and governments should not tolerate obviously
racist rhetoric. It does not matter what it is, whether it is
simply anti-Jewish or anti anybody else. It should be
absolutely forbidden, and I think we should make that point
consistently.
On policy, to the extent that there will be criticism of us
in the government media, I think we should give them a little
bit of slack there. Let me explain why I think that is the
case. You have to put in perspective that now every single
person in the Middle East has choices to watch their own
television channel or some dozen other television channels. It
is a market-driven medium. People are going to switch to the
channel that they think is representing what they believe. The
reason why Al-Jazeera out of Qatar is being highly watched
today is because it is putting on the air stuff that people
want to watch. And, frankly, if people were seen to be catering
too much to America in the Egyptian media, everybody would turn
it off. There has to be some selectable legitimacy.
There is an environment in the region today where much of
the regional media, the pan-Arab media, that governments do not
control is carrying the pain of what is happening on the West
Bank, let us say, and they are calling governments like the
government of Egypt and the government of Saudi Arabia, the
government of Jordan servants of America, servants of Israel.
They are delegitimizing them. And to that extent it is
obviously hard for them to even be more so appearing in public,
so they have to give some slack to the media. So we have to
differentiate between those issues of racism that are
unacceptable and those policy issues where they need to give a
little bit more leeway for their reporters to be able to gain a
little bit of legitimacy in projecting a different image.
Having said this, I do believe that Arab governments have
discovered after 9-11 that they have empowered forces that are
self-defeating for them and for us, and clearly the Saudis have
understood that. That is a long-term project that they have to
address. I think it is something that has to be addressed in a
sophisticated way, not just in a simplistic way of standing
next to the Secretary of State and denouncing terrorism because
that does not do any good. It needs very, very careful efforts,
and they have to be sustained, and they have to be long term.
Mr. Wolf. I am going to have a couple of questions for Mr.
Keith, and I am going to recognize Mr. Serrano. Ambassador, let
me ask you about your recent role as spokesman for the
Coalition Information Service in Islamabad. You probably have a
greater understanding of this than most people because you were
there for how long?
Mr. Keith. Seventy days, sir.
RECENT OPINION POLLS AND PERCEPTIONS
Mr. Wolf. What do you make of the Gallup poll results that
I quoted earlier? Does your personal experience on the ground
support the poll findings that only four percent of Pakistanis
believe that our war effort was justified?
Mr. Keith. I was personally surprised by that, and I took
it as a personal failure.
Mr. Wolf. Well, I do not think you failed. But did that fit
with----
Mr. Keith. Yes. It certainly fits with the question of
trust of the messenger that our friend, Mr. Telhami, was just
talking about. We actually did put the message out, all the
messages that you referred to earlier, about our humanitarian
relief effort, about the care that was taken to protect
civilians in our military campaign. All of those messages went
out every day in a variety of ways, and I made myself available
to especially the Arab world press for on-the-record
interviews, for backgrounders, for one-on-one interviews. The
information was there.
The question was did they trust the information because did
they trust the messenger or the organization in this case, the
coalition for which the messenger worked? The answer is to a
greater extent than one might gather from these statistics, but
in the main there is that lack of trust. There is a sense in
that part of the world that the West is inherently anti-Muslim.
They look at public pronouncements of figures in this country
about Muslims. They look at the portrayal of Muslims in popular
culture in films as war-like and ignorant, and they look at a
number of other issues that they regard as hypocritical as far
as the West and the United States in particular are concerned.
If they are Pakistani, their principal issue was Kashmir,
in their minds a subject in which the West has sided with the
non-Muslim position. And they also, along with the Arabs, look
naturally at the Arab-Israeli issue, again, an issue in which
they perceive that the West and the United States in particular
is siding with the non-Muslim position.
To the extent that I would differ just a little bit with
Mr. Telhami, I believe that there is an Islam question here
more than just a policy question. Certainly the policy question
is very, very pertinent. There is no way that we would ever be
able to sell to most Muslims that the United States is even-
handed in its approach to Middle East issues. But that is a
different and, I think, less important question at this moment
than the fact that they think that the United States is
inherently anti-Muslim.
And here is where we absolutely have to build a better
public diplomacy tool. We need more public diplomacy so that we
can start to turn this thing around so that we can start to
build trust and understanding. Most of us would feel very
comfortable if our values were really clearly understood by the
Islamic world and, in fact, worldwide. The problem is that they
cannot be in some areas because the means do not exist to have
that happen. Look at the situation in Pakistan. There would be
very little opportunity for certain segments of the population
to know very much about the United States at all, and what they
did know about the United States would be distorted by the
kinds of philosophies and misinformation that is dispensed in
some of the Islamic school systems.
What we will need in a case like Islamabad, it seems to me,
is a combination of wise use of our development aid but much
better use of public diplomacy. It is a long-term process, it
will cost money, but we should start it now.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Serrano? We have a vote on. We are going to
go, and then we will adjourn for about probably 15 minutes, and
I think that is the last vote of the day.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you. I am very interested in your
comments, Ambassador, about the perception. If it is true that
in baseball pitching is 75 percent of the game, well, then in
diplomacy and politics perception is 75 percent. What people
think is what ``is'', until you change their mind.
With that in mind, and I am sorry if this was answered
while I was out, we spend a lot of money on putting forth radio
broadcasts and publications and so on, and then we spend money
also on exchanges. I do not want to put you in a situation
where you are choosing between one or the other, but can you
tell us the value of one and the value of the other? You seem
to fall strongly on the side of exchanges, and I want you to
tell me how you feel about that.
Mr. Keith. You are absolutely right, Mr. Serrano. I would
not like to be put in the position of saying one is more
important than the other. But certainly they are valuable for
different reasons and to achieve different goals. It is
extremely important for United States policies, especially in
the presence of rapidly changing political developments,
military developments, and so on, and especially in this period
when we are involved in an antiterrorism war, it is very
important for us to have a voice to speak in real time to
people on issues that are developing. But that is not enough.
That may be enough to help defuse a situation in a particular
country, but it is not enough to build the understanding of our
values that would preclude our great fear that people could be
driven into some kind of violent action because they simply do
not understand that we really would not be capable of the kinds
of things that we have been accused of in the past. Both are
essential. One is long range, one is more tactical, but both
are essential, and we cannot short change either one of them.
Mr. Serrano. When people have this feeling about us, how
much would you say is based on just distorted information about
us, and how much could be mistakes we have made, or is it
totally a lack of understanding? As I am hearing you speak,
Ambassador, I am thinking of growing up in New York City as a
member of the Puerto Rican community. I often met a lot of
people from outside my community who said, ``Gee, you are so
smart, and you are so different,'' growing up, and then I would
say, ``How many Puerto Ricans do you know?'' He said, ``Well, I
do not know any. You are the only one.'' And I said, ``Well, if
you meet more, you will find some are like me, and some you
would not want your sister to marry, and that is who we are.''
How much is it based just on total distortion, or have we
had business people in the area throughout the years who have
misbehaved or diplomats who misbehaved or anyone else or
visiting members of Congress, whatever?
Mr. Keith. Mr. Serrano, I think I understand your question,
Mr. Serrano, and I think the answer is that there are real
differences on policy issues, and there will always be real
differences on policy issues. I think, as a super power, we
have to learn to live with that. But the question of their
perception of us, those perceptions are fed by various things
in the Islamic world. One, there is a perception that the West
is inherently anti-Islamic. There is a perception that we tend
to support antidemocratic or nondemocratic regimes, and for
many people that thwarts their desire for a more democratic
society. There is a sense of humiliation throughout the Islamic
world, humiliation for the galling defeats in Middle East wars,
but also Al-Jazeera is doing a very good job, and other media
are doing a very good job as well, showing the daily plight of
Palestinians even before the current situation in the region.
So that is a problem.
So the problem of legitimacy within their own governments,
the problem of humiliation, the problem of poverty amidst great
wealth; those feed into a collective sense of grievance, and we
are very much at the heart of that.
Mr. Telhami. May I just follow up a little, Mr. Serrano?
Mr. Serrano. Sure.
Mr. Telhami. Obviously, it is both, but the perception
issue is very important because most of the Middle East looks
at it through a very narrow prism, like we look at them through
a very narrow prism. Take, for example, their notion of what
our values are. When you ask them about whether they like our
values or not, they essentially are responding to the values
that they see through a very limited number of Hollywood films
or television shows like ``Baywatch'' and ``Dynasty.'' They
have no idea that family is important in America or that
religion is important in America or that charity is important
in America. They are looking at it strictly through the prism
of those narrow shows, and I would bet you that if we were
looking at it through those shows, we would also have the same
feelings about values.
That is an area that we can address, for example. That is
an area where we have the capacity to project more
understanding of America, to explain the diversity of America,
the complexity of America, and including a lot of values that
they share with us--family, faith, and charity--as the Office
of Public Diplomacy has correctly highlighted as common
interests between the two.
There is also the political focus. As the chairman has
correctly focused, for example, on our coverage in the Middle
Eastern press, there is some horrible stuff that comes out.
Obviously, that is what we are focused on. We do not see all
the good stuff or the interesting stuff that is out there. We
are focused on that.
You know what they are doing. In the Middle East if you
look at the press, what are they covering? They are not
covering every single story in the New York Times and the L.A.
Times. They are covering a news story about one famous American
journal, the name of which I will not mention here, whose
editor wrote an article about maybe we should consider nuking
Mecca. And that particular issue was the subject of debate in
the region for weeks. An American politician who said it is
very easy to figure out a way of stopping people from getting
on airplanes. If they wear a diaper on their head with a fan
belt on top of it, then they should be prevented from doing so.
That is the sort of stuff they see. They do not even
differentiate. It does not matter who. They focus on those
reports that are ugly to them, and they think that is the
projection of America. So we really have to project a broader
picture than they are seeing.
Mr. Serrano. We have to go vote now. I guess we will have
to tell the world that not every American looks like Pamela
Anderson.
Mr. Wolf. I think what we will do, so we do not keep you,
we are going to submit a number of questions for you, and I
hope the administration is meeting with both of you. Have they
met with both of you? Have you been talked to by the State
Department? Have they picked your brains?
Mr. Telhami. Yes, yes, and actually they have been making
terrific efforts in reaching out.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. Well, I thank both of you for your
testimony. I apologize for the voting situation. We will have
questions for you for the record.
Mr. Telhami. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Serrano. Professor, if you just for the record could
maybe send us something. You said something about we will have
to learn how to monitor our statements. I think you said
something like that, about what we say.
Mr. Telhami. Yes.
Mr. Serrano. I am very interested in that because I think
that gets us into a lot of trouble at times.
Mr. Telhami. I will send you something on it.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you so much.
Mr. Telhami. My pleasure.
[Whereupon, at 3:07 p.m., a recess was taken.]
Mr. Wolf. Secretary Beers, we will reconvene. We apologize
for the breaks, but that will be, I think, the last one for the
day. We welcome you. Let me just say at the outset this is an
issue that I care very deeply about because I want to show the
best face of the United States Government. As a strong
supporter of the Bush administration I think President Bush's
approach is very appropriate, and I think he has spoken out.
But it is somewhat of a frustration seeing how we are received.
After I saw the poll, we wanted to have this hearing, but
nothing that is said should be viewed, any criticism of you or
the Department or of the Administration.
This is a beginning of what may very well be a long-term
process, and maybe the government structure is not set up in
quite the way it ought to be. So this is idea generating, and
obviously the Committee would hope that we could put some
additional funding in with regard to public diplomacy, but
nothing is meant to imply any criticism of you or the Secretary
or the Department. I am certainly not speaking for Mr. Serrano
but for myself, and that is why we wanted to have this hearing.
So with that, I will recognize Mr. Serrano, and then after
that you are welcome to proceed. Your full statement will
appear in the record, but you can proceed as you see
appropriate. Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Chairman, I just want to clarify when you
said you do not speak for me. You do on many of these issues.
We are never here to criticize the attempts or the work of the
State Department. The folks who work at the State Department
are good people who want to do the right thing. My comments
always are based on my belief that we make mistakes here in
Congress. We pass some bills that we probably should never
pass, knowing sometimes the courts take care of it, and
sometimes the public takes care of us. And sometimes we do
things in our foreign policy that I do not think we should do,
but it is never a criticism of the leadership at the State
Department. We welcome you today.
Wednesday, April 24, 2002.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE
WITNESS
CHARLOTTE BEERS, UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR PUBLIC DIPLOMACY AND
PUBLIC AFFAIRS
Opening Remarks of Under Secretary Beers
Ms. Beers. Well, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Serrano, I consider
this hearing a completely positive opportunity to talk about
public diplomacy. I also have learned over long years in the
marketing world that to define a problem is halfway to getting
there to solve it, so I think this is a completely constructive
process.
As Secretary Powell and Deputy Secretary Armitage have
said, the importance of full funding for 2002 and 2003 in the
President's budget just cannot be overstated. We all agree it
is a vitally important time to promote our overall foreign
policy and our national security interests. This hearing has
been kind of interesting, like studying-for-test day. It has
done a lot of good things for us. It has forced us to
scrutinize the numbers, account for results, and given us a
much needed opportunity to assess where we should be going long
term.
I am going to do one reference to marketing because it is
important here in this context. The one great necessity that
all multinationals have around the world is to gain something
called ``share of mind,'' and then you study how and what
quality and kind of share of mind you have. I think the United
States has something of a record high in share of mind in the
eyes and feelings of the world, but the question is what sort
of recognition? What is the quality of it? How much
understanding exists? And the short answer is it is not good
enough, and it is eroding.
You just had a panel of experts who spoke to this
eloquently, and I do not think I need to elaborate the nature
and type of dissension and distortion that exists. But when
people use phrases like the ``world's bully'' or that we are
imposing a way of life or we are only interested when it
benefits us, we know that we have a gap here. In such an
environment the issue is that every policy and action is
contaminated by skepticism and disbelief about our intentions,
and this is why it is so puzzling to us when we hear these
remarks.
It is obvious that the perceptions of Muslims are more
personalized. They are more intense, and you heard that
referred to. We are talking about 54 countries that are Muslim
majority, with a population of some one billion. So it has to
be considered seriously. There is a sizable percentage who see
us as a decadent and faithless country. So there is a great
deal of misunderstanding even about things we assumed the world
understood, which is our cherished views of democracy and
freedom.
Now, ``WHY?'' is what we have to deal with, because we have
to come up with programs that will begin to answer this. And
the ``whys'' are very complex, but I want to address three
because they fuel the way we came up with our strategic goals.
The first ``why'' you heard referred to is BIG-BIG. We are now
not a super power but considered in many places in the world as
a hyper power. The only thing I want to point out to you is big
is not bad if you are allowed to be a partner with someone who
is big or if you let me influence your access or access all the
power and control that big means.
Another ``why'' stems from the fact that in many countries,
especially Muslim, we have had no or very little ongoing
dialogue. So basically we are dealing in a conversation with a
stranger or a group of people who have just a narrow facet of
what we are about.
And the third ``why'' really fascinates me, and that is
that conversations, debate, and gossip are occurring all over
the world at an awesome rate and with groups of people with
whom we have no contact. The information revolution does not
begin to describe it. And what is happening is that in this
heated and informal exchange of ideas and beliefs we are a
smaller and smaller voice. It is not that we do not speak
significantly to officials and elites; we do, but less readily
to the young, the wired, and the street.
I mention these because they did influence our three goals.
They are, briefly, one, re-present the values and beliefs of
the people of America because it is these values and beliefs
that inform and influence our policies, and these two cannot be
disconnected. Two, define and dimensionalize the role that the
democratization process plays in engendering prosperity,
stability, and opportunity. Where else are we going to offer
hope? And third, even though it is a dimension of both of
these, I think it is too important to be left within those two,
and that is communicate clearly our concern for and support of
education for the younger generations.
Now these strategic goals follow the first mandate we have,
which is to inform our many publics of the content of U.S.
policy swiftly, accurately, and clearly. I would rate us since
September 11th in terms of our ability to do that informing as
quite good. Beginning September 12th, we produced every key
government speech and policy statement in six languages often
on the day of publication and up to 30 languages within the
next two days. Fortunately for us, we had added Arabic among
the top six in August. We averaged interviews of one a day,
which is really a record for the State Department, because we
had such support from all the officials in the Administration.
When Al-Jazeera showed such an affinity and fondness for
bin Laden testimonials, we needed someone who could speak
Arabic and live. Ambassador Ross, who is joining me today, was
just such a counterpunch. We did liaison with the White House
and Department of Defense to gain a rolling news cycle and
prepare a rapid response. Because we had such a dialogue among
ourselves going, the United States was able to lead the world
in the support of a role for Afghan women in the new
government.
We quickly mounted media tours to the U.S. for foreign
journalists. We refocused our ECA affairs, education and
cultural exchanges. And even with these actions the
distortions, the lies, the headlines that came back to us made
it clear that for some people what happened to the United
States was a big, tall building full of financial big wigs and
not real enough.
So we immediately went in search of a different kind of
communication than we normally make in the State Department. We
needed pictures, not just words. We needed to show the web of
Al-Qaeda physically so that you could not walk away from it,
and we needed to give a forum for the few moderate Muslims who
had spoken out. I asked for four-color, emotionally involving,
deeply faithful telling of the story, and this booklet, ``The
Network of Terrorism,'' was published by the International
Information Group by November 6th. I think that is just a
remarkable dimension of the productivity of our group. And this
is another side of it which shows how we put together the exact
quotes of bin Laden and a map of the Al-Qaeda.
This publication became the most widely distributed ever
produced in the State Department. It went to every conceivable
kind of audience, not just the elites. It went to the Japanese
Diet, to the Beirut airport guards, to boarding schools in
Jakarta as a teaching lesson, and it was inserted in amazing
places like Italy's Panorama, which is a popular magazine, and
Kuwait's Al-Waton. But then we purchased a full insert into the
Arabic edition of Newsweek, which was a first in proactive
behavior for the State Department.
What is important about this document is we came out of it
with some criteria we do not want to leave behind for future
programs. Convey the emotional as well as the rational. This is
not always a rational discussion. Put all the messages in
context to the audience. The audience wants to know do you
understand me, do you care about me. It is not what we say; it
is what they hear. Enlist third parties for authenticity, and
that was something you heard earlier. And when we do something
good, let us move into modern capability of magnifying the good
results.
Let me give you an impressive example of how we can magnify
something we do well. The educational and cultural group went
to New York and had a wonderful opportunity to take Joel
Meyerwitz's stunning photographs of Ground Zero, two of which
we brought, but we have 26 of these, and we moved them all
around the world as fast as possible. They have already been in
20 countries, and they are scheduled to be in 60 or more cities
by the end of the anniversary.
In every case the embassies did an astonishing job of
taking these pictures and marrying them with something very
relevant for the audience in that market. In London they put up
World War II blitz pictures, and it got twice the coverage and
interest because it was so connected. In Santiago, Chile,
Captain Daly of the New York Engine Company Number 52 met with
the local firefighters, and they went out and visited and took
the exhibits to children.
So what I like so much about this example is it follows
these new criteria of getting beyond the elites and the
officials and to the younger people as we move around the
smaller towns. Furthermore, because it was not so policy
driven, it got immense coverage in the press in terms of
understanding and communicating what happened in this country
and evoked a lot of sympathy.
Thanks to the support of this Committee for the President's
Campaign Against Terrorism, the first tranche, we were
allocated an additional $15 million to prepare messages for a
broader audience. We decided the best thing to communicate was
a kind of religious tolerance. We had learned by this time. We
had many meetings with Muslim-Americans. They agreed to
organize themselves to take up this cause with us, and they are
in charge of taking the documentaries into second and third
generation and organizing their peer class in key countries to
not only stop with the documentaries but to start a dialogue,
and so it has become a catalyst for a much larger
communication.
But think what a story we have in Muslim life in America.
Here is a picture of a poster we put out because there are
1,200 mosques in this country. They are all over the place.
They are all amazingly beautiful. There are three million
Muslims in the U.S.--the numbers vary by estimate--and they
have a 20 percent conversion rate. That is a sales curve a lot
of people would like to have. So they are obviously thriving,
and each of these documentaries places the Muslim in the
American life, practicing their faith with no tension,
supported by their American friends and honestly being shown
esteemed, and that is an important part of it.
Those programs of documentaries will be surrounded by
acquisitions we have made with public television in places like
that, and they will go out into nine Muslim countries. The
point? To open a dialogue, not to assume we are finished with
anything, and to create a catalyst for Muslim-American leaders
and leaders in the representative towns and countries to begin
a dialogue, and if it starts with the religious tolerance, so
much the better.
Now, speaking of exchanges, our many exchanges are central
to accomplishing those three goals. Coming from the private
sector, it is really hard to imagine anything more productive
than these exchanges. The $237 million we are going to spend in
2002 for 25,000 exchanges is immensely magnified by the fact
that we have 80,000 volunteers who help make this happen. And
we also have a lot of countries who participate and sometimes
spend more than we do in these exchanges.
The emergency supplemental before you for 2002 can do
something really remarkable on behalf of the exchanges. We need
an alumni data bank. We do not have a way of tracking the some
700,000 exchanges that have been in this country over the
years. A car dealer would have better access to its previous
customers than we have. And if we can fund the alumni data
bank, think what happens. We would put these people and
activate them in the role of emissaries. We can do a program we
call ``The American Room,'' which copies the great success of
libraries and informational centers, except that it is more
portable, it is more efficient. It is also going to be virtual
reality so that we can show values as well as scholarly works.
We are also going to recommend a newly designed, English-
teaching program which focuses on values, not just necessarily
teaching. And many of the initiatives in the supplemental will
focus on Muslim youth exchanges like sports, educational,
cultural. And finally, a program to establish studies of the
United States in prominent universities. Did you know that the
University of Cairo has absolutely nothing in its universe
about teaching what American studies are all about, and they
are asking for it?
Now, let me address 2003. We are requesting a five percent
increase over 2002. This allows us in total $5 million for new
programming. And while you might not find the number so large,
it is the first time in 10 years that we have had the ability
to increase new programming. It will allow us to improve our
delivery of material from the Web site and take our CD-Rom,
which is called ``Info USA,'' and is used by legislators all
over the world and embassies to tell the whole story. We are
going to put it in more languages, which we desperately needed
to do.
We will expand our capacity to do remote productions. Even
now we have a crew in Afghanistan taking pictures of the
reconstruction, even though many of us cannot be there. We are
going to turn that into B roll and get it out through the
embassies to television. We are going to do more TV co-ops. You
have probably seen the brochures we have put out. When the
journalists come here, they go home, and they present a
different picture. It is an extremely productive return. And we
are going to put money into the regional bureau so that these
new programs that we have now test marketed can roll out.
As focused as we are on opening a positive dialogue with
Muslim-dominated countries, I am concerned that we not diminish
efforts in other countries with regard to these strategic
goals. And like you I believe that we have many stories to tell
that are positive, inspiring, and true. Our science and
technology leadership is an amazing asset, and all the real
benefits of the rule of law, the rights of the individual, and
the unique spirit and diversity of the American people are the
long-term answer to balancing perceptions everywhere and
deflecting the hate that terrorists must inspire to succeed.
Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
POLLING AND INTELLIGENCE
Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much, Secretary Beers. There are a
number of questions we will have, and then we will go back and
forth. Any marketing effort must be based on a thorough
knowledge and understanding of the audience. How are you
ensuring that your programs and activities have such a basis
that you can absolutely, positively, categorically be sure of?
Ms. Beers. I do not know if I will ever get categorically
sure, but I think it is the best question because if you cannot
indicate you know and understand, you have no communication
going. A million dollars of the 5.3 scheduled for 2003 is
focused exactly on consumer research and in-depth analysis of
what the audience is about, but these many documentaries we
have prepared for rolling out to the Muslim countries were sent
into Jakarta and Cairo, which represent two very different
Muslim communities, and evaluated for their ability to get the
job done. We are going to test everything, and then we are
going to refine it, and then we are going to roll it out, and
then we are going to test what it is people heard.
Mr. Wolf. Last fall, the Congress appropriated $15 million
specifically for a post-September 11th public diplomacy
initiative. How have you used the resources, and have you been
able to measure any impact of anything that you have done with
the expenditure of that money?
SUPPLEMENTAL SPENDING
Ms. Beers. That is a good question. The analysis is such
that we have learned that we cannot be the U.S. Government
sending out these many documentaries which I referred to. So we
are making films that tell stories about Muslims in America. We
are surrounding them with acquisitions about the Islamic Empire
and relevant stories. We are organizing, with the help of
Muslim-Americans, a way to do that and to put in the field with
events. It is not until this moment that we have corroborated
that the messages work, that the media is going to let us in,
and that the program is ready to go.
I would say that measuring the results of the program will
come later when we have actually been in the marketplace. And
if the Middle East crisis is still such a polarizing issue, we
may delay the introduction by three or four months.
Mr. Wolf. If you could comment on this, I believe this is
such an important issue that it may very well have to be run
from perhaps even the White House. How do you coordinate with
the Defense Department, with the Justice Department, with AID
and other agencies with regard to this?
GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION
Ms. Beers. Well, I think one of the fundamental tenets we
have learned in the communication world is that if you do not
speak with one voice, you are seriously fragmenting the
efforts. So it is essential that we not appear to be speaking
from different voices. At the moment Karen Hughes, is an
important part of crystallizing all of this into an overarching
communication goal. We agree at State that this is a very
important collaboration, and we will have to see where we come
out on that.
Mr. Wolf. Well, I would urge the White House to do that
quickly because I share your concern with regard to the loss of
Karen Hughes, although I might say I congratulate her and
commend her. It is very comforting to see somebody who is
willing to leave the center of power and make a decision for
her family, and the only place you are ever truly missed at the
end of your life is in your own family. It is not in your job
at work. So to her credit, I would congratulate her.
But I think the White House has to move very aggressively
and very quickly with regard to that because it cannot be done
just in the State Department. It is also how you deal with AID.
We saw bags of grain that the Japanese had their flag on, and
we just had two people shaking hands in a language that the
people that were getting it did not completely understand.
Congressmen Hall and Pitts, and myself, asked that the American
flag be on all of our products, and we just got a letter back
from somebody in the Department of Agriculture saying that is
not a bad idea. We are doing some of that, but we could offend
some people, or they may use that fabric for something else. If
they use it for something else, and it happens to have an
American flag on it, that maybe a good thing. The American flag
is recognized all over the world. The people should know that
most of the food that fed the people of Afghanistan during the
days was funded, almost 47 percent, by the United States
Government. I think that is important for them to know. The
last panel talked about empathy. The American people do have
empathy for the hungry, the naked, the starving, and those that
are in prison, those whose rights are being violated; and, that
is why we do that.
In some parts of the world the skepticism about America is
so great that our message, no matter how good, will not be
credible. What options have you developed to find relevant and
credible media to carry the messages that if heard directly
from us would not be taken seriously? What other means are you
using in addition to those that are currently out there?
MEDIA
Ms. Beers. The most primary example we have right now is
that the Muslim American Council for Understanding will take up
a program that is now described as ``Muslim Life in America,''
and we will be a support force for that, as they take their own
story forward.
So part of it is going to be the more third party
authenticity, where we can activate people to speak. When we do
the alumni data bank every single one of those people will be
more forceful in their stories about the United States than we
will be.
If I could drop back for a minute, Chairman Wolf, I think
that the aid program and the development programs are the
greatest unsung asset of the United States. I am ambitious to
do a great deal more than just the flags. I think if you tell
that story properly, we will have one of the largest, most
positive reactions we could have.
We could tell that story through some of the NGOs that we
virtually support and have made productive. They might be open
to that.
Mr. Wolf. Well, I think they should be open to it. If it is
supported by American taxpayer dollars, and it is a result of
the compassion and the decency of the American people, I think
one ought not hide one's light under a bushel basket.
To tell people, not in a bragging way and say, ``look how
wonderful we are;'' but we do care. This is the empathy.
You have encouraged U.S. Government officials to do more
media appearances, mainly on al-Jazeera. Some have argued that
al-Jazeera is not widely watched and is not widely trusted by
those who do watch. A more effective approach may be to work
instead with media outlets across the region that are both
popular and highly regarded.
Are we concentrating too much on al-Jazeera, where
evidently some fear we will never get a fair shake, or our
presentation will never be carried fairly?
Ms. Beers. Well, even in the most discordant environment,
we have to be there. The most dangerous thing for us to take is
a position of silence. So I want to be on al-Jazeera, and I
think when Ambassador Ross is on, he has a way of making sure
we are heard.
But we have been very active with every single one of the
satellite networks and all of the Middle East capacity and
local television. They have all been vying for our time.
We have had Dr. Rice on many of the Middle East networks
and in interviews, and we have had Secretary Powell. We have
had very wide distribution.
I would be glad to give you the list of those, because it
is comprehensive and it is impressive. We have been all over
the place.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Wolf. Chairman Hyde recently marked up a bill to reform
public diplomacy and authorize additional resources. What is
your reaction to that legislation?
PD AUTHORIZING LEGISLATION
Ms. Beers. Well, I personally thank Chairman Hyde for that
kind of support and concern. That bill is in a state of
dialogue with the State Department and Chairman Hyde's staff.
There are some issues there we have to discuss.
Mr. Wolf. I am careful now how I ask this, because I
certainly do not want to get you in trouble with OMB, and I
respect that. I think you have an obligation to respond,
representing the Administration.
But my sense is there is not enough funding, and as a
conservative Republican who generally votes to reduce funding
when I can and is committed to a balanced budget, this is an
area that we really cannot do on the cheap.
We sent a letter down to OMB asking there to be additional
funding in this area. I think spending wise money early is
better than something you may have to do two years from now or
three years from now.
We are not trying to get you to take a position of opposing
OMB or anything. But my sense is additional funding would be
very, very helpful.
You recently convened for the first time ever a worldwide
conference of public affairs officers, the top U.S. diplomacy
officials from every embassy to discuss what is working and not
working in the field. What was the primary outcome of that
conference?
The other question is, after consolidation, the public
affairs officers in the field no longer report to you, but
rather they are accountable to headquarters through the
Regional Affairs Bureau. Is this a good arrangement? I think
not.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS CONFERENCE
Ms. Beers. Well, the public affairs conference is going to
help me answer that question, because it never occurred to me
that they did not report to me, so I called a global
conference. [Laughter.]
Mr. Wolf. Good for you.
Ms. Beers. Yes, because, you know, the one with the idea is
going to get something happening. Our group was determined to
bring them together for the first time. They have never done
it. They needed to see who the State Department was today.
They had an amazing reception. Karen Hughes spoke.
Secretary Powell, unfortunately, left us for the Middle East,
but we had Members of Congress. We had all the leading
officials of the State Department.
But what else took place there is that each one of these
people were broken into teams, and they exchanged the successes
they have had over the last year, so they can cross-pollinate
successes. They also had some training about making their
communications more persuasive.
They left, I can honestly say, very motivated, with very
much more a feeling of being welcome at the State Department,
which I think was necessary. They left determined to instigate
the whole country team and the Ambassador in a different way,
into engaging in the Media.
I made a pledge back to them that we are going to
completely improve our training of public affairs officers, and
make sure that we understand how the communication structure
works.
So on that second question, I would have to say, it is a
matrix organization, and it is a little strange, but I have
seen those in corporate life before. I think that the
relationship that we have with the public affairs officers is
very good.
I think that there is some complication between the
functional bureaus and the public affairs officers and the
location of our bureau, which we call ``R.''
My intention is just to make it work. We have got a lot to
do. We have to hurry. We have every evidence that the
functional bureaus are involved and interested. They come to us
every day, more and more often, because we have ideas and
resources and plans, and the field is our channel of
distribution.
Mr. Wolf. Could that be changed by Executive Order, without
legislation?
Ms. Beers. I have no idea. I think it could.
Mr. Wolf. This is my last question, and then I will
recognize Mr. Serrano. Well, there are two, really. One we
covered indirectly, but I want to get it on the record, and
then just maybe not ask it, but to state it.
In all of our State Department hearings this year I have
been expressing concern with the level of public diplomacy
resources requested for fiscal year 2003. As I said, I did
write Mr. Daniels.
We seem to get agreement from everyone, yet the fact
remains that the budget request includes a relatively modest
increase of $5.3 million for public diplomacy information
programs, and the request for the exchange programs is
basically flat.
The question we were going to ask was, is that adequate
response to the challenge. My sense is that it really is not. I
would encourage you to redirect the base resources, knowing as
well as you do that you could use additional funding.
The Committee, my sense is would be open to reprogramming,
particularly moving money from perhaps other parts of the world
to these particularly critical areas at this time.
Next year, it may be another region, we do not know. But we
do know what the problem is today, and we do not want to rob
Peter to pay Paul, when there is a particular problem that you
can deal with.
So if the Committee can help you, we would hope that we
could do some additional funding. But maybe you could reprogram
as well.
The other issue is, in the largest increase last year of
the Committee, the largest increase in the Department budget
request was for additional staff across the board of 631 new
positions; only 25 of these are allocated for the public
diplomacy function.
The question is, should there be more people for that, than
the 25. I would urge you to look to see if there should be more
than just the 25.
This is the last comment I will ask you on this, and it is
a question that I do not think puts you in a difficult spot.
Did you see Secretary Holbrooke's column? I read his
column, which was in the Washington Post or the New York Times,
I forget, several months ago, where he basically recommended
what I said at the outset, bringing this into the White House
for better coordination. Do you have any comments on his
column, or do you remember the column well enough to comment?
Ms. Beers. I remember it, because it guided me somewhat in
terms as he also defined what needs to be done.
Mr. Wolf. Right.
COLLABORATION
Ms. Beers. You know, at that time, I was scouting around
for counsel everywhere. I thought that article was particularly
cogent. A number of us referred to it. I think it guided us
more in terms of what matters and what strategic priorities we
should set.
I cannot possibly quarrel with the idea that we would be
better united in the multiple agency collaboration, because
everywhere I have ever gone in the business world, the sum of
that is larger than the parts. So I am anxious to participate.
I think I have the support of Secretary Powell and the
Deputy Secretary. It is not only in public diplomacy, but also
in this idea of collaborating with the other departments, so
that we do not overlap, we do not replicate, and we do not
miscue. It is important.
Mr. Wolf. And I think we had that during the war against
communism and the Cold War. I think the White House has to do
this, and pull it together, such as how you are working with
DOD.
I have a report, which we are going to have some questions
on later, the report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on
Management Information Dissemination, jointly sponsored by the
Department of State, your office, and DOD. They had a lot of
very positive recommendations.
Ms. Beers. Yes, they had very good ideas.
Mr. Wolf. My sense is, most of those recommendations ought
to be followed. They came from the State Department or they
came from the Defense Department, and they are very good.
Ms. Beers. Yes.
Mr. Wolf. I think, with that, let me just recognize Mr.
Serrano.
Ms. Beers. Thank you.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
your testimony.
Many of the concepts in foreign diplomacy center around
concepts of nations and governments. The tools we use today are
all geared towards this concept.
However, this seems like a simplistic concept in the
current world. Multi-national businesses that affect the lives
and fortunes of hundreds of thousands of people exist outside
of this concept. Bin Laden exists outside of this concept.
Given the reality that non-nations can be as influential as
certain nations, if not more so, are the old tools still
relevant in how we deal with these issues? In addition, what
new tools will the State Department need in the future to deal
with non-State actors?
SPEAKING TO PEOPLE
Ms. Beers. That is a good question. I think that what you
hear as the genesis of some important programs we are working
on suggests that we understand that we have to participate in a
dialogue with more than the Government and the elites.
That is going to take a different kind of resourcing in
order to do that. I think we owe you and our own State
Department tested plans that show we know how to enter the fray
in that sense.
For instance in Kosovo, we just produced a 15 series
television show, in conjunction with local actors, on the civil
process, and it was a wild success. You cannot imagine such a
thing being a wild success, but it was so artfully done and so
relevant for the people in that area. That is exactly how we
have to go past the borders in limitations of, let us say,
Government's beat.
These kinds of programs require skill sets that we may not
have, but can get, which is the creative process, the engaging
of talented people, who are capable of talking about emotions
and drama and religion and spirit, and marrying them with more
traditional programs which are very good at explaining who we
are and how the rule of law works in situations.
So we ended up marrying hard education with docu-drama, and
we are not looking at whether or not we can take that
everywhere in the world. I view that as a test market, and it
is rolling out, if we can get it resourced.
Mr. Serrano. I was interested in your comments. You said
rather than only talking to, you said the elite and who else?
Ms. Beers. Yes, and government officials, which is almost
the way you put it, when you said, policy and governments.
Mr. Serrano. Right, well, is that not a part of the
traditional problem for us in foreign policy in many areas,
that we respond to who we feel is on our side on the issue, and
never try to figure out, or for some reason, do not have the
time or the resources to figure out what other people in that
area or in that particular country are thinking?
Ms. Beers. You know, I have learned a lot about how the
embassies work, and I am in awe of their capacity to reach many
segments of the population.
When they cable back to us, I think we get a very broad
ranging response, beyond the government. Their first job is to
reflect the government in their particular moment in time. Then
they have to deal with those people to influence the
government. So in order of priority, they are on the right
track.
But you cannot speak to any of our public affairs officers
or the key country team without knowing that they are deeply
into their community. For example, Morocco. Every member of the
country team goes and visits high schools, and talks about
American life, and listens to what they have to say.
So I do not think it is so much that we are just listening
to those who love us, but that we need to come up with tools
that allow us to get an exchange going with a much wider
universe.
It is difficult. I mean, in Morocco, the literacy rate is
very low. In certain parts of the world, in Africa, there is
only radio. We are teaching the story about HIV/AIDS in Africa
by using puppeteers and local theater.
So exploring beyond the boundaries of traditional public
diplomacy is what we will be doing.
Mr. Serrano. But you see, the point also that I am trying
to make is related to my next question, which has to do with
Colombia and Venezuela.
But it seems to me, and I am trying to word this carefully
here, so I am not insulting anyone, but when I started hearing
reports as to what was happening in Venezuela, the question I
always kept thinking, it was like in those old movies, asking
the radio to see if the radio would respond back to me was,
well, where are his supporters? Are they gone; do they not
support him any longer; are they satisfied with what is
happening the last 24 hours?
It seems to the amazement of our government, but not to me,
his supporters did take to the street and demanded the return
of their President, and so he is back for awhile or for a long
time or whatever.
My question is, did we not know that? Did we not know that
there was that kind of support, and if we do not know, is that
not a shortcoming of our public diplomacy, that we always talk
to certain people and not to others?
I mean, I knew it, and believe me, I was sitting here,
listening to Spanish radio reports and reporters who were out
on the street saying, well, this person is here, this person is
there.
The minute I heard one person say, where is the President,
and it was a street vendor, I said, this one person is going to
turn this around.
How come we did not know that? I am saying, we did not
know, because at the White House, again, with all due respect
to them, somebody was saying, he deserved it, he had it coming,
and they made it sound like it was a done deal that he was
gone; and he, in fact, was not gone.
Ms. Beers. Yes, well, I think how we receive information
and interpret policy is probably outside the frame of reference
for me today. But I do want to tell you that in that very
turmoil, we were putting speakers on as fast as we could, to
talk about democracy and the process. We were trying to enforce
the proper way to do things.
We were trying to stand for the very things, I think, we
have talked about in that country for years. I believe those
programs, over time, have a very important influence.
Mr. Serrano. You were putting speakers where?
Ms. Beers. Well, we always have a set of 15 or 20 speakers
rotating through, in that particular part of the world, about
the democratic process, the rule of law, the justice system.
Those people were going on, full speed ahead.
Mr. Serrano. Where were they going?
Ms. Beers. Well, they spoke at the embassy. They would go
and speak to schools. They went to travel to four adjacent
towns and held seminars and work shops on these subjects. That
is an ongoing public diplomacy program.
Mr. Serrano. We are talking about Venezuela?
Ms. Beers. Yes.
Mr. Serrano. During those 48 hours?
Ms. Beers. Well, no, I did not mean to suggest that. I do
not know that much happened in that way. But I am just talking
about an ongoing dialogue and climate of communication.
Mr. Serrano. Let me just come back to this then. I am very
concerned about what I see happening, both in Colombia and
Venezuela, about U.S. involvement in what I consider to be
civil disputes.
I do not want to defend the FARC, and I do not want to
defend any of the various factions of Venezuela. But as I told
Secretary Powell, especially in Venezuela and Colombia, it is
very hard to tell who the good guys are and the bad guys are,
because there have been 35 years there of the good guys being
bad guys and vice versa.
After that case of anti-American sentiment, the radical
left in Latin America has been effectively dormant for many
years. I fear that all the good we have done will come undone,
and that the anti-American sentiment will be back. I fear that
we are getting ourselves involved in something that will
undermine our credibility in Latin America, erode our ability
to fight drug trafficking abroad, and get us embroiled in a
conflict that is not our own.
Has the State Department done any type of analysis to
measure, and here we go again, public opinion about America, in
either of these two countries? What efforts is the
Administration taking to influence public opinion in both
countries, in response to recent events? Are there any plans
for increased public diplomacy efforts in the area?
LATIN AMERICA
Ms. Beers. Well, I think if you made some of those comments
to Secretary Powell, you were definitely talking to the right
person.
The things we are doing in Colombia, I think, are very
aggressively positive. We are putting together a number of
programs that connect narco trafficking to a lot of things that
people do not understand are connected.
One would be the environment, where we put together a
pamphlet called Andean Under Siege, with multiple agencies
corroborating on this, and we got wide coverage of that. We are
taking that out as a piece to talk from. So that is one
positive way we are doing it.
The whole plan there is to fight drugs by promoting
economic and human rights and democratic institutions. I think
we have had a number of journalists from the whole region come
into the United States and have a chance to deal with all the
ways we are trying to deal with drugs, and to teach them, so
they would go back and represent a more balanced picture.
We are increasing funding on things like the co-op with the
journalists and the speaker systems that go into that part of
the world.
Mr. Serrano. You know, right after I met with you this
morning, I met with the Ambassador from Colombia, Ambassador
Morano, and I told him that I share his desire to bring peace
to his homeland or his country, but that I am afraid that if we
keep going the route we are going, we may see American
soldiers, in uniform, in Colombia.
That will undo everything that you folks are trying to do,
because nobody then will believe that we are trying to help,
since military involvement is not the way to go, in my opinion.
When you folks sit and talk to other parts of our
government, are there lively exchanges about what approaches to
use; i.e., the diplomacy folks versus the military folks who
sometimes may not see each other the same way?
Ms. Beers. Well, I think when Chairman Wolf talked about
the great need to make sure that we have agency-to-agency
collaboration, I think it is clear that we may not do that as
well as we should.
My sense of it is that the reason the public diplomacy
director is in the bureau itself, the functional bureau, is
because they are in the circle of interpreting what is out
there, trying to gather opinions, and understanding and
incorporating it into policy.
Mr. Serrano. I have one more question. Are there any ideas
from the private sector that you have implemented, or are
planning to implement related to the war on terrorism and our
public diplomacy efforts?
I kept hearing the public relations aspect throughout your
statements, which I think is really at the center of what we
have to do, to try to change this perception in so many places,
that we are not friendly to them.
PRIVATE SECTOR PARTNERSHIPS
Ms. Beers. Well, I really appreciate your asking that,
because I am fascinated by another untapped asset in the United
States. That is, having come from the world of multi-nationals,
when I am invited to speak to them, I always ask if they would
be willing to participate in telling America's story. At the
very least, you know, they are living embodiments of it, if it
is done properly.
The response we get back is more than interested. So the
burden is on us, and as Chairman Wolf would say, the other
agencies and perhaps the White House, to harness these people.
Johnson and Johnson happened to mention in one of these
meetings that every single one of their 4,000 employees in the
Middle East could be sent out to speak to schools.
I think activating the private sector is a very important
part of getting the word out in a way that goes beyond what the
U.S. Government can do. So I am with you on that one.
Mr. Serrano. Well, I am with you on that one, too, and I
thank you.
Ms. Beers. Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Let me just say, before I pass this to Mr.
Kennedy, I would urge you to meet with the Americans abroad.
There is a group that represents the Americans abroad. They are
a resource. Mr. Serrano is exactly right, whether it be in
Islamabad or whether it be in Beirut or wherever; to bring them
in, to make them feel a part. They have been by my office
saying, what can we do?
Ms. Beers. What can we do, yes.
Mr. Wolf. The fact is, they are coming to Washington in
another month or so.
Ms. Beers. I have heard about this group.
Mr. Wolf. They are not looking for a government contract.
They are not looking to be hired. They are not looking for pay.
They want to participate.
I think when you are living abroad, you somehow feel a
little removed; less so today, but you still feel removed.
Secondly, you want to feel a part of the process.
So I think Mr. Serrano is right, to tap in, certainly in a
pilot group that you could pick, in both Latin America and the
Middle East, to tap in.
Sometimes, though, in those countries, the American
citizens do not really feel that loved by the American Embassy.
I had an experience whereby somebody was bitten by a pack of
dogs in Bulgaria. They went to the American Embassy, and were
not helped.
The British Embassy brought them in, gave them the
injections, and did a lot. I mean, it is just not enough to
have the party on the 4th of July. [Laughter.]
But it is really to reach out and to make the Americans
feel part of it.
So I think Mr. Serrano is right. I think there should be a
formal program. You cannot do it in the whole world today, and
it is probably less important that we do it in England.
But maybe we should try it in those critical countries,
both in Latin America and in the Middle East, to see how you
can bring them in and use it.
Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I had it written down on how we were going to involve the
private sector and their advertising power here in my
questions, after I was hearing your testimony; and how we are
going to involve Hollywood, if we are the ones that are
exporting our culture abroad. They are a key component to the
way people view us. What are we doing to involve them in this
effort? Maybe you could comment on that.
HOLLYWOOD
Ms. Beers. That is the other great asset, is it not? It is
funny, it is polarizing, because it is a love/hate
relationship. You hear talk about Baywatch, but you also hear
from some of the experts, whom we were quizzing in all parts of
the Middle East, that Hollywood is our great weapon.
When I asked a gentleman in Cairo if he thought we needed
to do something more about our culture, he said, Madam, we are
drowning in it; meaning, the television and the access.
But we have had some very interesting conversations with a
number of highly motivated people in Hollywood, and they are
now beginning to look at producing their own messages. These
messages, we would help place. They are really American
advocacy, and they are capable of doing it on a scale that goes
beyond even my television experience.
Mr. Kennedy. Right, I mean, it dwarfs whatever government
can do.
Ms. Beers. Right.
Mr. Kennedy. This stuff is saturating their cultures.
They already employ their own efforts. They know what works
and what does not. You can see the same movie four different
times and different stories that are rewritten, because they
know what works.
Why can we not take what we know works in these other
cultures, and try to figure out a way to put them into these
movies; or at least let these executives know.
This is a way they can help America. This is a way they can
be, you know, a good citizen and help our soldiers. You know,
they all want to help our country. Here is a chance for them to
do it.
Ms. Beers. Karl Rove has been working with them in that
kind of relationship. But I have taken the responsibility of
briefing them on what we know about the media and the outlets,
and some of the opinions and personalities.
We have asked them to make available to us those films that
the Arab community tell me are the ones that are popular and
sought after, the Life of Mohammed, the 13th Warrior. There is
the beginning of that kind of constructive dialogue.
Mr. Kennedy. Would you comment on some of the arts
exchanges in this kind of venue, like, what we are doing for
cultural exchanges, because those can be powerfully motivating
to people in reaching their spirits and their motions.
Ms. Beers. True.
Mr. Kennedy. It can also bridge some of the differences
that people have culturally. They can all enjoy music and the
arts and things. What is happening with that?
CULTURAL OUTREACH
Ms. Beers. Yes, well, part of the supplemental that we are
here to petition for, in 2002, is designated for cultural
events which, in many cases, will start with music. You are
going to hear from the group, Voice of America, about their
radio channel, which understands that music is a very important
part of getting onto some wave length together.
The cultural activities in our public diplomacy have been
diminished, because we have not had the money.
Mr. Kennedy. Right.
Ms. Beers. We have amazing stories about jazz and the
musicians, and how they crossed over the boundaries.
Mr. Kennedy. Right.
Ms. Beers. So in new products, we are very anxious for
that. But in the Meyerowitz example, it was interesting how it
told the story and created much more response than even we had
forecast in its conformation of that; that the pictures and a
love of an experience goes past the rational.
Mr. Kennedy. Right, well, I have some questions to that
regard that I will submit for the record for your comment.
Ms. Beers. Thank you.
Mr. Kennedy. Finally let me say, you know, the sports
exchanges, too, are very useful, we found. We are the host in
my State for the International Sports Education at the
University of Rhode Island.
I wanted to say, though, with all this talk about
perception, the best way to change perception is change
reality. I mean, I know reality, nine-tenths of it is
perception of reality.
But when we have such disparity in global resources and
such extensive global poverty, all the positive images and
pictures are not going to do it, when you have half the world's
population earning $1.50 a day.
I do not know what we can do to bring the multi-nations
into this discussion, because it is going to be in everyone's
collective interest in the world that we saved for our way of
life.
Like Franklin Roosevelt did in the Great Depression, the
capitalists were furious at him, but he saved capitalism from
the capitalists. We have got to figure out a way to talk or
convene forums on what we are going to do with global trade,
and what it is going to mean to global development, and how we
are going to be doing more in terms of aid to international
development, World Bank, how we are going to be supporting
those.
Because it seemed to me when I saw those protesters last
week, that if they only knew how much good was being done by
the World Bank and the developmental assistance, and how we
need to do more in support of IMF, not less, it just was
frustrating to me.
Finally, I would just like to comment, because I have got
this opportunity to comment, and I have got the microphone, in
the Middle East and the polarization, it seems to me, we can do
all the messages we want, but we are going to be still viewed
through the prism of being Israel's ally, as we should.
It would seem to me, we need to coordinate very closely
with them, how they are working on their image. Because if they
do not succeed in promoting a positive imagine, you know, we
are not going to be able to succeed in our position, because
they are our ally, they are our friend, and we are going to
stick with them.
All the other talk about mosques and the United States is
not, to me, going to cut it, if people fundamentally feel that
they are being treated unjustly by Israel, and we are
supporting Israel.
I am worried, with the anti-semitism that is growing in
Europe and amongst our allies, that we are not even successful
in bringing our allies along in this struggle for our value,
our collective values. That if we are losing it, even amongst
our allies, there is not a chance we are going to be able to
win the hearts and minds of our Arab friends, our Muslim
friends.
But that is the comment I wanted to make. I don't know if
you can make any response to that.
Ms. Beers. Well, I think that is a comment that we take
seriously. We are working at that, at the State Department--how
to deal with the consequences of the Middle East crisis, and
how it affects all other communications.
But I would just say one thing, and it is not to deflect
that, but I have heard it here in several places. We cannot
afford not to keep moving. So even though sometimes you say,
the mosque, and the story might be minor, I think the best
thing we can do is open a dialogue, and then it will force us
to articulate this dialogue and have it influence everything we
think about in policy, too.
Mr. Kennedy. And that is why I am for the Chairman calling
for an increase in some of these accounts. Because it seems to
me in this budget, we need to do a little bit better, if we are
going to be encouraging that exchange, that dialogue, cultural
exchanges, all kinds of student exchanges. These have all been
kind of basically flat-funded. I am concerned about that, and
what that means to our message abroad.
Mr. Wolf. I agree on involving the private sector. I think
it would be an interesting thing to have a cook-off among the
public relations companies and see what ads they could come up
with, to see their creative ideas.
You could also use the Americans abroad, to put on an art
show of American values. Let different high schools in Cairo
come up with art from their point of view of what their
interests are, and have it sponsored by the Americans abroad.
In the same way, also have Americans abroad sponsor American
musical groups to come through the Middle East.
If you and I sit down to begin to solve an issue, and we do
not know each other, it is very difficult. But if we develop a
relationship first, then we can move on to the issue.
Ms. Beers. That is right.
Mr. Wolf. I think the more outreach of people-to-people,
the better.
Carnes Lord, who is an expert on public diplomacy, who used
to be at the Fletcher School of Law, said that public diplomacy
was successful during the Reagan years because Ronald Reagan
tapped into the desire for freedom in the USSR, and behind the
iron curtain and in the Eastern Bloc. Reagan told the people in
the east that he valued their freedom more than the status quo.
It seemed to me that our public diplomacy was successful
then because we tapped into the legitimate yearnings. We should
tap into the legitimate yearnings of those in Egypt, of those
in Syria, who want freedom. This little cavity in everybody who
wants freedom and respect, they may not be overly enthused with
regard to their government.
We should tap in. Reagan dealt with the Soviet Union, but
he always articulated our values. Even when he went to the
Soviet Union and went to the Danilov Monastery, he always spoke
out for American values.
Ronald Reagan said that the words in the Declaration of
Independence were a covenant with the world; not only with us
in America. I think that we should not be afraid to take our
values to Saudi Arabia; to take our values to Cairo; to take
our values and speak out on them.
If they are going to get upset with us speaking out on
values, then we do have a fundamental problem. But I think we
ought not be reluctant to tap into those yearnings.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Yes?
Mr. Kennedy. In that regard, it seems to me, though, part
of the frustration with our country is the fact that we say one
thing and do another. We talk about these values, yet we align
ourselves with these dictatorial regimes that create the kind
of distrust of our Government.
That is why we have got to deal with that, because we
cannot be saying one thing and doing another.
Mr. Wolf. Well, I agree with the gentlemen, and I think we
should tell the Saudi government, the funding of the madrassa
Schools in Pakistan was the breeding ground of Mullah Omar. The
Taliban really began in the madrassas, in Peshawar, and all
that area up along the border. That is where it began. Those
schools were funded by the Saudis.
So we should tell them, listen, we want to be your friends,
but for you to be funding a school which goes out, over and
over and over, is anti-west and anti-values, because we are not
anti-Saudi. You do not come into our schools and hear anti-
Saudi statements.
Ms. Beers. No.
Mr. Wolf. We respect the Saudis. We like the Saudi people.
So they ought not fund programs that are bringing about a
disrespect and a hatred in some of those madrassa Schools.
There are thousands of them, and I think every American public
official ought to take some time, and go to Pakistan, and go
into some of the madrassa Schools, and look at some of the
curriculum.
Ms. Beers. I just want to add one thing on that, because
you mentioned it to me earlier, and it was striking. The
Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia has contacted us and asked if
we will help reconstruct their educational process. We just
funded this project with the NEA division, so that can get
started.
Mr. Wolf. That is good.
Ms. Beers. It is good news, is it not?
Mr. Wolf. I would urge you to take this report and read it.
Ms. Beers. Do you mean the Defense Science Board Report?
Mr. Wolf. Right, the report says the private media cannot
and should not be relied on to act as advocates for national
security policies. Therefore, the U.S. requires a coordinated
means to speak with a coherent voice abroad. It also says the
U.S. Government dissemination organizations are under-staffed.
They are under-funded.
The report also says that information dissemination of
organizations suffer from poor coordination. They are not
integrated into the national security planning and
implementation process.
The report also recommends that the President issue a
national security Presidential directive on international
information dissemination to strengthen the United States
Government's ability to communicate with foreign audiences and
coordinate public diplomacy and public affairs.
It also recommends creating a National Security Council
policy coordinating committee on international information
dissemination with an expanded secretariat, led by the
Department of State. It also recommends strengthening the
Department of State's international information bureau.
Now I know things are moving very, very fast. But I think
this report ought to be digested. I believe that the White
House and State Department should implement these
recommendations, or at least put forward responses to the
recommendations.
The last major issue is on exchanges. The CSIS report
entitled ``Reinventing Diplomacy in the Information Age''
recommends doubling the number of American students studying
abroad in the next decade.
Listen to these figures. In the year 2000, China had
approximately 60,000 students in the U.S.; 7,600 students from
Hong Kong were in the U.S. So that was a total of 67,000. There
were only about 3,000 Americans studying in China, and 342 in
Hong Kong.
In the year 2000, there were approximately 15,000 students
in the U.S. from the Middle East, while only 4,000 American
students study in the Middle East. Some 40,000 students from
India studied in the U.S., while 811 Americans studied in
India.
Then we come to Europe. I guess everyone likes to go to
Paris. But in Europe, by far the most popular destination for
U.S. students, 86,000 Americans studied there.
So I think the State Department really has to be pushing
these exchange programs. The benefit will really come later; I
mean, it is not going to solve the problem by Labor Day. But it
begins the process that really makes the difference to develop
those relationships that I think can help make a big
difference.
Ms. Beers. It is curious that in the country you named,
China, they are very personally supportive themselves. I know
some of the countries around the world have funded the
exchanges on their own initiatives. So it points to the
efficacy of the whole system.
Mr. Wolf. Well, with that, unless Mr. Serrano or Mr.
Kennedy has any questions, we will submit a number of questions
for the record.
I have just a couple more things. I would urge you to pull
together the very best minds outside of the Government on
communicating with public audiences. Those who have done it
before, those who are thinking about it, and bring them on an
ad hoc, voluntary basis.
Ms. Beers. Yes.
Mr. Wolf. It is important to listen to people who are
outside of Government, but have ideas, both those who have
served and those who have not served, and also to listen to the
Muslim community here in the United States, as you are
apparently doing, to validate or at least to question your
approach.
Ms. Beers. Yes.
Mr. Wolf. Because when they are questioning us, it forces
us to make sure we are on the right path.
Ms. Beers. Exactly.
Mr. Wolf. Lastly, I think the White House has to coordinate
this effort. It ought to be run out of the White House. Our
soldiers in Afghanistan are doing an incredible job, and I
think the Bush Administration is doing an incredible job.
Ms. Beers. That is right.
Mr. Wolf. The women are going back to school and the
hospitals are getting supplies and the malnourishment has
stopped. There are many more good things that have happened in
Afghanistan.
It does not mean that they will continue. That is why I
think nation-building is important and to make sure that the Al
Qaeda and Taliban never come back. Because 15,000 went through
the training camps, and only 500 have been arrested.
But on an objective basis, the Administration, the State
Department, have done an excellent job there. In fact, in some
respects, it is going better and more quickly than many people
thought.
Ms. Beers. I know.
Mr. Wolf. So our policy and being involved with Afghanistan
has made a difference. People are going to find fault, but we
want to maintain progress so several years from now, when
terrorism has been destroyed, our reputation in the Middle East
and elsewhere is good.
People should know the American people are good people.
They care. They are decent. They are honest. They care about
other people, and they do have empathy. We are the most
generous people of the world, and we have to tell our story in
a systematic way. But the White House really has to coordinate
this, because U.S. AID, and other agencies, all have to be on
this team.
Ms. Beers. Yes.
Mr. Wolf. It is not enough that they just carry out their
activities; they have to tell people about it as well. The
Department of Defense has to be involved, working together with
the State Department. So I would hope that, this report could
be monitored and looked at very carefully by the White House.
With that, unless Mr. Serrano has anything else?
Mr. Serrano. I just wondered if you could comment on the
whole issue of translators and interpreters at the State
Department?
It seems to us that after September 11, one of the big
issues was the lack of people at the State Department who spoke
languages other than English, and if we are going to win this
public relations war we need more folks who do that. What has
been your experience?
Ms. Beers. Well, we were scrambling right after September
11. When Ambassador Ross showed up in my office with this
elegant, classic Arabic, I had no intention of letting him go.
He is now working aggressively to collect as many of the people
who are knowledgeable about the languages in the Middle East
and the other Muslim majority regions.
We find they are there, and some of them are ex-patriots.
Some of them are retired, and we are having to bring them back.
The whole Foreign Service Institute is importantly emphasizing
languages, not that it has not always. I think it is more acute
in the Middle East because it became such a high profile issue
than it is in other parts of the world.
Conversely, when I have talked to the PAOs and been in the
embassies, I am impressed with how many languages they have
mastered and how comfortable they are usually in the region in
which they serve.
Mr. Serrano. All right. I will submit the rest of my
questions for the record. I thank you for your testimony.
Ms. Beers. Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much for your testimony. We
appreciate it very much.
Next will be the Broadcasting Board of Governors. Your full
statement will appear in the record. You can summarize or
proceed as you see fit. Go right ahead.
Wednesday, April 24, 2002.
BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS
WITNESSES
MARC NATHANSON, CHAIRMAN
NORMAN PATTIZ, GOVERNOR
Opening Remarks of Marc Nathanson
Mr. Nathanson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that
my remarks will be printed in the record, so I am not going to
take the time of the Committee to read a lot of extensive
remarks because you have them. I just want to express my
appreciation to the committee for your support.
My name is Marc Nathanson. I am the chairman of the
Broadcasting Board of Governors. Thirty-four years ago, I was
working on the Hill for Robert Kennedy, and then I went into
private business in the international communications business,
specifically the cable television business. I am very honored
to serve my country in this position.
The Broadcasting Board of Governors, working with the
Radios, is very much involved in the efforts that you have been
discussing today. We have with us today the heads of all of our
radio services. They are here in the audience.
With me besides Norm Pattiz, who will speak to you
specifically about broadcasting to the Middle East, we have
Mark Ledbetter, a fellow governor. In addition, we have Bob
Reilly, the director of Voice of America; Tom Dine, the
president of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty; Dick Richter, the
president of Radio Free Asia; Salvador Lew, the new director of
the Office of Cuba Broadcasting; and Brian Conniff, the acting
director of the International Broadcasting Bureau and the
executive director of the BBG.
Let me just say briefly to you, Mr. Chairman, that since
the Broadcasting Board of Governors was formed two and a half
years ago, we are in a very complex world of international
broadcasting. You can no longer just be in short wave radio,
even though I know one of the Members is a great short wave
radio fan, but short wave listenership is declining throughout
many parts of the world.
In order to be a player in international communications,
one must be on FM, on AM, on digital satellite, on cable
television, television and the internet. In other words, if
America's message is to be heard by the world, then we must
participate in all of these telecommunications media in our
targeted countries throughout the world in order to increase
the impact of U.S. foreign policy and have our voice be heard.
The Broadcasting Board of Governors has come up with a
comprehensive strategy which this committee has helped us to
start--just start--to implement. We are focusing on targeted
areas throughout the world; not just the Middle East, but
throughout the world, to increase our message. We must have the
ability to communicate with the people of those countries; not
just the elites, but the mass audiences, the younger audiences,
and to focus specifically on methods that have been used by
commercial broadcasting, which I have been a part of for 43
years, as has my colleague, Norm Pattiz, next to me.
To achieve these goals, we must improve the marketing. We
must let people know where our frequencies are so that they can
listen to our message. We must strengthen our multi-media
message so it is not just limited to short wave, but it is also
on AM, FM, the internet, and television.
We must update our formats, and our formats must be
established on a country by country basis. What works in one
country may not work in another country. We also must have much
more control over our delivery systems and, if possible, have a
24 hour radio stream in a country, that can be shared by
various components of international broadcasting. We must
satisfy our market niche. What works in Russia will not work in
the Middle East or in China. We must adapt to the markets in
each of these countries.
The dollars that you have appropriated have gone toward
making these improvements. Our budget request of $517 million
includes $19 million to increase VOA and Radio Free Europe
broadcasts to Central Asia and the Middle East that we have
begun this year. We beefed up broadcasts after September 11
thanks to supplemental funding. VOA increased programming in
Dari, in Pashto, as well as languages to neighboring countries
in Farsi, Urdu and Uzbek.
As mandated by Congress, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
created the new Radio Free Afghanistan, which is now
broadcasting three hours a day in Dari and Pashto for a total
of six hours. Radio Free Europe plans to increase and to expand
these hours and to create a major training program for Afghan
journalists, which is just starting right now and is badly
needed in that country.
We are also working with the Defense Department to get AM
and FM transmission capabilities in Afghanistan for VOA and
RFE/RL broadcasts, as well as providing frequencies and
facilities for the Afghan Government. The BBG broadcast can
serve as a voice of reunification during a period of
reconstruction in Afghanistan and help the process of democracy
by providing the Afghan people with accurate, up-to-date news
and information.
U.S. international broadcasting has a combined total of
more than two dozen journalists working in and around
Afghanistan who are reporting not just on international events,
but on local events and interviewing local government
officials, as well as world leaders.
We have many other key areas of priority, which are
discussed in my written testimony. I could spend hours with you
talking about Russia and China and other areas of the world,
but I am going to skip over that because I want Governor Pattiz
to focus specifically on our new Middle East project in which I
know the committee is interested.
Let me just say in summary that U.S. international
broadcasting is actively fighting the war on terrorism by
promoting democracy and telling the world, as Chairman Wolf
just stated, that Americans are good, compassionate, charitable
people.
Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Opening Remarks of Norman Pattiz
Mr. Pattiz. Thank you, Chairman Nathanson, and thank you,
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is Norm
Pattiz, and it is my privilege to be a member of the
Broadcasting Board of Governors as well.
I am amused when the Broadcasting Board of Governors is
referred to as a part-time board of private citizens. We are
private citizens, eight private citizens, along with the
Secretary of State, but I can assure you this is nothing like
any part-time job I have ever seen.
In my other life, I am the chairman of Westwood One, which
is America's largest radio network. We own, manage and
distribute NBC radio networks, the CBS radio networks, Fox
radio news and CNN radio news. I not only want to thank you for
the privilege of being able to serve my country, but I want to
thank my shareholders for allowing me the time to be able to do
both jobs.
As it relates to the Middle East Radio Network, I thought I
would just very quickly tell you how it came about, what we
said we would do, and where we are. When I was sworn in to the
BBG a year and a half ago, I was asked to serve as the co-chair
of the language review subcommittee. That is the BBG committee
that is mandated by Congress to look at our broadcast language
services on an annual basis to determine how our resources are
divided up among the 65 different languages that we currently
broadcast in.
One particular area stood out, and I reported this back to
the Board. In doing some research on the Middle East, I found
that our entire commitment to the Middle East was seven hours a
day of Arabic language programming broadcast in a one-size-
fits-all approach to the entire region distributed on short
wave, which very few people listen to, and on a very weak
medium wave, or AM signal, out of the Island of Rhodes, which
was only audible in the evening and then only in the coastal
areas. Clearly, whatever message we were distributing to the
Middle East was not being heard.
Our research, and we have done a great deal of research in
the area, indicated that less than two percent of those polled
in the region were even familiar with the Voice of America
Arabic service. I reported that to the Board, and the Board
said ``Congratulations, you are now the chairman of the Middle
East committee. Go do something about it.''
With other members of the Board, we traveled to the region
and have traveled to the region on numerous occasions since
that time visiting places like Cairo, Amman, and throughout the
Gulf in places like Qatar, Bahrain, AbuDhabi, and Dubai. I have
also visited Jerusalem, as well as TelAviv and also visited
Ramallah, and observed a lot of things.
The one thing that I observed firsthand is that there is a
media war as it relates to us going on in the Middle East, and
the weapons of that war are disinformation, incitement to
violence, hate radio, journalistic self-censorship and
government censorship, and that the United States does not have
a horse in this race.
The President, in his comments of October 10, I believe it
was, in his prime time press conference said in so many words
why do they hate us? Well, the only vision, the only view that
they are getting of the United States of America is coming from
primarily government-controlled media sources throughout that
region. They are not hearing it from our own lips, and they are
not getting a picture of who we are and what we are about
presented in any way other than by their own indigenous media.
We said what we were going to do about this was determine
what resources existed for us. We wanted to put together a
state-of-the-art, twenty-first century broadcasting service
that would utilize FM broadcasting, AM broadcasting, digital
audio satellites and the internet.
In traveling to the region and meeting with modern Arab
governments, we realized that we had a good possibility of
getting FM frequencies throughout the region. By putting that
together with powerful AM transmitters from outside the region
and using digital satellite frequencies similar to the audio
channels that you would find on something like----
Mr. Nathanson. XM?
Mr. Pattiz. No, not XM. What is the satellite----
Mr. Pattiz. Direct TV. Thank you very much. I hope nobody
from Direct TV or EchoStar is in the audience. By using those
types of services which have digital audio satellite channels,
we can download our signal there as well.
What this does, is it creates what we call broadcast
redundancy, which gives us the ability to be on all of these
channels, and also, if we do our jobs correctly, it is
conceivable that one or two governments might be irritated with
some of the things that we have to say from time to time. We
want to make sure that nobody can threaten to pull the plug on
us, that we are able to be heard on several different channels
of distribution.
We have done that. We wanted to put together a
sophisticated broadcast system using Western broadcast
techniques to build the largest possible audience. We wanted to
utilize the concept of formatics, which is what drives
broadcasting, successful commercial broadcasting, throughout
the United States, throughout the West and throughout many
parts of the world.
Television is a medium of programs. Radio is a medium of
formats. When people listen to the radio, they tend to listen
to radio because it is a style of broadcasting that they want
to listen to throughout the day. I daresay if I went into any
one of your cars right now and checked the settings on your
radios to see what buttons were preselected, I could tell an
awful lot about who you are.
We determined through significant research--let me say
this; this is a heavily research-driven project--that we wanted
to go after the target audience of primarily those 25 years of
age and younger. That represents between 60 and 70 percent of
the population of the region, depending upon which country you
are looking at, and it represents the Arab street. We want to
make sure that we reach the Arab street.
News seekers will find us. They will find us because of who
we are. They will want to know what we have to say. Reaching
the Arab street and attracting that audience is a completely
different prospect. We have to attract that audience again by
using sophisticated broadcasting techniques, music, news,
information, and the kind of heavily researched programming
that will attract that audience so that before we ever play the
first record or before we ever produce the first feature, we
have a very good idea of what that audience wants to listen to
from a radio station before we ever flip the switch.
We have done that, and we have been conducting research now
since a year ago last January. Let me say that this project
began a year ago last January, well before the events of
September 11th.
Where are we today? As of this moment, we are up and
running. We are not completely there because some of the
transmission resources will take a good deal of time to put on.
We are building a Mid-East Broadcast Center in Dubai, which
will be the center where we will locate our personnel
developing individual program streams.
We will be broadcasting 24 hours a day, seven days a week,
and for a portion of every broadcast day we will have targeted
programming streams that will go to five distinct areas within
the region. We will have a targeted programming stream to
Sudan. We will have a targeted programming stream to the Gulf.
We will have one to Amman and the West Bank in Jordan. We will
have one to Egypt, and we will have one to Iraq.
Where are we right now? We are on the air on FM frequencies
in Amman, Kuwait, AbuDhabi and Dubai. We will be coming on
shortly in Qatar and Bahrain. We are on three digital satellite
systems, ArabSat, NileSat and EutelSat. Soon we will be
accessing a powerful medium wave transmitter in Kuwait where we
will be able to put on our first targeted stream to Iraq.
We expect by the end of the week, by the end of this month,
to have our agreement signed for our transmitter in Djibouti,
which will access primarily the Sudan, but give us great
penetration into Saudi Arabia as well, and we also expect in
very short order to have our agreement signed in Cyprus. Cyprus
is a very important transmitter for us because that will cover
the Levant and a good portion of the region by AM.
I guess the headline is that the Middle East Radio Network
is up and running. We are getting a lot of anecdotal
information from our embassies in the region, from our bureaus
in the region and from people we know in the region. We are
getting information.
We got one piece of information from one of our people in
Jerusalem who says the radio station is being played in his
gym. We got a call from somebody else who was telling us that
he got in a cab in Amman, and it was being played in Amman. We
talked to the Amman Embassy, who told us that they are hearing
the radio station played throughout the country.
We are on right now. We are playing music 24 hours a day.
We are also up with news at 15 minutes and 45 minutes after the
hour, well ahead of our projections, so we are doing 48
newscasts right now. We expect within the next couple of weeks
to start our policy programming.
We will have interview programs, dialogues, round tables,
policy discussions. Those will be the kinds of things that we
will be broadcasting, but we will also have this underlying
notion in mind. We have to marry our mission to the market.
In the Middle East we can do it with a popular music radio
station, and we have done significant research on this, that
plays contemporary Arabic music and contemporary western music.
We have researched it. We have been getting research back from
Cairo, from Amman and from Bahrain on the type of music mix
that we should be playing.
I think that insofar as the Middle East Radio Network is
concerned, we are accomplishing our mission. We are ahead of
schedule. Your support has been absolutely essential, and now,
as it relates to the President's budget for 2003, we have the
full funding we requested.
We thank you for your support. We look forward to working
with you on a continuing basis. Chairman Nathanson and I would
be happy to answer any questions that you have.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much. With my colleague here, Mr.
Kennedy, I would just say in a serious vein that you remember
the words of former President Kennedy when he said ask not what
you can do for your country.
I appreciate both of you doing it. I think it is very
positive. The more you are spending on this and the less time
that you are spending at your business is, quite frankly, more
important because this country needs you.
I think this is not something that I am an expert on. Maybe
Mr. Serrano might know more or Mr. Kennedy might know more, but
we really need people who have been in the business, who
understand, who market it; not just motion, but that things are
out there and really making a difference.
I was pleased to hear you mention Saudi Arabia. When I saw
your material on the countries--you mentioned Cyprus, Amman,
Gaza, Kuwait--Saudi Arabia was not mentioned. I think we should
take this directly to the Saudi people with our values.
I know a lot of Saudis. They want freedom. They want
liberty. They want a lot of the stuff that they are not really
getting, and I think that they have to hear this message so I
was going to ask why did you not mention it, but you very
forthrightly mentioned it. I think it is important.
Also, I think it is important that we are not only talking
about the Middle East, but also other parts of the world.
Africa is very important. We have had some discussion with your
people on Nigeria, and I think it is important that the people
that you have are also advocates for our position and not
people who are not advocates for it because this is being
funded by the United States Government.
I appreciate your testimony. I am very impressed with both
of you. Some questions. I have a number. How will you measure
and how will you see the progress, and when will we be given
something measurable? The anecdotal stories about the cab in
Amman are important, but when will we have something measurable
that the Congress and the country can see that this has made a
difference or, conversely, that you are running something that
is not good, and we are going to change it or direct it? When
will we see this progress?
PROGRESS OF BROADCAST INITIATIVES
Mr. Pattiz. We expect to be functioning with most of our
program streams. We will be up and running in our Dubai Media
Center. Right now we are broadcasting strictly from Washington,
D.C., but we will be broadcasting from our Dubai Media Center
by the end of summer.
In the areas where we are broadcasting, we expect to go
into those areas where we can do research. We have done
research prior to this, which is how we know how well we were
not doing, and we will be able to go in and do research after
this. That research will basically give us the size and
demographic breakdown of our audience.
It will take us a little bit longer where we are depending
upon our AM transmitters because our AM transmitters take much
longer to build. We have to actually go out there and build
those towers in very remote places, and some of them will take
months to get up.
In the places where we are broadcasting on FM and the
places where we are broadcasting where they receive us on
digital audio satellite, we will be able to do research within
a matter of months that will show us exactly how we are doing
in terms of audience delivery.
Mr. Wolf. So by the end of the year we will have a good
sense?
Mr. Pattiz. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wolf. You have been on the air for several months in
Afghanistan. How large is your audience there?
Mr. Nathanson. We have not started our research on Radio
Free Afghanistan. We are planning to do research.
One thing I want to assure the Committee members is the
Board has insisted since its existence two and a half years ago
that research is a vital component of international
broadcasting. Relatively little research was done by
international broadcasting in its 60 year history. It just made
no sense to us.
The other thing was a lack of promotion and marketing
dollars. You have to let people know where you are and what
frequencies you are on, so in all areas, including Afghanistan,
where we are able to, and in some countries we cannot, there
will be research. The research will be done by the end of the
year, and we will share that research with the Committee.
Mr. Wolf. So we do not know actually today?
Mr. Nathanson. No. We do not know right now because we are
just now putting on the transmitters. We have only had a few
months. We are six hours a day in Dari and Pashto, and those
are just beginning so we do not have enough information to let
you know.
I should say historically Voice of America has had a very
high listenership in Afghanistan. Eighty percent of the males
polled in research under the Taliban were listening to the
Voice of America, so we are not as concerned about developing
audience there because it is very media stark, but we will have
research. We will share that with the Committee. We will have
that by the end of the year.
Mr. Wolf. What is our competition in Afghanistan?
Mr. Nathanson. It is Iran.
Mr. Wolf. Iran? Iran has a station? Has a TV station?
Mr. Nathanson. Iran has put in radio transmitters, has
offered it to the transitional government there. There is one
in operation. They are also broadcasting in the three provinces
that are closest to Iran, and they are in there. Other foreign
broadcasters, the BBC being one, are going into the market.
One of the things that we are doing is not just promoting
Radio Free Afghanistan and the Voice of America, but we are
working with the government to develop their own media because
we think that is very important that they have an outreach.
Part of what we are doing is sharing facilities and providing
training.
Mr. Wolf. Will they have a TV station up or a radio
station?
RADIO STATION IN AFGHANISTAN STATUS
Mr. Nathanson. Yes.
Mr. Wolf. When will that be?
Mr. Nathanson. We are just now in the final stages of
negotiations of this, for both ourselves and the Afghan
Government to use powerful AM transmitters in the country.
Mr. Wolf. I will just ask this last question. Recent
initiatives such as Radio Free Asia and Radio Free Afghanistan
have been implemented by non-governmental organizations that
receive grants from the Board.
However, as a pilot project under the umbrella of the Voice
of America, which is a U.S. Government agency, are there
special challenges or differences in launching and operating a
network that is really an entity of the government?
Mr. Pattiz. Let me say this. There are challenges, yes, but
there are also great opportunities. I have to say that in terms
of the numerous trips that I have taken to the region and in
the numerous countries and sitting down with Ministers of
Information and Heads of State and others, Voice of America,
and I know branding is not particularly a big word these days,
but let me just say this:
Voice of America is a brand name that is known worldwide,
and it is a point of entry that is unparalleled in U.S.
international broadcasting. So whatever the challenges are in
working within the government structure of the Voice of
America, I have to say that I think it has been more than made
up for by the fact that this being a pilot project of the Voice
of America opened a lot of doors that would have been much more
difficult to get through had we not had it.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Serrano?
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to join
in thanking you folks for your service.
In this hearing today, many of us sound like we have
forgotten, but we have not. It is at heart a budget hearing,
and it has a very strong Middle East touch to it. I would do a
disservice to myself and to my work here in Congress if I did
not bring you to my second favorite island in the Caribbean,
the first one being the one I was born in; the other one being
Cuba.
T.V. Marti has always been the Rodney Dangerfield of radio
and TV in Congress. It gets very little respect. It always gets
funded, but it does not get respect because many people feel,
those who support it and those who do not, that it has not been
successful at all, that it is not seen in Cuba, that the signal
has been jammed by the Cuban Government, unlike Radio Marti
that whatever you think about it it does get into Cuba. The
people who come from Cuba tell me they hear it. They hear
music. They hear our message.
T.V. Marti? I have never met anyone from Cuba who tells me
they ever saw TV Marti. What is the status on TV Marti?
RADIO AND TV MARTI
Mr. Nathanson. TV Marti, as you said, as we have discussed
in the past, is still being jammed. One thing that we are
doing, in the Office of Cuba Broadcasting, is that we are going
to stream part of TV Marti on the internet. We are told that
there are 100,000 PC users on the island of Cuba, and streaming
will be an attempt to have more viewers, and it is more
difficult to jam because of the nature of the Internet versus
television. Nonetheless, TV Marti continues.
There are other places in the world our radio signals are
jammed, China being one of them. We continue, though, to
broadcast to China and North Korea, even though we are being
jammed. We hope someday, working with other government
agencies, including the State Department, that they will not be
jammed, but they are being jammed today.
Mr. Serrano. And so it is interesting that you folks, many
of you, and certainly you do, sir, come from the private
sector. In the private sector, you would not keep funding a
program like TV Marti that has been a failure for so long.
Mr. Pattiz. Well, that is an interesting question because
it is a question that I raised when I came on the board. I got
an interesting answer and one that resonated with me, which is
there are places where the only way we can get it in is via
short wave, and there are places like Cuba where we want to get
a television signal into the area, and we cannot because we are
jammed.
Do we simply pack up our tent and go home and let people
know that if all they have to do is jam us and we will lose our
patience and go away? Or do we continue to send the message and
push for ways to get that signal into the area?
That is not something that I have to deal with in the
private sector. It is something that I think is a reality in
government life.
Mr. Serrano. Chairman Nathanson, recently you and I have
exchanged correspondence about Radio Marti's broadcast on
February 27, 2002, of statements made by Mexican Foreign
Minister Jorge Castenada in Miami and the resulting occupation
of the Mexican Embassy in Havana.
You mentioned in your response that all news organizations
frequently shorten quotes and sound bites, but that you are
aware of the sensitivities that surround Radio Marti
broadcasts. How will you make sure that a similar event does
not happen in the future?
Let me for the record recall the fact that many folks were
very troubled at the fact that they felt that the way Radio
Marti presented the comments by the Foreign Minister sort of
invited people to show up at the embassy.
I do not think that is a statement on conditions in Cuba,
but if tomorrow Radio Marti suggested that the people would be
welcome at the American Embassy in any part of the world, in
any country of the world, people would show up at the embassy
to leave that country.
Mr. Nathanson. You know, as we have discussed, it is
critical to this Board and to me personally that all the radio
services and in particular the Office of Cuba Broadcasting
follow the journalistic practices of the Voice of America; that
is, to present both sides of an issue, to be fair and truthful,
not to be on one side or another.
We are monitoring that on a constant basis. We are
reviewing that. In any instance where that is not the case we
are concerned. The IBB is responsible for that, which is part
of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, and this is such a
continuing issue that we have even provided training from
Florida International University on journalistic standards to
our people down there. We are constantly trying to improve
that.
I assure you that we want to ensure that balanced reporting
and both sides of the issue go into all of our newscasts on all
of our services, including the Office of Cuba Broadcasting.
That is part of the original charter of Voice of America.
Mr. Serrano. Let me ask you a question. We used to
broadcast from Washington to Cuba.
Mr. Nathanson. Yes.
Mr. Serrano. Then there were appropriations as a political
decision to transfer its operation to Miami. Did that make the
signal stronger because it was closer to Cuba, or did that just
allow some local folks to control the operation and take it
away from you guys?
Mr. Nathanson. It had nothing to do with the signal.
Mr. Serrano. It had nothing to do with the signal?
Mr. Nathanson. The signals were the same.
Mr. Serrano. So the signal was the same, but the signals
that were to be sent politically were different, so basically
you guys no longer control Radio and TV Marti. It is done in
Miami. Is that correct?
Mr. Nathanson. No. The Board still controls it. The Board
still has oversight, but it is not based in Washington. It is
now based in Miami, by a decision of Congress, which was not
supported by this Board or the previous Board. We followed the
direction of Congress in doing that.
Mr. Serrano. All right. Let me ask you one last question on
this particular issue of the move. We broadcast to different
parts of the world, and we are a country of communities. We
have communities in this country. There is a big Polish
community in Buffalo, New York, and in Chicago. There are Arabs
in different parts of the country. There are Asians out west
and most anywhere else.
Have any of those other broadcast facilities moved to any
of those communities, or is this the only one that moved to a
particular community, meaning Miami, which has a large Cuban
American population?
Mr. Nathanson. To my knowledge, all of our broadcasts are
either based in Washington, or in the case of Radio Free
Europe/Radio Liberty they were based in Munich, and now they
are based in Prague. The Office of Cuba Broadcasting was moved
to Miami. That is the only one.
Mr. Serrano. Let me ask you a question that is at best
different, I admit--I thought of it as I was sitting here; I do
not have it anywhere written--and perhaps seen to be bizarre.
There is a growing number of people in Congress who I would
love to boast have come around to my thinking on Cuba, but they
on their own came around to change their minds, a large number
of people in the business community. It is not what it was ten
years ago.
Yesterday we had an amendment on the Floor, an issue on the
Floor, instructing the conferees to allow different sales of
food and medicine to Cuba. It passed with almost a few hundred
votes, a new day on the issue, but our message to Cuba is based
now on a philosophy that a lot of Americans and a lot of
Members of Congress do not agree with. That is not true in the
Middle East where I think there is unity on what we are saying,
not true in China, and not true in other places.
With that in mind, what in this great democracy, with
provisions for dissent, is there within our radio broadcast
overseas? In other words, if a group or Member of Congress
petitioned you folks to give us half an hour a week unedited
for us to send a message to Cuba that says that we disagree
with our Government and this democracy and that we think the
embargo should end and that we look forward to the day when it
ends and that we can work together to bring about changes in
the world and that we are not their enemies, but their
neighbor, number one, what would be the process or procedure to
ask for that time?
Two, realistically, and you can talk to me. I mean, there
are only a couple of thousand people listening. What are our
chances for success?
Now, I must add something. This would be unique, I
understand. We would be going on say every couple of weeks with
15 or 20 minutes saying I disagree with my government on this
issue. I am a great American. I love this country, but we are
wrong. We should change.
What would happen there?
Mr. Nathanson. The Board of Governors is a firewall. It is
a firewall between the journalists and Members of Congress and
Members of the Administration. In other words, the journalists
are supposed to report on news, both sides. If we are talking
about embargo, pro embargo and anti embargo, both sides, if
that is what the story is about.
The Board is there to insure that both sides are being
heard. However----
Mr. Serrano. Let me interrupt you. You know, I have
listened to Radio Marti. It does not tell two sides. It is set
there to tell one side and to encourage people to get upset
about their government and so on. That may be fine. That may be
okay, but it is not a two-sided issue here.
What I am saying is could I, could Mr. Rangel, could Mr.
McGovern, could Ms. Emerson, who is very strong, folks like
that, whether they are in private practice or public service,
could we petition for time to tell our side of the story?
I am sure in some circles we would be called subversive and
anti-American, but we get a lot of that on this particular
issue. What is in the----
Mr. Pattiz. Do you want me to take a piece of this?
Mr. Nathanson. If you want.
Mr. Pattiz. Let me just tell you what I think, okay? I do
not think you should have to petition anybody. I think that the
service should seek you out. You know, I think that those are
the kinds of things we should do.
I mean, in the VOA charter, and we like to pattern most of
what we do after that original charter, we are obliged to
present the many views and many voices of America. We are not
supposed to be presenting a single view of somebody's America.
We are supposed to present a broad view of what is going on in
America.
Mr. Serrano. Listen, I do not want to interrupt you, and I
do not want to take up more time from my colleagues here, but
give me a break. That is not what happens on the issue of Cuba.
You know that. I mean, that is not what is happening.
Mr. Pattiz. I have been spending a lot of time in Bahrain.
Mr. Serrano. In fact, I will tell you, to his credit that
Mr. Lew, the director, came over and introduced himself and
gave me his business card and said anything we can talk about I
will. That is the first time I have seen the director of Radio/
TV Marti in my life ever approach me, and I say that to his
credit. I respect that, sir.
You know, we are a democracy. We have differences of
opinions.
Mr. Nathanson. Right.
Mr. Serrano. You are kidding yourself if you think you are
kidding me into believing that when it comes to Cuba, Radio and
TV Marti offers a balanced approach to the point where you have
a Member of Congress saying pretty-please is it possible that I
could say in a very pro-democracy way there is a bunch of us
that disagree with our government on this particular issue, and
we are working to change this so people of Cuba understand.
We are trying to change the way you get food from the
United States because right now you have to buy it with cash.
We are hoping we treat you like everybody else.
Baseball players in Cuba are the only people in the world
that are not allowed to play here. You know, the statement has
always been Castro will not let them go. If he lets them go,
they have to come here. First of all, they have to go to Miami
before they can throw one pitch for the New York Yankees.
If they go to Miami and say I left Cuba, and I just want to
make money in the U.S. and play baseball, they are out of here
in two seconds. They will be in minor leagues forever, or they
will never get signed up. That is a fact of life.
If I want to tell a baseball player I have a bill, H.R. 26,
by the way, the Cuban Baseball Diplomacy Act, which would allow
you, like anybody else, to get a visa, come here, play baseball
and go back at the end of the season and keep your earnings and
take them back. You pay your New York state taxes. Obviously,
if Cubans played for the Yankees we would never lose again.
If I wanted to tell them that, under this set up I cannot
do that. I do not have equal time on that station. Why on that
station? Because everywhere else our policy is pretty much in
agreement. Both sides agree on what it should be, but it is not
in this case.
Mr. Pattiz. Well, it should not be that way, Congressman.
It should not be that way.
You know, the mission of U.S. international broadcasting
quite simply is to promote freedom and democracy through the
free flow of accurate, reliable and credible news and
information about America and the world to audiences overseas,
and it should apply to all of our services.
Mr. Nathanson. And I will respond to your suggestion or
your idea.
Mr. Serrano. If I present it to you.
Mr. Nathanson. You have presented it. I will respond to
your idea. This is a new idea. I had not heard this before. I
heard it today.
Mr. Serrano. I have a bunch more.
Mr. Nathanson. I welcome your ideas, and I will seriously
respond to it. I cannot give you that answer today, but I will
respond to it.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you. Thank you so much.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Serrano.
Clearly right now we are involved in a major clash of world
views, and it is going to determine the future of what kind of
world we live in, what kind of stability this world has. So
much of it is driven from this polarizing place of the world
called the Middle East.
I just want to say and echo my colleagues in thanking both
of you for the work that you are doing to help us modulate that
extremism by bringing some voice of reason or, should I say,
debate and democracy and a world view that is not polarized to
a region of the world that is always polarized.
I think that part of looking back, and hindsight is 20/20,
we might have been able to make the historic agreements work
that had been set out in Oslo if we had had this service up and
going at that time because I have constantly heard from folks
in the Middle East how one of the parts that broke down in this
effort to reach an agreement between both sides was the fact
that Arafat did not communicate or have an interest in
communicating to his people what, the other side of the story
was.
As a result, not surprisingly, he did not win the support
for what he was negotiating or that he needed in order to say
``yes'' instead of ``no'' when that decisive moment came and an
agreement was at hand.
All I can say is I wish more of my colleagues could have
heard your testimony today to really understand how significant
a role you all were going to be playing in defusing, if
possible, the extremism in this part of the world so that we
can get to the first step.
It seems to me one of the things that I have not heard a
lot from our own media here in this country about what step one
constitutes, and we hear about the Tenet plan, and we hear
about all these plans, the Mitchell plan, is that maybe the
first step is doing this kind of dialogue so that we can get
someplace where there are some conversant folks that can talk
about maybe some things that we have that we all agree with and
begin the communication.
It seems to me your programming captures the commonalities
amongst all people, and that is the love of music and culture
and, the spirit of which you are broadcasting to attract
people, which is the spirit of our country, and that is the
freedom to choose what you want to listen to.
If we can take our entrepreneurs here in this country and
the titans of business, Mr. Chairman, and send them over to the
Middle East and have them find out what the market and what the
street wants, believe me, they will find it. They know how to
market. They are successful here and a very competitive, cut
throat business. They have done it well, and they can do it
there. It is very heartening to me to see that they are doing
it on behalf of our country.
I want to thank both of you for the good work that you do,
and I look forward to joining with the Ranking Member and
Chairman to continue to support your efforts and bolstering
your budget because I do think, Mr. Pattiz, as you say, there
is an information war going on out there.
And that is what is fueling the physical war. It is when
you see these folks arguing at each other, and you see the
passion, you know that this is all about people's perceptions
and view based upon their information. If we are not going to
get the information out, how are we ever going to expect to get
a dialogue that is going to be meaningful? So the only thing I
wish that we had as part of Voice of America is an ability to
jam this insightful, hate-filled radio broadcasting that is
currently going on over there. It seems to me we do that in our
military operations under the guise of what is known as ``psy-
ops.'' Why we cannot in the course of our Middle East
endeavors, and maybe this is happening under the radar screen,
but it seems to me if it is not, maybe it should, and we ought
to consider using our modern-day technology to jam this
disinformation and insightful, hate-filled messages that are
coming out and only making it worse for our security. And our
national security is directly related to how much of this hate-
filled rhetoric is out there. So that is my statement, and I
just look forward to continuing to work with the Committee to
get you the funds you need to build those new radio towers and
to get whatever other technology you need to support what you
are doing.
Mr. Pattiz. Thank you, Congressman. I will let somebody
else deal with the subject of jamming other people's signals.
Let me just say that I think your support for the Middle East
Radio Network has been critical for us, not only because of the
importance of the area but also because the Middle East Radio
Network is really a prototype for how we ought to be doing
international broadcasting in the places where that is possible
around the globe.
And your point about focusing in on the market; we have a
saying within the Board right now, which is marrying the
mission to the market. It is critically important, and we are
mindful of it. And we can do what we are doing in the Middle
East in other places around the world. We used the language
review process to get us started on the Middle East Radio
Network with our own funds, and then we are fortunate enough to
be supported by this body and the Administration and so forth.
But as I say, this is the beginning of something that we think
has great potential, and we really appreciate your support.
Concluding Remarks of Subcommittee Chairman Wolf
Mr. Wolf. In closing, we do appreciate it, and we will
attempt to do what we can. I would urge you to be as diligent
and as faithful and as effective as possible because this is
very, very important. It goes hand in hand with the military
that are doing the job that they are doing.
Years ago, I was in Romania, and it was my effort to take
away MFN from Romania. President Reagan signed that bill. The
people of Romania basically wanted to lose MFN, and they would
listen to Radio Free Europe. Whatever the Congress did, usually
the next day they knew what had happened. I was in Tibet
several years ago. We went in with a former Tibetan monk who
did not look like a Tibetan monk. He lives in Massachusetts.
The Chinese would not allow us in, so we went in with a
trekking group. We went in under different auspices, and I got
a clean passport. This fellow spoke the language. We would go
into the bowels of the monastery and talk to the Tibetan monks.
Every one we spoke to, literally every one, I would ask them,
do you ever listen to the radio in America? Yes. They all did.
One man said he did not. He used to, but he was a cab driver,
and he got up very early and left. You are being listened to in
Tibet by most of the people in Tibet, and it offers them hope
and opportunity.
I would also urge you to make sure you heard in Sudan,
where 2.1 million Christians have been killed. There is slavery
today in Sudan. Osama bin Laden lived in Sudan from 1991 to
1996. Most of the groups that are active with regard to
terrorism have training camps in and around Khartoum. Hamas
comes into Khartoum on a regular basis and takes over a portion
of a hotel. The Iranians are there. The Chinese are there. You
are letting the people of Sudan, north and south, Muslim and
Christian, know about these ideas. So I would encourage you to
make sure that broadcasting to Sudan is very effective.
And lastly, to our friends in the Saudi government, you
should make a special effort to put our values on the airwaves
that go into Saudi Arabia so they know where we stand. I have
always been a little disappointed that our government always
seems to pull its punches. They will not talk about religious
freedom and fundamental values when they go to Saudi Arabia. We
have American soldiers that are stationed there, sailors, we
lost people in Khobar Towers, and yet for some reason we never
can talk about our values. Prince Bandar can come here, live in
my Congressional district, go wherever he wants to.
President Bush spoke out very clearly that after what took
place on September 11, there was not an anti-Muslim feeling in
the United States. He went up to the mosque on Wisconsin
Avenue, reached out in a very effective way, and made it clear
that this was a war against terrorism, it was good versus evil
and not anti-Muslim. But yet if we tried to talk about faith in
Saudi Arabia, if people who work in the American Embassy try to
worship whatever faith--men and women who wore the uniform were
not able, the chaplains, were able to wear the insignia whether
they were Catholic or Protestant or Jewish or Muslim, whatever
the case may be, no insignias. Requiring the American women who
serve in the military to wear a certain garb, or if they do
not, they are actually going to have their career impacted. You
should speak truth. As it says in the Bible, ``speak truth to
the powerful.''
I do not think we have anything to be afraid of when we
talk about our values, everywhere, not just in selected cases.
We will attempt to support you in every way we possibly can to
do what you do, and even improve it because there are some
cases that some of our services have not been very well
listened to. They have been out of date and were just doing
motion for motion's sake. Sometimes, when you do not know what
to do you feel good if you are doing something. This is too
important just to do something. What we do has to be effective
to make a difference.
We look forward to helping you financially, doing what we
can, and then as you get some of these market surveys back
whether it be validation of what you're doing or what you need
to adjust, I would hope that you could, on a quarterly basis,
and certainly before we mark up on the final bill, let the
Committee know the results of your survey research.
Mr. Pattiz. We are going to be right on this one, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Good. With that, unless Mr. Serrano has anything
else.
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Chairman, there is a point I did not
mention during this whole hearing today. I hope no one thinks I
am being funny about this. I was talking to a diplomat, an ex-
diplomat from Latin America, who once told me, he said, you
folks have tried to export democracy as your greatest product.
Sometimes you have been successful, and sometimes you have not
been successful. He said, but you have been very successful in
exporting baseball throughout Latin America. It has unified so
many people who continue to be identified with their country of
origin while they play baseball here.
I will give you an example. When you think of Sammy Sosa,
you think of a great home run hitter, a great player, and a
smile, the type of person who loves to play baseball, but you
also think of the Dominican Republic. Very few people know he
is an American citizen. But that relationship between the two
countries over this one thing of baseball--now I am not asking
you guys to get involved in this, but maybe just transmit more
baseball games and less congressional hearings, and you would
be surprised how much people will begin to see us in a
different light.
Mr. Pattiz. Yes.
Mr. Serrano. My whole point is that there are so many
things that we could be doing to promote who we are. Hopefully
in the future it will be a little different than how we left
baseball behind in Latin America. Do you want to find out which
countries we occupy militarily? Just watch where they play
baseball, and that is how you know. That is something good that
we left behind along with some other things.
So I thank you so much for your work, and like I said, even
though we disagree on some things, I respect the work that you
folks do, and I respect the work that all of the people that
were here today do because it is done with the best intent of
serving our country, and that is what it is all about. Thank
you.
Mr. Nathanson. Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. The hearing is adjourned.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2003
----------
Wednesday, March 6, 2002.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
WITNESS
HON. COLIN L. POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE
Opening Remarks of Subcommittee Chairman Wolf
Mr. Wolf. Welcome, Mr. Secretary. We want to welcome you to
the hearing, and I have an opening statement I am going to
make, but before I do I want to share a personal comment. I
want to thank the Administration--you, the President--your
service and your team, Mr. Armitage, Mr. Grant, and all the
people, for the outstanding job that they are doing,
particularly after 9/11, and how things have changed. I want to
put that out on the record from my own point of view. The other
Members will have their own comments. But you have really done
an amazing job, and I am very grateful.
Also, I want to make it clear where I stand with regard to
President Bush and the policies with regard to the war on
terrorism, both domestic and foreign. I completely support what
the President is doing. As you know, I chatted with you when I
got back. I was in Afghanistan for two days. We were in Kabul.
I do not know if you read the report or not, and I do not know
if I am pessimistic or optimistic, but it is a tough, tough
neighborhood. I think the more people focus and understand the
complexity of the situation there, it will become very easy to
defend the policy. I can go anywhere and talk about why this
policy of the Bush Administration is the appropriate policy.
I happened to have, in 1998, visited Algeria for several
days. As you know, 100,000 people have lost their lives through
terrorism in Algeria. Almost every family in Algeria has been
touched by a form of terrorism.
September 11 was not really new; the Marine barracks in
Lebanon in 1983, the embassy in Lebanon in 1983, the Tanzania
Embassy, the Kenya Embassy, the U.S.S. Cole, Khobar Towers.
This is very evil what is going on.
I just want to make sure that, one, I strongly support what
the President is doing, as I know the American people do, and I
think the Congress does on both sides. I do not think it is a
controversial issue.
Secondly, I appreciate very much your service and how you
have handled yourself, certainly over the past year, but
particularly since 9/11, and I want to thank you and thank your
entire team. You have always been very helpful, very
responsive. There may be some issues we do not agree with
completely.
We are going to have a number of questions--I know you have
to leave at 12:30--on policy issues. In addition, a lot of the
budgetary ones will be raised with Mr. Armitage and Mr. Green
and others. But I just wanted to make that personal comment.
Secretary Powell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. The Secretary today will testify regarding the
fiscal year 2003 budget request for the operation of the
Department and the assessed contribution of the United States
to the United Nations and other internal organizations. Perhaps
the key feature of this budget request is the second large
personnel increase in as many years to improve diplomatic
readiness and diplomatic security. The request includes funding
for 631 new positions. If enacted, this will represent a
historic increase of over 1,500 American employees in just two
years. I think we will actually set a record.
This dramatic expansion of the Department has been
undertaken at the same time as widespread calls for reform. The
Overseas President's Advisory Panel Report, the Carlucci
Report, and others made significant reform recommendations that
are not necessarily--and I stress not necessarily--directly
linked to additional appropriations or staff. These included
right-sizing, regionalizing, overseas presence, strengthening
the authority of the ambassador to improve management,
improving inter-agency coordination, and reorganizing the
budget and foreign buildings functions of the Department.
We will be interested to hear about the progress of these
reforms, and the Committee will look to you to be able to
reassure us that the large budget increases are in no way a
substitute for reform. They should go together, and not just
one taking the place of the other.
As we have discussed last year, I think you will find the
Committee eager to assist you in bringing about any needed
reform and in achieving a more secure, strategically-managed
U.S. presence overseas.
I am pleased to see that your budget request continues the
funding stream that Congress and the Administration has
established to improve embassy security. I think that is very
important. I saw the story with regard to Rome several weeks
ago, and Singapore, and for the Committee--and I know Mr.
Rogers was very supportive during his tenure--I am very
supportive of making sure that we have improved embassy
security. That is why when any reprogramming comes up we always
make sure that this is done not to just move something, but is
done to maximize security.
Since the embassy bombings in Africa, the committee has
provided over $4.3 billion to improve embassy security, so we
will be interested to hear your views on how this effort is
proceeding, how is General Williams, who I do not see in the
audience today, but how is he doing?
Another area of particular concern this year is funding for
public diplomacy activities. There is a critical and immediate
need for action to counter anti-American sentiment abroad that
results largely from misinformation, lack of information, and
misunderstanding.
American people are good, decent, compassionate people.
Had it not been for the American people and the American
Government, I do not know what would have taken place in
Bosnia. In some respects, if there was any problem, it was
perhaps that we waited too long. But because of American
efforts and the American military, in Sarajevo now the shops
are open and people can walk, and that is mainly, as you know,
a Muslim community.
We came to the defense of the Muslims in Kosovo, which is
90 percent Albanian Muslim, 10 percent Serbian Orthodox. The
United States stood very boldly, and had we not participated,
the genocide would have continued under Milosevich. You can
look at other places as well, such as Macedonia, which has a 35
percent Albanian Muslim population. I see President Mubarak is
in town--$47 billion of American taxpayer money has been given
to the Egyptian government since the Camp David Peace Accord.
So America is a good place, and we are good people, and for
some reason our message is not appropriately given out. I am
concerned that this effort has not been sufficient, given the
magnitude of the task, and that the budget request may be
inadequate to continue and expand these important activities.
I sent a letter to Mitch Daniels--I think we shared it with
the Department--asking that in this area of public diplomacy
there should be additional funding.
The Committee is going to have a hearing later on, after we
finish the normal process, with your Charlotte Beers, and we
are going to try to bring in some outside experts, with regard
to the Middle East--Muslim, Christian, all denominations--to
see how we get the message out of the goodness of the United
States.
When I saw the latest survey--I know you saw that poll--the
country with the most positive view of the United States seemed
to be Lebanon. And even in Lebanon--I was in Lebanon in April--
it did not seem overly warm with regard to the United States. I
told the Lebanese we had 241 Marines killed in the barracks who
were there in defense of Lebanese people. So America is a good
country, decent, honest, and we have to get that message out.
I am concerned that there is not enough money in the public
diplomacy area to tell the message. We have a great product,
and that is American democracy, it is freedom, it is liberty.
How do we get that out around the world? I also saw how few
people in many of those countries believe that Usama Bin Laden
was responsible for this activity. There should be no doubt. We
should be able to make a clear case that Usama Bin Laden, al-
Qaeda, the Taliban were responsible for that activity. We have
to let them see more data and more information, put it on a web
page, bring people in. I think the more exchange that we have
with regard to those countries, by our people going over, the
better.
I think we are just going to have to really rethink and
maybe do it a little bit differently and maybe spend a little
bit more. But this is not a battle that we can lose.
Lastly, the American soldier is doing an outstanding job,
our military.
With that, I will just refer to Mr. Serrano.
Opening Remarks of Subcommittee Ranking Member Serrano
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is always a
pleasure to welcome Secretary Powell. I take great pride in
bragging about the fact that you and I come from the same
neighborhood.
Secretary Powell. Thank you.
Mr. Serrano. I chose to take on the voters every two years,
you chose to take on the world, but it is worthwhile and I tell
you that every morning as I leave my apartment on the Grand
Concourse in the city and I see the Grand Concourse Walk of
Fame, there you are. I am not on the Walk of Fame yet, but you
are there, and we are working to try to reach that point.
I know that especially today, Mr. Secretary, you face many
complex challenges in terms of our Nation's foreign policy. Be
assured, however, that our Nation continues to value your
leadership at the Department of State.
I look forward to working with you and Chairman Wolf on
this year's State Department budget. I have reviewed the budget
for the Department of State and I am in agreement that we
should continue to place a priority on improving our worldwide
security and readiness, on the hiring of additional personnel
and on continuing our investment in updated computer
technology. We should explore new initiatives in the area of
public diplomacy. We must also continue our active
participation in and obligation to the international
organizations of which we are members, and, of course, we
should continue to support and fund our peacekeeping
obligation.
I have told you this in private, and I have said it in
public. I think, of the so many wonderful things that this
country does, our peacekeeping effort has really shown who we
are as a people, as a Nation, and I think that we should
continue that and I will support you in any way that I can.
Mr. Secretary, I also want to take a moment to thank you
for the personal commitment that you have made and continue to
make to having the personnel in our State Department and
Foreign Service reflect our diverse society. Outstanding
progress has been made and I know will continue under your
leadership. I look forward to learning more details about this
progress during the course of this hearing.
Now I would like to take a moment to express my concerns
about the diplomatic challenges that are part of our
relationship with Latin America, an area that you know you and
I have spent time talking about. We need to be careful, Mr.
Secretary, to avoid military involvement in Colombia. Colombia
has had a problem for many years, and those of us who have the
opportunity to read both English and Spanish media accounts
know that is a very difficult and sad situation that has been
going on for a long time. It is also one of the few places
where it is very hard at times to find out who the good guys
are and who the bad guys are, because on any given day anyone
can tell you that the bad guys are on both sides of the issue.
And so I would just caution--and it is a message I also
bring from many of my constituents--caution that our
involvement in Colombia could be a long and costly one that may
not take us in a direction that we want to go.
In addition, we must never take for granted but rather
should continue to devote careful attention to our relationship
with countries in this part of the world.
Mr. Secretary, you can be assured that I will provide
assistance and support to Chairman Wolf as this year's State
Department budget moves through the appropriations process. I
firmly believe that the State Department, with its
professional, talented, and dedicated personnel, plays an
invaluable role in the conduct of our Nation's foreign policy.
I will certainly continue to work to make this a successful
budgetary year for you.
Let me close by saying that, although you are the Secretary
of State, in addition to being the Secretary of State, in my
opinion, you play a major role in the Administration. One of
the concerns I have which touches on the Justice Department and
the FBI and the INS is the issue of civil liberties during this
very difficult time. I know this is an issue of great concern
to you. And so, again, in our desire to get the bad guys, we
have to be careful that we do not hurt the good guys, and I am
just concerned that the tension of people, the invasion of
privacy could, again, lead us down a road we do not want to go
to.
I do not know if this is a compliment to you, but I have
always seen you, as many other Americans, as a calming voice at
times when storms are brewing. You always seem to have a handle
on how to keep things in their proper place, while being one of
the great American patriots of our time. And so I ask you to
continue that balance--that balance that makes you feel secure,
that if someone is trying to misbehave in our Government, you
somehow look over their shoulder and say, ``Can we talk about
this for a second?'' It is that second that will make the major
difference in world peace and the future of this country, and I
thank you for being with us today.
Secretary Powell. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Secretary, your full statement will appear in
the record. Proceed as you see appropriate.
Opening Remarks of Secretary of State Colin Powell
Secretary Powell. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
do have a full statement, and I appreciate its inclusion in the
record in its entirety.
I thank you for your very warm opening remarks, and Mr.
Serrano, as well, for yours. Grand Concourse always brings back
the fondest of memories for me, Mr. Serrano.
I want to begin, Mr. Chairman, by thanking the committee
for the solid support that it has provided to the Department
during the first year of my tenure. I think we have tried to be
worthy of that support. We have been aggressive with respect to
the reform efforts within the Department. I have taken to heart
all of the many reports about the Department that have been
made over the years and trying not to have another report but
to execute on the items that have been identified for us to
execute on--getting the right-sizing of our embassies done,
fixing our security problem, fixing our personnel system,
getting the right people in the right place at the right time
for the right job within the Department, opening up the
Department to new ideas, making sure that the American people,
especially young Americans, see the value of service in the
State Department, whether they are in the Foreign Service or
Civil Service or whatever component. I think we have been
pretty successful at that.
General Williams is not here with us right now. He is out
checking buildings, I hope. That is what he is supposed to be
doing, not sitting in hearings with me, except when you call
for him, Mr. Chairman. But he has been doing a great job. He
has really shaken up our whole building construction operation.
As you know, we have given him a more direct line of
authority into the leadership of the Department, and we have
held him accountable, and he, in turn, is holding everybody
accountable for using the best management techniques available
within the commercial building industries to bring those
techniques into the Department. We have reduced the overall
cost of our embassies. We have done some very, very smart
things with respect to standardization of power plants and
things of that nature. I think we are being very good stewards
of the money that you have given to us, that Congress has given
to us, the American people have given to us for embassy
construction.
I can assure you that, as I said to you last year, I am the
CEO of the State Department, not just foreign policy advisor,
and there is not a day goes by that I do not devote part of my
day, along with Deputy Secretary Armitage and Under-Secretary
Green and other members of my staff, on the leadership and
management issues that face the Department, and we are working
away at them one at a time.
With respect to public diplomacy, Mr. Chairman, I could not
agree with you more. We have got to do a better job, and I
think we are doing a better job and will continue to do so and
we will get better under the leadership of Under-Secretary of
State Beers, who brings a different kind of experience, new
experience, marketing experience to the Department. Sometimes
we get a little criticism about that: ``What does a marketeer
know?'' Well, we are selling a product, and the product is a
value system that we all believe in, not selling America as a
way of imposing ourselves on somebody else, but a value system
that believes in individual rights, democracy, freedom as a way
into this 21st century world that is before us, that everybody
could benefit from being a part of a globalized world where
trade barriers are broken down, where our value systems mean
more and more to people around the world.
I am as disturbed as you are over some of the surveys we
have seen recently where we have not been successful in getting
that message out, and we have got a tough job ahead of us.
There is the Israeli/Palestinian conflict that to some extent
contaminates some of those surveys. We have got to work on
that. We have our work cut out for us, but I can assure you
that we will be dedicated to that task.
I also want to assure you, Mr. Serrano, that I take very
much to heart the issue of having a Department that represents
America. I thank you for what you have done with respect to the
Serrano Fellows and the other programs you have sponsored. You
and I have had a chance to sit and talk about all of this,
reaching out to Howard University with respect to African
American youngsters applying for the Foreign Service and also
to the Hispanic Associations of America to help us.
I am very pleased, just as a little vignette, to say that
4,000 minorities signed up to take the Foreign Service exam and
showed up for the exam, and 652 have passed--the highest
number, I think, probably ever. We are off to a good start and
will continue working in that direction.
With respect to Colombia, I understand perfectly your
point, but there is a new situation now, with President
Pastrana deciding that he could no longer allow the safe zones
to exist. We have to help Colombia save its democracy from
narco-traffickers and from terrorists, and we will have to re-
adjust our policies, take a hard look at what we are doing, and
see if there are not other ways we can help Colombia protect
itself short of the United States armed forces going in to do
it, but there are other things we can do, and that is the
subject of intense discussion within the Administration now.
And, of course, Mr. Serrano, we take very much to heart
your concerns, the concerns of all of us, that in an effort to
protect ourselves from terrorism we cannot do away with the
civil liberties and civil rights that are a hallmark of the
American tradition and the American spirit, and we have to find
the right balance to make sure we are protecting our people,
because they expect that of their Government, but at the same
time they expect not to have their civil liberties trampled. I
am sure as we go forward we will find that right balance.
Let me conclude that opening statement by saying I thank
you, Mr. Chairman, you, Mr. Serrano, all the members of the
committee for the strong support that you have provided to us.
As you will recall, at our first budget hearing last year I
told you that what we were requesting for 2002 represented a
significant increase in the Department's resources for that
fiscal year. I also told you that such an increase was a good
start, that it was the first fiscal step in our efforts to
align both the organization for the conduct of American foreign
policy with the dictates, the requirements of American foreign
policy in the 21st century.
You heard my testimony, you responded, and we are very
grateful. Because of your understanding and generosity, we have
made significant progress, and we need to continue that
progress in fiscal year 2003.
The President's discretionary request for the Department of
State and its related agencies for 2003 is $8.1 billion. These
dollars will allow us to continue initiatives to recruit, hire,
train, and deploy the right workforce. The budget request
includes $100 million for the next step in the hiring process
we began last year. With these dollars, we will be able to
bring on board the 631 people you mentioned, and especially
within that number 399 more foreign affairs professionals and
be well on our way to repairing a large gap created in our
personnel structure over the last ten years and relieve the
strain that we have put on our people by almost a decade of
too-few hires and inability to train properly and fill hundreds
of positions.
I would also mention that, as we are staffing up with more
people, we are also putting into our Foreign Service Institute
a requirement, a more serious requirement for leadership and
management training so that we are not just creating
professionals, we are creating professional leaders, people who
will be leaders in the future, and we are making that a
hallmark of all of our training and management activities.
By 2004 we hope to have completed our multi-year effort
with respect to overseas staffing, to include establishing the
training pool I described to you last year. That is so
important if we are to allow our people to complete the
training we feel is needed for them to do their jobs,
especially their next job. We have to have a little bit of
flexibility in the system so people can go in the schools and
not be removed from a position, but that there is a little bit
of flexibility so that we do not have to gap positions while we
are training people for those positions.
Next March I will be back up here briefing on the results
of our overall domestic staffing review. In addition to getting
more people on board, we will continue to upgrade and enhance
our worldwide security readiness, even more important in light
of our success in disrupting and damaging the al-Qaeda
terrorist network.
The budget request includes $553 million that builds on the
funding provided from the emergency response fund, the
increased hiring of security agents, and for counter-terrorism
programs. We will also continue to upgrade the security of our
overseas facilities.
The budget request includes over $1.3 billion to improve
physical security, correct serious deficiencies that still
exist, and provide for security-driven construction of new
facilities at high-risk posts around the world.
Mr. Chairman, we are right-sizing, shaping up, and bringing
smarter management practices to our overseas building program,
as I told you we would do so last year. The first change, as
you well know, was to put General Chuck Williams in charge and
give him Assistant Secretary equivalent rank. Now his overseas
building operation has developed the Department's first long-
range master plan, which projects our major facility
requirements over a five-year period. The Overseas Building
Office is using best practices from industry, new embassy
templates, and strong leadership to lower costs, increase
quality, and decrease construction time.
As I told you last year, one of our goals was to reduce the
average cost of building an embassy, and I believe we are well
on our way to doing just that. General Williams is making all
of our facilities, overseas and stateside, more secure. By the
end of 2002, over two-thirds of our overseas posts should reach
minimal standards, meaning secure doors, windows, and
perimeters. We are also making progress in efforts to provide
new facilities that are fully secure, with thirteen major
capital projects in design or construction, another eight
expected to begin this fiscal year, and nine more in 2003.
With this budget, Mr. Chairman, we will also be able to
continue our program to provide state-of-the-art technology to
our people everywhere. Because of your support in 2002, we are
well on our way to doing this. We have an aggressive deployment
schedule for our unclassified system which will provide desktop
Internet access to over 30,000 State users worldwide in 2003
using 2002 funding, and we are developing our classified
connectivity program over the next two years.
We have included $177 million in capital investment for IT
requirements. Combined with the $86 million in estimated
expedited passport fees, we will have a total of $263 million
for our information technology initiative. Our goal is to put
the Internet fully in the service of diplomacy.
With this budget we will continue to meet our obligations
to international organizations, also important as we pursue the
war on terrorism to its end. The budget request includes $891
million to fund U.S. assessments to 43 international
organizations, active membership of which furthers United
States economic, political, security, social, and cultural
interests.
The budget will also continue to meet our obligations to
international peacekeeping activities. The budget request
includes $726 million to pay our projected United Nations
peacekeeping assessments, all the more important as we seek to
avoid increasing even further our U.N. arrearages.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I ask for your
help in getting the cap lifted so that we can eventually
eliminate all of our arrearages. Only by lifting the cap will
we avoid continuing to add to the arrearages.
These peacekeeping activities also allow us to leverage our
political, military, and financial assets through the authority
of the United Nations Security Council and the participation of
other countries in providing funds and peacekeepers for
conflicts worldwide.
We will also continue and enhance an aggressive effort to
eliminate support for terrorists, and thus deny them safe haven
through our ongoing public diplomacy activities, our
educational and cultural exchange programs, and international
broadcasting.
The budget request includes $287 million for public
diplomacy, including information and cultural programs carried
out by overseas missions and supported by public diplomacy
personnel in our regional and functional bureaus. These
resources help to educate the international public on the war
against terrorism and America's commitment to peace and
prosperity for all nations.
The budget request also includes $247 million for
educational and cultural exchanges that build mutual
understanding and develop friendly relations between America
and the peoples of the world. These activities help build the
trust, confidence, and international cooperation necessary to
sustain and advance the full range of our interests. Such
activities have gained a new sense of urgency and importance
since the brutal attacks of September. We need to teach the
people of the world more about America and America's role in
the world. We need to show people throughout the world just who
we are and what we stand for, just as the chairman noted a few
moments ago.
Moreover, the budget request includes almost $518 million
for international broadcasting, of which $60 million is for the
war on terrorism, to continue increased media broadcasts to
Afghanistan and the surrounding countries and throughout the
Middle East. These international broadcasts help inform local
public opinion about the true nature of al-Qaeda and the
purposes of the war on terrorism, building support thereby for
the coalition's global campaign.
Mr. Chairman, on the subject of public diplomacy let me
expand my remarks a little bit. The terrorist attacks of
September 11th underscored the urgency of implementing an
effective public diplomacy campaign. Those who abet terror by
spreading distortion and hate and inciting others take full
advantage of the global news cycle. We must take advantage of
that same cycle.
Since September 11th, over 2,000 media appearances by State
Department officials have taken place. Our continuous presence
in Arab and regional media by officials with language and media
skills has been unprecedented. Our international information
website on terror is now on line in seven languages. Internet
search engines show that it is the hottest page on that topic.
Our 25-page color combination, ``The Network of Terrorism,'' is
now available in 30 languages, with many different adaptations,
including a full insert in the Arabic edition of ``Newsweek.''
``Right content, right format, right audience, right now''
describes our strategic aim in seeing that U.S. policies are
explained and placed in the proper context in the minds of
foreign audiences.
Mr. Chairman, beyond the budget requests I have just
outlined for you, we are working closely with OMB to examine
our overall requirements. We believe that there are valid 2002
needs that cannot wait for 2003. The Administration will bring
the specific details of this supplemental request to the
Congress in the near future. We have not finished our 2002
supplemental request for you yet, but it will be coming to you
in the very near future, and there will be a number of priority
items that the State Department will have in that supplemental
request.
Some of you know my feelings about the importance to the
success of any enterprise of having the right people in the
right places, and if I had to put one of these priorities as
the pinnacle of our efforts, it would be the hiring efforts
that I have already described. We must sustain the strong
recruitment program we have begun for the last year, and with
your support I am sure that we will be successful in that
regard.
Mr. Chairman, all of these activities that we have talked
about so far this morning have improved morale at the State
Department. People see that we care about them. We are giving
them secure, safe places in which to work. We are hiring people
to help them do their jobs better. We are doing everything we
can to let our people know that they are valued members of
America's foreign policy team.
While we concentrate on the Nation's foreign policy, we
have to take care of those who execute it, and not only the
Americans but especially the Foreign Service nationals. These
are an extraordinary group of people we do not talk about often
enough--foreigners who work in our embassy. For example, the 60
Afghan employees in Kabul who worked diligently to maintain and
protect our facilities throughout the 13 years that the embassy
was closed. They worked at personal risk. We were able to get
pay to them, but even then they were working at the risk of
their lives. And when we went back into Kabul, the embassy was
not in a state of total destruction, as we had expected. Those
employees had stood by their jobs, had done a good job, and
they are an essential part of the team, as well.
I thank you for what you have done to allow me to push
forward in that concept of teamwork, all being members of one
family, and I ask for your support in getting the $8.1 billion
that we need for fiscal year 2003, and also for the foreign
affairs budget we will be asking for, as well, in this same
request for $16.1 billion.
I will also ask your help for the supplemental request that
will be coming up in the near future.
Mr. Rogers, I think I will stop at this point, and I am
sure we will get into specific foreign policy issues in the
course of our discussion as members of the committee return
from voting.
[The statement of Secretary of State Colin L. Powell
follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
MANAGEMENT ISSUES
Mr. Rogers [assuming chair]. Mr. Secretary, thank you very
much for that good statement. I say on behalf of the
subcommittee and on behalf of the Congress, how much
reassurance your presence in this position brings to us at this
particular time in our history. The events of 9/11 and the
aftermath are unsettling, of course, to all of us, but your
steady hand and your steady advice and counsel to the President
is something of a national treasure that we appreciate very
much.
Secretary Powell. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Rogers. And I am glad to hear your very good report on
the management issues at State. As you perhaps know, I chaired
this subcommittee for the last six years and have served on it
the last eighteen or nineteen years. One of the biggest
problems that we have faced was that State was just not
properly managed--wonderful people, dedicated to the Nation,
patriotic in every respect, but there was just not the
organizational or management structure there that allowed
modern management procedures to be employed. I am glad to hear
that it sounds like you have those in place.
You have commented on that already. Would you care to add?
Secretary Powell. I would always love to add to that
proposition.
Mr. Rogers, in our conversation last year I assure you I
took very much to heart what you said to me about your
disappointment and the disappointment of the Congress for many,
many years with respect to the management of the Department,
and I tried to be very faithful to my promise to you at that
time that you would see a change. I think you have seen a
change in the diplomatic readiness initiatives that we have
underway. I think you have seen a change with the way in which
we are running our building program. I think you have seen a
change in the way we run our security programs. One of the
issues was why you can't have representation on Capitol Hill.
We now have an office up here in Capitol Hill that is closer to
the Congress on the House side. I hope to open a liaison office
on the Senate side, as well, for the purpose of showing you the
State Department is here, wanting to know your constituent
problems, wanting to hear from Members of Congress, providing a
service to link you into the leadership and management of the
Department even more closely.
We spend an enormous amount of time in cutting through
bureaucratic processes to make the Department move faster, to
speed up the decision cycle.
When I first came in, the letter that the President gives
to each Ambassador took 18 months, in the previous
Administration, to get approved. I told my staff we are going
to get it done in four weeks and I will write it myself, and I
did, and we got it done and the President signed it. It is just
a matter of showing everybody that they are important.
One of the things we have been working very hard on, Mr.
Rogers, is to connect the Department, from the Secretary of
State out to every last employee in every embassy. We are one
team bound together by trust, by a common purpose, by policies
that are coherent and consistent over time, that we are going
to push down authority, that we believe the embassies are right
and they know more than we do back here at C Street at the
Truman Building. Now, that is not always the case, but we are
certainly going to act that way as a way of empowering the
whole organization.
I think that the results are starting to show--starting to
show by the number of people who are signing up to become
members of the Department of State, Foreign Service exams and
other applications coming in for Civil Service positions. I
think we are doing a good job, but it has only been one year.
You know you have the start-up period, when you are still
trying to figure out what to do. But we will continue to work
on this effort.
OPAP RECOMMENDATIONS
Mr. Rogers. A big ship is hard to turn around quickly, and
this ship is a big one. It has been adrift for a long time. So
you are right, it is going to take a little while to see
whether or not we are headed in the right direction management-
wise. But I like what I hear, and we will see whether or not
the captain steering the wheel makes the ship turn or not in
due course of time.
The Crowe Report of your colleague a few years ago
recommended--and I remain convinced--that the worldwide program
of relocation and security improvements in our facilities
overseas is an opportunity to minimize vulnerability by moving
as many functions as possible to secure, regional locations and
minimizing staffing at those vulnerable posts. Is that
something that you agree with? And, if so, are you moving in
that direction?
Secretary Powell. I agree with it in principle where it
makes sense. If you can do something on a regional basis and
perform the mission and provide the service, then we should do
so. So in principle yes, but you always have to balance that
against whether or not you can really provide a service at
Point A from a location at Point B or Point C that may be
regionally oriented. I think we have to strike that balance.
But as a matter of principle, yes.
Mr. Rogers. The Kaden Report and the Carlucci Reports a
year or two ago were good studies of reorganization and
management issues within State and how we go about making our
presence overseas known and felt and had a great number of
recommendations, which I have been strongly supportive of. I
think they did a wonderful job. What are your thoughts about
the recommendations within those reports, like consolidation,
right-sizing, America presence posts, and the like?
Secretary Powell. I am supportive of almost all of them. I
was a member of the Carlucci Study Team several years ago, so I
am quite familiar with those actions and we used them as a
benchmark. Now, not every one of them would I agree to, but I
think for the most part I think you will find that we are
following not only the spirit of those reports but the actual
specific recommendations that they made.
Mr. Rogers. Well, I hope so, because most of them are
headed, I think, in the right direction, particularly the
American presence posts.
Secretary Powell. Yes, sir. As you know, Ambassador Rohatan
in Paris started that idea, and we have documented it and we
have two other countries now that are exploring it, two other
places. One is Turkey, and the other one--I forget where it is,
but we----
Mr. Rogers. I think we have five in France.
Secretary Powell. Five in France, one in Turkey, and
there's another one.
Mr. Rogers. One in Canada.
Secretary Powell. Canada. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rogers. Well, I recommend that. It is a good way to
have our presence felt very effectively but with a minimum of
presence. There's no bulls-eye on the door----
Secretary Powell. Yes.
Mr. Rogers [continuing]. For terrorists. You go to an
office building and do your work unnoticed, more or less. So I
hope that we would get more reprogramming requests here to open
up others all around the world.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Powell. Thank you.
FY 03 REQUEST FOR PUBLIC DIPLOMACY
Mr. Wolf [resuming chair]. Mr. Secretary, on the public
diplomacy issue, your budget request is basically flat. It is
5.3 million. I understand how these things work, and I think we
did share the letter with you. I am sure we did, over with the
Department. You may not have seen it. But we asked for OMB to
look at that.
Would you want to comment on that? We have a great product,
and I just do not know that 5.3 million for public diplomacy in
the current situation that we are in--that is the only modest
increase that you asked for in that program.
Secretary Powell. Well, my figure of our overall account
for public diplomacy, including educational, cultural programs
is a $26 million increase up to $535 million total. It is $288
million, or an $18 million increase, in the public diplomacy
line.
Mr. Wolf. But, still, well, I guess it depends on what we
are counting.
Secretary Powell. Yes.
Mr. Wolf. But I do think we need more--I mean, I am not for
spending a lot of money. I would like to think we can have a
balanced budget again this year, if it is at all possible. But
knowing what has taken place, I do not think we can, unless we
defeat terrorism.
In the effort against terrorism, I commend the
Administration for mentioning Hezbollah. The Hezbollah were
involved in the Marine barracks. You were in the Reagan
Administration.
Secretary Powell. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wolf. The Library of Congress put together a series of
all the terrorism activity. Hezbollah comes up over and over
and over. So this impacts directly on what's taking place in
the Middle East.
It is the same thing with regard to public diplomacy,
defeating terrorism and at the same time telling our story, so
do you think it could use a little additional money?
Secretary Powell. Yes, sir. We were only able to add $18
million in 2003, but, as part of our supplemental discussions
with OMB, we are trying to get more under the supplemental.
Mr. Wolf. Good. I would hope so, and I have spoken to OMB
about that.
I also think----
Secretary Powell. If I may, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Wolf. Sure.
Secretary Powell. Sometimes it is cost free. It does not
cost anything to do new ways, to go about it new ways, and that
is what we are trying to do--get our ambassadors out on these
Arab television networks and radio stations. We can do a lot in
terms of getting articles placed that cost us nothing.
My own little minor effort in this was appearing in Al
Jazeera, appearing with another Arab network, and then going on
MTV, which reached 346 million households around the world, and
I had to defend the United States. Are we a Satan or are we a
protector? I made the portion of the case I made. I got asked
about the Middle East. I got asked about a variety of issues.
Some made news, others did not make news. But it gave me a
chance to tell----
Mr. Wolf. Welcome to politics.
Secretary Powell. But it got me to take our case to 90
straight uninterrupted moments. It was supposed to be 60. They
let it run for 90, broadcast six times to 33 MTV channels
around the world, population 17 to 25, mostly in the non-
western part of the world. And in each one of the locations
that it came down, our embassies throughout the world, consular
officers or embassy staff or the embassador himself or herself
stayed after the performance and talked to the youngsters who
had come to hear it, and now they are following up with
additional discussion.
Out of one of our embassies the request came from the
students who were there, ``Hey, we have never heard this kind
of thing. Why don't you now come visit our university? We want
to hear more.''
So sometimes it is cost-free.
TERRORIST ACTIVITIES IN SUDAN
Mr. Wolf. It is. We spoke to the students at AUB in
Lebanon, and they were very open, and I think you are right.
Well, I am glad you are doing that, and I hope when we have a
hearing we are going to try to bring in some outside experts,
because there are many people in this country who really know
that part of the world, and I think it can help you.
Things are moving quickly in Sudan. You know of the
concern. I saw pictures of the result. There was a Soviet
helicopter gunship that came in a week-and-a-half ago and
gunned down people. We have reports. We have talked to a person
by e-mail who was on the ground at the time. We sent pictures
over, I believe, of some of the shells. There was some
inference that the attack may have included chemical weapons.
The shells exploded above the people. But they literally came
in and gunned the people down, and this is supported with the
money coming from the oil. The oil now has given the Sudanese
government the ability to not only operate those training camps
around Khartoum. Hamas comes in to Khartoum, there must be a
shuttle. They come in on a regular basis. The Iranians are
there and everything else.
Could you bring us up to date? I saw the story about how
the Sudanese have now said they will cooperate, but we have
heard this before. I would like you to speak to that and maybe
speak to the Sudanese government, too.
Secretary Powell. As you know, Mr. Chairman, Senator
Danforth led a mission for us and went over there a couple of
times and came back with a four-point plan that looked like a
road forward, and we told the Sudanese that, ``If you want a
better relationship with the United States, this kind of action
simply has to stop.'' And then you saw we got something of an
agreement, which was a step in the right direction. The
Sudanese have been helpful with respect to intelligence sharing
and shutting down some of the terrorist activities that were at
least officed or headquartered in the Sudan, and so we thought
we were moving on a somewhat positive track, considering the
difficulties in this region, and then this helicopter incident
took place.
I have no evidence to suggest that chemical weapons were
spread at that time, but, nevertheless, we went immediately to
the Sudanese government and said, ``That is it. We stop. We are
not going forward. You do not understand. We were serious. You
have got to stop activity like this or it stops. This has to be
reciprocal. We do something, you do something. But it has to be
permanent.''
They have now come back and investigated the incident and
told us that it should not have happened, it was an error,
failure of command, and they have entered into an agreement
with us which we have now put before the SPLA that this kind of
activity will not take place, will stop.
Mr. Chairman, you and I both have been around this track
before, but what we have communicated to the Sudanese
government is that we will hold you accountable, and the
process of moving forward, of any opportunities for better
relationship will come to a dead halt with the continuation of
this kind of activity.
PROBLEMS FACING AFRICA
Mr. Wolf. Good. Well, thank you.
Several weeks ago Ted Koppel did a series on the Congo,
Eastern Congo--Goma, Bokago, and others. It was very moving.
For ABC to be dropping Koppel for Letterman, I do not
understand. I mean, he did an incredible job. He went in there,
spent a lot of time. Great, great show. I do not know if you
happened to see it. In any event, 2,500 people are dead each
day in the Congo. They have lost almost three million people.
My sense is we now have to, in this Administration, put
together a group of people who are literally the best experts
in the world to shape our policy be toward Africa. There are so
many problems. You have diamonds with regard to al-Qaeda,
Sierra Leone, you have the problem with Guinea, you have
Charles Taylor. I mean, we should be looking at it. What do we
do. We should be re-flagging all of the ships coming out of
Liberia with the Liberia flag. That would bring down the
Charles Taylor Government.
What should our policy be with regard to the Liberian flag?
What should our policy be on the diamond issue? What should our
policy be with regard to food aid and development? By the way,
let me congratulate you for the President's appointment of
Congressman Tony Hall. There's not a more capable and committed
individual in this Congress, or frankly in the country, than
Hall. Mr. Hall will do a great job and make you very proud. But
how do we deal with debt forgiveness? We need to forgive debt,
but we need to do it in a way that when the debt is forgiven
there is a reciprocity with regard to freedom of religion,
freedom of speech, that some things go back to the people.
Africa is ablaze, it is afire, I mean, from AIDS, to the Congo,
to Sudan, to Sierra Leone, to Guinea. We have to step back, and
consinder that what we are doing, as a country, and as the
West, really has not worked. The value of a life in Goma has
the same value as a life in Berlin, or in London, or in
Beijing.
You do not have to make me a commitment, but I would like
to think we could kind of step back, put together some of the
very best minds, new thinking, new ideas. How do we do aid?
What do we do with promoting democracy? How do we deal with
debt forgiveness? What do we do? Also, I am concerned about
terrorism. Terrorism is beginning to move. Charles Taylor has
sheltered terrorists. Charles Taylor's people go up to Libya.
But we need to really rethink what we are doing in Africa.
If you look at the Ted Koppel piece on ``Nightline,''
``Five Days in Eastern Congo,'' he makes the point again, 2,500
deaths a day. That is like the World Trade Center every single
day. Many go into the bush and literally lay down and they die,
and many who are not dying are living a life that is almost as
bad as we can possibly imagine.
What are your thoughts about the Congo and about how we
should step back and maybe take a look at this whole continent
called Africa with regard to rethinking some of the policy?
Secretary Powell. The situation in the Congo is every bit
the tragedy that you say it is, Mr. Chairman, and Ted Koppel
did just a magnificent job of documenting it in his program.
Mr. Wolf. I wonder if Letterman has ever been to Goma.
Probably has not.
Secretary Powell. Probably not.
Mr. Wolf. Maybe he will go.
Secretary Powell. I think I will stay out of the ABC----
Mr. Wolf. I understand. I probably should have, too.
Secretary Powell. It is a tragic situation. We are working
with President Kabila and President Kagame and the other
leaders in the region to try to bring an end to this conflict,
and working with the U.N. with respect to putting in the
peacekeepers and others necessary to try to help these
desperate, desperate people.
We are dealing with every one of these issues that you
mentioned in as effective way as we can figure out. It is
always wise to step back and take a look at the overall
picture, but I find my day dealing with the individual pieces
that won't wait for the overall picture to fall in place. We
have been aggressive with respect to HIV/AIDS. We have taken
the lead there. We have taken the lead in speaking out sharply
against people like President Mugabe in Zimbabwe. My speech in
South Africa last year made it clear that this kind of behavior
and this kind of political action is no longer acceptable if
countries wanted to progress into the 21st Century. Mr. Mugabe
is an anachronism with the way he is going about the running of
his country.
I think we have been forthcoming with respect to trying to
do something about the diamond trade and supporting actions up
in Congress with respect to getting the diamond trade under
control because it is such a source of income for the most evil
purposes in Africa.
So on each one of the issues you have mentioned we are
working on those issues, but we can always benefit from
stepping back and see if they are so integrated that we can
come up with a single, overall approach that would deal with
all of them. You do not get the kind of attention with respect
to issues in Africa that you will in Afghanistan or Bosnia or
anywhere else. You are quite right. Not only 2,500 people a day
dying in the Eastern Congo, but look at how many are dying with
respect to HIV/AIDS.
The president of Botswana was in my office the other day
and we were talking about it. It is a country of 1.6 million
people with an infection rate of 38.9 percent. The average life
expectancy has dropped from 69 to 44. This is an absolute
pandemic. It is a tragedy. Of all 15-year-olds in Botswana, 50
percent are infected. It cries out for more attention. It cries
out for the whole world to do something about it. The whole
world tends to have a difficult time figuring out how to get
their hands around the problem.
So I do not deny in the slightest way, Mr. Chairman, that
you have a good idea in terms of let's step back and how do we
take a look at this in a more holistic way. I am willing to
explore that with you and find out what we might be able to do.
Mr. Wolf. Good.
Secretary Powell. But we are trying to work the individual
problems every day, as well.
Mr. Wolf. Well, you have to. I had the Library of Congress
do a paper, which I will send to you, on this issue. I think
you have to continue to meet those needs as they come, but you
have got to--get a group of top people, experts who will care,
and come in and see if there's something a little bit different
we can do. Or maybe what is being done is correct, although I
find it hard to believe what the world has done for the last 20
years has been successful, because if that is success, my
goodness, I would hate to see failure. But I think such an
effort can make an impact. I will send you that paper.
Mr. Serrano.
COLOMBIA AND U.S. INVOLVEMENT
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I want to just spend some more time with you
on this issue of Colombia, which troubles so many people.
Last year, when you came before the committee, I expressed
to you my concern, and after correcting me on calling upon plan
Colombia and changing to its new name, you assured us--and I
believe that you meant that--that this would be for counter-
narcotic trafficking and growing issues and for democracy
building and strengthening the law enforcement and judiciary.
Backing up a second, prior to you coming before me,
transcript of the hearing shows that I expressed the same
concerns to Secretary Albright about Colombia. She went on to
say the that Administration was involved with President
Pastrana in trying to help him deal with the needs, the real
needs of the FARC, and other groups, and that she and that
Administration were trying to make President Pastrana
understand that the bigger problem in Colombia was how to
change the society so that certain people did not feel left
out.
Now, I should have prefaced my comments by saying that we
are all fans of President Pastrana and we are hopeful that he
is successful, but I think that those of us who feared a
military involvement may not have been totally wrong. What we
are hearing now, what we are reading now, is that we are now
going to go and get involved in protecting oil fields or oil
pipelines, and that we basically have declared again the narco
folks, the FARCs, terrorists.
Now, I am not suggesting that they are or they are not. I
am only suggesting that after September 11th we Americans
shiver at the word ``terrorist'' and identify with a group of
people we want to get rid of. There's not a single American who
says we should not get rid of every terrorist.
But now it seems to some that the word ``terrorist'' could
be loosely used to allow us involvement that we should be
analyzing in different ways. This is a civil war. You and I
grew up with a situation militarily where there was a civil war
that we got involved in, and we honor all the folks that were
there, but we spend so much time now wondering, you know, what
was the involvement and what the involvement should have been.
All that to say, Mr. Secretary, that we have to be careful
not to get involved in Colombia in a civil war that we can't
get out of.
Secondly, if we have accomplished one thing, it is that
people who usually opposed our involvement in Latin America
have been kind of quiet for the last ``X'' amount of years
because we have not been behaving that way. We may wake a lot
of folks up in Latin America who now feel that, ``Here they
come again using their military force.''
I do not know who the good guys are in Colombia. Maybe that
is where I open myself up to getting hit over the head by you.
You do that in a very diplomatic way, I know. I do not know who
they are. I know there's a government, a government that still
cannot get rid of its involvement with the paramilitary group.
I know there's narco traffickers on all sides of the issue. I
know there's an insurgency group that brings pain to the people
in the name of trying to bring a change in government. I know
governments who traditionally bring pain to the people also.
So I cannot figure it out, and I try to read it every day
in English and in Spanish. I am wondering how some folks are
figuring out somewhere else. So could you tell us how close are
we to military involvement, and could you tell us what would be
the reason for allowing our troops to be used in Colombia?
Secretary Powell. There are no plans that I am aware of--
and I think I am aware of all plans--that involve the possible
sending or use of American military units to Colombia to deal
with the problem they have. Colombia is a friend to the United
States. President Pastrana we all admire. There will be a new
president by late summer.
Colombia is fighting for its democracy. It is fighting for
its right to have a legitimate, democratic form of government.
It is under assault by narco traffickers, and it is also under
assault by organizations such as the FARC and ELN, especially
the FARC that has been after Colombian leadership for many,
many years.
President Pastrana boldly tried to resolve this with the
creation of the safe havens in the hope that this would
encourage the FARC and the ELN to negotiate seriously. There
was doubt that this would be successful. And President
Pastrana, after giving it his all, came to the conclusion that
they would not negotiate in good faith, that this is not the
solution to the problem, and he ended the safe havens.
He is now faced with having to deal with these
organizations which we have designated as terrorist
organizations. Our policies to this point--as I have said to
you last year, we have been faithful to that--have been to use
Plan Colombia and the Andean Regional Initiative, or ACI, as it
is called, for counter-narcotic purposes, and we have stayed
within the letter of the law with respect to that.
This year we continue to stay within the letter of the law,
but we introduced a new element to protect the pipeline,
because this was a pipeline that was being shut down on a
regular basis and was affecting the basic economy of Colombia.
It was reasonable for a democratic government to be able to
protect the pipelines. We did not think that this did violence
to anything we have said to the Congress previously and it was
a smart thing to do.
But the safe havens are now gone, and President Pastrana,
and I believe whoever will replace President Pastrana, is in a
conflict with the FARC. There are some things we might be able
to do with the ELN. I believe it is reasonable for us to take a
look at our policy in light of this changed circumstance, and
that is what we are doing.
It may be necessary--and the President has made no
decision, has received no recommendation--it may be necessary
for us to give the government of Colombia additional support
that is outside the counter-narcotics facet to enable them to
deal with this threat to their survival as a nation, this
threat to their economic well-being, and once we have completed
this review, we will come up to the Congress and ask for
whatever we believe is necessary.
Right now we are staying within the limit of the law, but
it is clear that the kinds of things that we are being asked to
provide to assist the Colombian government, such as more
intelligence information, things of that nature, that will
quickly run into the wall, the legislative wall that is there,
and that is what we are examining--what more is it appropriate
to give them so that they can defend their nation?
We also have made it clear to President Pastrana and will
make it clear to the future president of Colombia that if
paramilitary forces are given a free hand, this is destructive
of our effort to help you, and we particularly mean that with
respect to AUC, as it is called, the umbrella organization. We
made it clear to them, and they have assured us that they
understand it and they are not going to give the paramilitary a
free hand, because that is also destructive of their democracy.
So this is what we are looking at now. We are reviewing our
policies to see what it would be appropriate to do in order to
assist this nation in its war.
Mr. Serrano. Well, I would hope, Mr. Secretary, that, as
you have stated here today, that if there is a move to involve
us in any other way, that there is consultation with Congress,
so that at least the American people can hear a full debate on
this issue.
Lastly, I understand--we all do, especially representing an
area like I do in New York--that the issue of drug trafficking
has always been a problem, but nowhere in our history, recent
history that I can remember, have we said that that merited
getting involved in a civil war. So when I hear the word
``terrorist,'' I think of the World Trade Center. I think of
Bin Laden, the al-Qaeda, and so on. Incidentally, so that we
understand something, I voted against this when it came up in
appropriations when President Clinton had his administration. I
told President Clinton at that time that I felt we would get to
this point and that he was making a mistake. So I want to make
clear that I have disagreed with both Administrations on this.
When this Administration now says, ``These folks are
terrorists,'' should the American people assume that what the
Administration is saying is they are terrorists in the same way
those other folks are terrorists, that they present a physical
threat to us? The drug threat we know about, but are they
thinking of bombing us in some way and is that why we are
calling them terrorists, or are they attacking us physically?
Secretary Powell. I do not know that they are going to
attack us physically, but with respect to their being
terrorists there's no doubt in my mind. When an organization
such as the FARC says it is interested in negotiations, but at
the same time is hijacking airplanes to take elected
representatives off the airplane, when they take a female
Senator of Colombia, an elected representative who is trying to
help people, and they murder her, they are terrorists, and it
is terrorism that threatens stability in Colombia, and if it
threatens stability in Colombia it threatens stability in our
part of the world, in our neighborhood, in our back yard, and I
think that is something that should be of concern to us, and
that is why I think we have an obligation to review our
policies and to see what else we might have to do that changes
the line that is currently there in order to help the Colombian
government.
NEW CHALLENGES FOR FOREIGN POLICY
Mr. Serrano. I have one more question I want to ask on a
separate subject, but, once again, I meant it seriously when I
said that I always see you as a calming voice. Both in Spanish
and in English, I hope you pay close attention to what some
people may be saying.
And, with all due respect, as far as terrorists go, there
are some people who hijacked planes in Cuba and now live
peacefully in Miami, and we have never called them
``terrorists,'' so those issues become bigger issues.
Our foreign diplomacy has always been geared towards
dealing with governments and nations. Now it seems that the
world changed September 11th. Maybe it was changing before that
and we hardly noticed, but now there are people outside that
understanding of nations and governments. Bin Laden is a fine
example of that. He's neither a nation or a government, but he
causes havoc on the world.
How will you see our foreign diplomacy changing in order to
deal with that issue? And are the tools we had in the past
still relevant to what we are doing today?
Secretary Powell. I think they are still relevant, but will
have to be used in new and different ways and we will have to
come up with new tools. You are quite right. The days of seeing
a clear enemy on the other side of a boundary and that is who
is going to attack us is not the case any more. There is no
superpower out there that we should see as an enemy right now.
They just do not exist, fortunately. That is the good news.
That is the great news.
But we find these trans-national kinds of threats. al-Qaeda
is neither a government nor a state as we know it, and,
nevertheless, it is an enemy. I mean, it attacked us. It
violated our sovereignty and killed several thousand people at
the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
How do we go about it? One, intelligence, law enforcement.
But one of the principal ways we have to go about it, which
falls into my area of foreign policy, is to make sure that any
nation that wants to be a friend of ours, any nation that
claims to be an ally of ours has to make sure that they are
following policies that make it inhospitable, impossible for
such organizations to find haven and succor in their country.
That is what the President meant when he said we have to go
after those who are giving haven. That is why we went into
Afghanistan. That is why we went after the Taliban. The Taliban
was given a chance to stop it. They said no. And that is why
the nations that develop weapons of mass destruction that could
fall in the hands of terrorists have to be nations of concern
to us.
And so we have to use foreign policy in relations with
other nations and governments to make it clear to those nations
and governments that they have to take action that cause their
nations not to be havens and places of comfort for these trans-
national threats that now exist in the presence of terrorists
who are looking for nations where they can find a corner to
hide in or a financial system to exploit or the lack of an
intelligence system to take advantage of.
That is, I think, one of the new challenges for American
foreign policy.
WINNING SUPPORT IN AFGHANISTAN
Mr. Serrano. Without details, obviously, are we involved in
Afghanistan in trying to, at the same time that we do what we
do, win support from the folks for future endeavors?
Secretary Powell. Yes, we are. Our public diplomacy efforts
are active there, the fact that we are going to help them train
their police force and army I think shows that we are
interested in a better future for the Afghan people, our
humanitarian efforts, that we are the largest provider of food,
we support their mine-clearing programs. We are doing a lot, I
think, that will cause the Afghan people to see that we come in
friendship.
The point that the chairman made earlier that we get a bum
rap, you know, it was United States armed forces that went to
help Muslims in Kuwait in 1991. It was not America that invaded
Kuwait, it was another Muslim country that invaded Kuwait. We
went to Kosovo for the same reason. We went to Afghanistan for
the same reason. But sometimes people forget to give us credit
for that or we forget to claim credit for it, as we should. We
have not invaded any Muslim countries with the purpose of
taking it over. We have not tried to overthrow any Muslim
regime. They ought to look at other enemies to Muslim causes,
not the United States.
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Chairman, I want to close and join you in
your opening comments in congratulating Secretary Powell and
this Administration. My city was the center of the pain, and
your leadership and the President's leadership has been
something that we have valued and found comfort in in New York
City, and I thank you.
U.S. INVOLVEMENT IN LATIN AMERICA
Secretary Powell. And if I may have one final word, Mr.
Serrano, you mentioned in the course of your remarks earlier
about some who have been rather quiet about U.S. involvement in
Latin America, as opposed to, shall we say, 15 years ago, when
I was deeply involved, and you recall those days. And I am
still kind of proud of the fact that America's efforts and
willingness to get involved produced change in El Salvador and
Nicaragua that turned out to be for the better.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Young, chairman of the full committee.
Remarks of Committee Chairman Young
Chairman Young. Mr. Secretary, welcome.
Secretary Powell. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Young. I apologize that other commitments have
kept me from attending a full hearing today, but I did want to
come by for just a few minutes and pay my respects to the
American who assumed this tremendous responsibility in one of
the most challenging times in the world's history, and to say
that I believe you have done a really good job. I think you
have represented our country well. And I just wanted to come by
and say those few words to you, because we are really proud of
what you have done.
Secretary Powell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
for your support of the Department's efforts.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Miller of Florida.
Extradition Issues with Mexico
Mr. Miller. Mr. Secretary, I appreciate Mr. Young coming
over just to make those statements, because you really do make
us proud of this Administration and proud of the job that you
have done after September 11th.
One brief comment, something I brought up last year, Boys
and Girls Clubs. We both share an appreciation of the job they
do. It was dropped out of the budget last year by the
Administration. Through Mr. Wolf we got it back in last year.
But they included it this year, so thank you, because you have
given that moral support. We appreciate that.
Let me first ask a question about extradition issues. I
admire the great job that the State Department does. Last year
I ended up working with families over here that are trying to
get someone accused returned. I worked with the family of Holly
Maddox, who was brutally murdered in Philadelphia in 1977. Last
year, Ira Einhorn was returned from France to stand trial in
Philadelphia. It was a lot of work by a lot of people in
Justice and State that you never read about or hear about, and
it just happens very suddenly, but apparently the French
government was very cooperative.
Since September 11th, the European Union has apparently
developed an extradition within their countries to make it just
like extraditing someone from Florida to Missouri.
How I got involved in this originally was because of an
issue of a horrible murder in Sarasota in 1997 of a young
mother of six, including quadruplets who were two years old. A
hired killer drove from Texas to Sarasota and shot her twice,
slit her throat twice, fled to Mexico. He's a U.S. citizen,
born and raised in the United States.
He eventually came back to the United States and was
convicted--or pled guilty, actually, serving a life sentence.
But the problem was we had to waive the death penalty, and so
with Ira Einhorn, but the question is: the Mexican Supreme
Court has recently ruled that the life sentence is, I guess,
cruel and unusual punishment. It has a real threat to our--
because of the huge border we share with Mexico, and we are
going to have a safe haven for criminals now with terrorism and
drug dealers that would have--especially U.S. citizens to be
extradited and to use the excuse of life sentence. I read in
``Newsweek'' and ``The New York Times'' as many as 70 people
are being delayed extradition for that.
What can you tell me as where we stand on that issue--I
know President Bush and you will be going to Mexico later this
month--that we can do to address this concern, because we all
agree we do not, with that huge border, have that safe haven in
Mexico for criminals.
Secretary Powell. This is an issue that I raised directly
with Foreign Minister Castenega, the action of the Mexican
Supreme Court last fall, which has thrown this whole issue into
some turmoil.
I do not think it is quite 70 cases that have been caught.
It is a lesser number. And we have told them we cannot give
assurances that there will be no life sentence, that it would
be inconsistent with our law and with the laws of the several
States.
The Mexican government is very sensitive to this issue,
and, frankly, Mr. Miller, I think we are working out ways to
deal with this problem a case at a time, and there are some
clever legal ways that one can work this issue so that we can
get the extradition taken care of. And so this has high
priority within the Department and within the Administration,
high interest on the part of the Mexican government to make
sure that we do not stop appropriate extraditions, but we have
to use some clever legal means to make it happen.
Mr. Miller. I hope we can have a more general policy with
the Mexican government rather than have to do it case by case.
Secretary Powell. We expect that, as a result of
conversations I have had with Foreign Minister Casteneda and
conversations between our Justice Department and our Justice
officials and the commitment of the Mexican government, I
expect that there is a way to resolve this as a general matter
over the next couple of years.
VIOLENCE IN THE MIDDLE EAST
Mr. Miller. Thank you very much.
Let me ask one other line of questioning, and that is the
Middle East. That has to be your frustration and your
predecessor's great frustration, what's happening there. Of
course, it is the front page news, sadly, day after day after
day. I will just take a couple minutes, because we do not have
too much time.
How much control does Arafat have in that country? He's
under house arrest. Who is running that country, or the
Palestinians?
Secretary Powell. Mr. Arafat is the elected head of the
Palestinian authority, and he is clearly the leader of the
Palestinian people. He is seen by the Palestinian people as
their leader, so that makes him their leader, however others
might wish it otherwise. And since he claims this leadership
mantle, it seems to me he has the responsibility to bring under
control those organizations in the Palestinian movement that
are conducting these acts of violence, these acts of terror,
these horrible acts that fill our screens every single day.
No issue is of a higher priority to the United States, and
there is no issue that I spend more time on than on this one,
and we are encouraged by new initiatives that come along, such
as the initiative that came from Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi
Arabia, suggesting that in due course, if we can get a
settlement to the crisis, then we can get all Arab nations to
recognize Israel and normalize relations with Israel once we
can determine what the Israeli withdrawal will be and what the
new boundary will be between the State of Israel and a
Palestinian State.
And, of course, President Mubarak was here this week, and
he had an idea that perhaps we could get the two sides to sit,
Mr. Sharon across the table from Chairman Arafat, and begin
discussions. There were lots of ideas.
We have had ideas out there. The President's statement at
the U.N. last fall calling for the creation of a Palestinian
state called Palestine, no American president has said that
before. I gave a speech in Louisville that laid out in a very
comprehensive way the American view and laid out in a very
comprehensive way what both sides had to do and what both sides
had to stop doing in order to move forward.
And so we have had a lot of initiatives, a lot of ideas.
They have all not worked so far because the violence continues.
And you can come up with all the ideas in the world, but until
the violence ends you are not going to move forward, and the
violence has to end, and it has to end as soon as possible.
We need to find a way to get into what is called the
``Tenet work plan,'' which is a plan that George Tenet, our CIA
director, worked out with both sides last year as a way to get
them into the Mitchell process, the Mitchell plan. The Mitchell
plan leads to a political discussion on the basis of U.N.
Resolutions 242 and 338, but to get started the violence has to
go down, so I am anxious to see both sides to do everything
they can to bring down this tension, to bring down this level
of violence so that we can get into the Tenet work plan, and
both sides through this Tenet work plan can begin to work with
each other and bring security to individual sections within the
region and then the whole region so that there can be
confidence-building measures undertaken as called for by the
work plan and by the Mitchell plan and get back to
negotiations.
Both sides are following policies right now that will just
lead to more violence, and it is a tragic situation, and the
President is committed to doing everything he can to see that
we can get into a process of discussion which will bring the
violence to end, bring a cease-fire into place, and then get
into peace discussions.
Mr. Miller. Just reading a paper, I have not been there for
several years now, but, I mean, Mr. Sharon is talking about
just having to kill more Palestinians. That is what we are
going to do. The Palestinians are saying we are going to kill
more Israelis. I do not know how the Palestinian area even
continues to survive. They are treated as second-class
citizens. Now there's vigilante groups--it sounds like possibly
Israeli vigilante groups that blew up a school, and the mayor
says, ``Well, they are second, you know. We will only respond
to them after we take care of everything else.''
Well, you know, the roads are blocked. There's no commerce
within the West Bank or Gaza. I am not sure how Mr. Arafat is--
house arrest, and he's symbolically the head of it, and how he
can really function.
Secretary Powell. He may be under restraints. He cannot
move around freely. But he has the ability to call people or
talk to people and give instructions, so I think he can do more
and he should do more.
Mr. Miller. I think Palestinians are second-class citizens
over there, not the Israeli citizens but the Palestinians.
Secretary Powell. Well, in this condition of violence
everybody is a second-class citizen when you cannot even go out
for an evening walk without worrying about a bomb going off and
killing you. Yes, the Palestinian people are having--are under
enormous difficulty right now, with their inability to get to
jobs, their inability to conduct commerce, and all of these
problems can be on the way to resolution with the ending of the
violence, and Mr. Arafat has to do more. He can do more. He
must do more. And I think at the same time Prime Minister
Sharon has to take a hard look at his policies to see whether
they will work. If you declare war against the Palestinians and
think that you can solve the problem by seeing how many
Palestinians can be killed, I do not know that that would lead
us anywhere. Right now I am not satisfied that both sides have
thought through the consequences of the policies they are
following. They need to take a hard look at what they are doing
now and find a way to get into the Tenet work plan as quickly
as is possible.
Mr. Miller. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Mollohan.
FY 03 REQUEST FOR PEACEKEEPING ACTIVITIES
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I would like to welcome you.
Mr. Secretary, just a couple questions regarding
peacekeeping. I notice that your request for $726 million was a
decrease. It does not seem adequate to me. How does this deal
with the arrearages issue?
Secretary Powell. Well, the decrease is a function of a
lesser demand, lower assessment rates, termination of
operations in Bosnia anticipated, reduction of operations in
East Timor and Sierra Leone, and we assume that the rate cap
will be lifted. If the cap is not lifted, then we may have to
come in for more money.
Mr. Mollohan. Well, how does it deal with--let me get back
to the arrearages. Do we have an arrearage?
Secretary Powell. Yes.
Mr. Mollohan. About $318 million?
Secretary Powell. Yes.
Mr. Mollohan. Does this deal with the arrearage at all?
Secretary Powell. No. We still have an arrearage.
Mr. Mollohan. And how are we dealing with that?
Secretary Powell. We have just finished paying our second
tranche of $582 million, and it was always this arrearage that
was left, and we really have not dealt with it. I want to work
with the Congress in trying to get rid of the cap, which keeps
the arrearage from continuing to build up, and then figure out
a way of how to work off this last debt that we have to the
United Nations. But I am anxious to get the cap lifted so that
that does not increase.
Mr. Mollohan. Where is the problem in lifting the cap? I
mean, is the United Nations not doing something that Congress
requires, which keeps arrearages from being dealt with? Do you
have an authorizing problem? Talk about that issue and where
the problems are.
Secretary Powell. I do not know that there is anything left
for the U.N. to do that it has not done that we are not
satisfied with. The only thing right now is we have to get the
cap lifted in the authorization bill. It is in the Senate
version of the authorization bill, and we are still trying to
lift that cap. But I think it is just a question of coming to
grips with this final bill. It was all we could do last year to
get the $582 million dealt with.
Mr. Mollohan. What does that mean, it is all you could do
last year to get it dealt with? It is all you could do to get
that much money out of the Congress?
Secretary Powell. To tie all the bows and check all the
boxes and make all the pledges and all the other things that we
had to do to satisfy the Congress that this was a smart thing
for Congress to do. And I must give credit to Ambassador
Holbrooke, my predecessor at the U.N., who pulled this all
together and managed to satisfy the various constituencies in
the Congress that it was time to get that bill taken care of,
but there was still a remaining bill.
Mr. Mollohan. Well, is it not time to pay the remaining
bill, all the bows tied up and is it not time to get that
remaining bill----
Secretary Powell. I would love to get the cap lifted and
all of the arrearages paid off.
Mr. Mollohan. How do you get the cap lifted? What do you
have to do?
Secretary Powell. I need the House to authorize the lifting
of the cap and for it to go through the conference process and
come out the other end in the overall State authorization bill.
Mr. Mollohan. So this budget does not anticipate your being
successful in getting that cap lifted, does it, because you are
not requesting the money----
Secretary Powell. This budget assumes that the cap will be
eliminated. It will go from 25% to 27%.
Mr. Mollohan. Okay. So you assume to pay these arrearages
in this request. Is the arrearages request contained in the
$726 million?
Secretary Powell. No.
Mr. Mollohan. Then where is it?
Secretary Powell. It is not in this submission.
Mr. Mollohan. Then how does the budget anticipate----
Secretary Powell. The budget does not reflect the
elimination of arrearages.
Mr. Mollohan. Okay. I am sorry. You probably misunderstood
my question or I----
Secretary Powell. I want to make sure I am saying it right.
Mr. Mollohan. What I thought I asked was: does this budget
anticipate the cap being----
Secretary Powell. The budget anticipates the cap being
lifted, but it does not request the money, because the
arrearages money has already been appropriated.
Mr. Mollohan. Where? Where is it?
Secretary Powell. It is in previous appropriations.
Mr. Mollohan. And carried?
Secretary Powell. And carried forward, but we cannot finish
it off----
Mr. Mollohan. So you are just holding it pending----
Secretary Powell [continuing]. Until we deal with the cap.
Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. Authorization.
Secretary Powell. Yes. It is an authorization issue. The
funds were previously appropriated.
[Secretary Powell consulting with aide.]
Mr. Mollohan. If it is not quite right, maybe you can
expand on that for the record.
Secretary Powell. Yes.
Mr. Mollohan. On to the adequacy of the $726 million for
the peacekeeping missions that are ongoing, you have assumed a
decrease, as I am reading this justification, in almost every
one of the missions. Is that realistic? The U.N. is not going
to continue anything in Bosnia, and all these other missions
are going to decrease as you have reflected here?
Secretary Powell. This is what we assume to be the case. If
it turns out not to be the case, then we will have to come back
to you.
Mr. Mollohan. Well, I understand that.
Secretary Powell. Yes.
Mr. Mollohan. But the question is: is it realistic that we
are going to be decreasing these missions in every one of these
areas?
Secretary Powell. Yes, I believe it is realistic.
Mr. Mollohan. That would be great. That would reflect a lot
of progress in many areas around the world.
Secretary Powell. Well, there has been progress. For
example, in East Timor, and especially Sierra Leone, the bulk
of the work in Sierra Leone with respect to that peacekeeping
operation and the collection of weapons has gone rather well,
and so I think these are reasonable savings--or ``reasonable
reductions'' is a better way to put it. But, you know, you
cannot anticipate a new mission coming along or one suddenly
expanding, in which case we will have to come back to you.
FY 03 REQUEST FOR PUBLIC DIPLOMACY
Mr. Mollohan. I was just kind of surprised. Maybe the
chairman will have detail on that.
It is clear that we are not communicating adequately on a
number of different levels with the Arab world. How does this
budget address that issue? I mean, do you agree with that? I am
sure you do, and you might talk about that a little bit and
talk about how your budget addresses that. I am looking at a
couple of areas here. The public diplomacy programs, $5.3
million is about level funding. It says you expand the services
in the Office of Broadcasting. Just as a starter, would you
talk about that premise a little bit?
Secretary Powell. I spoke about it earlier, but you are
absolutely right that we have to do a better job of getting our
message out, especially to Muslim Arab populations, and we do
have an increase in public diplomacy. It is not as great as I
would like, and we may well be coming in with more in a
supplemental request that we are currently discussing with the
Office of Management and Budget, and we have to do a better job
of conveying our value system to the Muslim world, letting them
know again that it is the United States who came to the rescue
of Kosovo and Afghanistan and Kuwait, Muslim countries that
were not invaded or attacked by the United States but were
attacked by others.
Mr. Mollohan. How are we doing that?
Secretary Powell. Just by saying so and by putting out more
and more people, by putting more and more people on Arab
television and Arab radio, by putting more and more articles in
Arab newspapers. We have a station opening up in the region
that will convey our message more effectively.
Mr. Mollohan. Who is opening that up?
Secretary Powell. We are with a public/private venture.
Mr. Mollohan. Not out of one of the radio----
Secretary Powell. I do not think--no, it is a separate
account--BBG, Broadcasting Board of Governors operation.
FY 03 REQUEST FOR CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL EXCHANGES
Mr. Mollohan. In cultural and educational exchange
programs, which I think would be a natural complement to
broadcast----
Secretary Powell. Yes.
Mr. Mollohan. You are requesting a decrease in the
professional and cultural exchanges of $3.3 million, a bit of
an increase in academic--actually, it is not an increase. It
would be level funding, at best. In exchange programs it would
be level funding, as well.
Secretary Powell. On overall educational exchanges, it is
not quite level, a slight increase of $8 million by my numbers.
Mr. Mollohan. Well, I would say that would be virtually
level funding with inflation. But these are wonderful programs.
Hamid Karzai, I understand----
Secretary Powell. He was.
Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. Was a participant in one of
these programs.
Secretary Powell. He was a participant in one of the
programs, and I could not agree with you more. These
educational and cultural exchange programs, the Fulbright
program, these are all wonderful efforts, as well as, for
example, IMET--International Military Education and Training.
We have increased that, as well. These are terrific ways of
bringing young potential leaders to the United States, exposing
them to our value system, letting them live here.
Mr. Mollohan. Why don't we expand on that?
Secretary Powell. Well, we have been expanding. I mean,
there are limits. I would love to triple it. If you want to
triple it, go ahead.
Mr. Mollohan. Well, I think it would be delightful to
triple it, but I think the question is what do you want to do?
Secretary Powell. I want to increase them and we have
increased them and I am going to try to increase them more in
the years----
Mr. Mollohan. Did you ask OMB for more money in these?
Secretary Powell. We got more money. It is a slight
increase.
Mr. Mollohan. Well, I know. That did not quite answer my
question.
Secretary Powell. Yes, it is.
Mr. Mollohan. Did you ask OMB for more?
Secretary Powell. We asked and we received an increase.
Mr. Mollohan. You received what you got? So, in other
words, you wanted an $8 million increase and that was all?
Secretary Powell. I do not know what we requested. I would
have to go in and find out.
Mr. Mollohan. I am not trying to catch you on it, I am just
trying to----
Secretary Powell. No, it is not a catch, Mr. Mollohan, but
everything competes with something else, and when you go in and
you try to get an increase in every single account--and I would
love for this budget not to be $26 billion, I would love for it
to be $46 billion, but it is not, cannot be $46 billion at this
time. Maybe if I stay long enough I can get it up there.
Mr. Mollohan. You know, in the war on terrorism the
competition is huge and maybe it is not this program. Maybe you
are asking to fight back more some place else by making the
funding more robust. And I have not looked at every one of the
accounts, so this line of questioning is my way of expressing
my feeling that----
Secretary Powell. No, I----
Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. This is an area that we ought to
be doing a whole lot more, and these exchange programs are
wonderful programs.
Secretary Powell. I could not agree with you more, Mr.
Mollohan.
Mr. Mollohan. Let me join all my colleagues in telling you
how I admire what a good job you are doing. We appreciate your
efforts.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Mollohan.
We are going to recognize Mr. Obey and then Mr. Cramer. I
apologize to Mr. Cramer. I think it has been a good practice to
always recognize the chairman and the ranking member because
they have 13 different committees to go to and subcommittees,
but Mr. Obey and then Mr. Cramer and then Mr. Vitter.
Remarks of Committee Ranking Member Obey
Mr. Obey. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I do apologize, Mr. Chairman, for not being here earlier. I
have been across the hall with Secretary Thompson, who was also
my former governor, so we had to do first things first.
Mr. Secretary, I hope you do not take my comments the wrong
way. There are lots of questions I would like to ask you on
policy, but there is a more overriding concern I have this
morning, and so I think I am just going to get something off my
chest.
FY 03 ADMINISTRATIVE BUDGET REQUEST
As you know, last year the administrative budget of the
State Department was increased significantly, a 14 percent
increase, going from $3.2 billion to about $3.7 billion. And,
as you know, I was strongly for that. I urged my colleagues to
provide just as much as humanly possible, because I thought
that your agency had been under-funded for years.
This year you are asking for 399 new positions and an 8
percent administrative budget increase over last year, and I
want to tell you I do not support that this year. It is as you
say--every dollar that you put in this budget somewhere is
accompanied by a dollar that has to be taken out.
At the risk of offending the former Old Miss cheerleader on
the Senate side, I am going to dare to suggest that the
allocation of resources between what we are doing abroad and
what we are doing at home might just not be plum perfect in the
White House's budget. And if the cheerleader from Mississippi
is going to hyperventilate over that, that is tough, but I want
to get something off my chest.
I am an internationalist. I believe very deeply that we
need to be doing more than we are doing in a variety of areas.
But the Marshal Plan was not sold at a time when we were
clobbering domestic expenditures. The American public, even
though public opinion polls were never positive in terms of the
Marshal Plan, nonetheless the American public tolerated it as a
grace note because they thought that their at-home needs were
being tended to.
I think there are a number of needs that are not being
tended to at home which relate to our ability to marshal public
support for national security expenditures and international
expenditures. Example: homeland security. I am still steaming
over the fact that last year the White House had to be dragged
kicking and screaming into supporting additional homeland
security funding above their own request, including
bioterrorism preparedness funding. The President personally
told me that if we passed one dime above the amount that the
Administration asked for, he would veto our homeland security
efforts last year. I think that was profoundly reckless, given
the threats that were described to me by a number of agencies,
including your own.
In addition to that, I take a look at some other actions
that are being taken by the Administration in its budget. Both
political parties posed for political holy pictures supporting
NIH. That is a nice, popular, politically sexy account. But
then the White House budget cuts $1.4 billion from other health
care programs. I do not think that kind of budget is going to
marshal support for our providing more money for foreign aid. I
think it is going to diminish public support for it.
I firmly believe that we ought to be doing more to provide
additional help for Third World countries with respect to their
education problems and their health problems, but it is going
to be hard as hell to convince the American public to do that
when we are slashing the rate of increase in support for
education that we had the last five years in this budget and
when we are gutting programs like world health. The districts
in this country where we need the biggest increase in public
support for international activities are rural districts, and
politically a practical fact is we ain't going to get that
support from people if they see their own needs being short
sheeted.
So I just wanted to make that point because, as you say,
nothing occurs in isolation, and in my view we are being set up
in the Congress so that we are forced to choose between
providing additional funding for international activities or
additional funding for education and health care and job
training, and we are forgetting the third part of the equation.
I know we are not supposed to talk about taxes, nasty word, but
the fact is these three numbers--and I recognize you are not
making these decisions, but I am going to get this out every
chance I get. These three numbers represent what has happened
economically in this country over the last 20 years to after-
tax income. The top number is $400,000. That is the amount by
which the most well-off 1 percent of people in this country
have seen their after-tax income increase over a 30-year
period. The $3,400 figure below that is the amount by which the
American who is exactly in the middle of America's income
stream, that is the amount by which their after-tax income has
risen over the last 30 years--$3,400 as opposed to $400,000.
And then, if you are unfortunate enough to fall in the bottom
20 percent of people in terms of income in this country, over
the last 20 years you have actually lost $100 in terms of real
income after taxes.
And yet, if you take a look at that tax cut that was passed
last year, when fully effective that tax package will provide
the folks who have already over the last 30 years had an
average of $400,000 increase in their after-tax income, they
will wind up with a $52,000 tax cut. The folks in the middle,
who have seen their income rise by $3,400 over that same
period, will have a $600 tax cut. And one-fourth of the people
who have already lost ground will get absolutely nothing
because they do not make enough to quality under the tax cut
that Congress passed and the President signed.
In my view, that is the context in which we are going to
have to deal with all of the requests for defense, for foreign
aid, education, you name it, and it seems to me--I know that
some people are as offended when we talk about delaying
scheduled tax cuts for this 1 percent at the top of the
economic heap--and, incidentally, you have to make $330,000 a
year to be in that top 1 percent. Not bad. But I know some
people are offended when we talk about delaying tax cuts for
those folks so that we can afford to do more of what you think
we need to defend the national interest and more of what we
think we need to do to strengthen us here at home, including
education and health and homeland security.
So I just wanted to put that on the table. It is beyond
your jurisdiction, and I do not expect to debate you on it
because it is the White House, OMB, and the other wizards in
this town who are setting that policy. But I think this is a
warped result which is going to result in squeeze on a lot of
programs, including the administrative budget for which you are
asking an increase to finance 399 new positions.
I want you to understand why I think it is a different ball
game this year than it was last year in terms of your budget
request for administrative purposes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Powell. Thank you, Mr. Obey.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Obey.
Mr. Cramer.
EMBASSY CONSTRUCTION
Mr. Cramer. Mr. Secretary, I want to add to the chorus of
welcomes as well. I have been impressed with your leadership at
the Department and especially since September the 11th. I have
always enjoyed working with you and look forward to the day
when we might interchange over issues that I brought up last
year.
Last year I talked to you about our embassies and security
at our embassies, and you laid out for me and then sent General
Chuck Williams to see me--most impressive plan with our
security issues at our embassies. I am sorry I was not here for
your testimony, but I read through the detail that you are
offering there.
I would like you to be a little more specific about what's
coming on line. Thirteen facilities coming on line? What does
that mean? Give me some examples of what we have accomplished
specifically in the last year with regard to security.
Secretary Powell. I would like to give you a more fulsome
answer for the record, but let me just say that General
Williams, in the course of the last year, has managed to reduce
overall construction cost of embassies, new embassies, by about
20 percent. One embassy in Beijing that we were building that
was of great concern, he has been able to really reduce the
cost of that embassy considerably. He is trying to do a better
job of matrixing new embassies so that you have common
components with respect to powerplants and other facilities
that you can repeat embassy after embassy and not reinvent it
with every new embassy building that you design, some common
components with respect to embassy construction.
Mr. Cramer. Now, does his plan take into consideration
sites where we already have our embassies located and what we
might do to improve those sites----
Secretary Powell. Yes.
Mr. Cramer [continuing]. Or is this mainly for new
construction?
Secretary Powell. No. He's put together a master plan that
includes new construction as well as upgrading facilities in
existing sites, such as the couple that I have referenced in my
documents this morning. Kingston, Jamaica, is an example where
we are upgrading a number of sites. It includes not only new
construction, but, as well, it includes security-driven
projects, things that have to be done because of security, not
necessarily new construction, as well as redesign fit out of
newly-acquired buildings. Bridgetown, Barbados; Kingston,
Jamaica--newly-acquired buildings; design and construction of
annexes in Athens, Tirana, Almaty, Albania, and Moscow. Then
there are security-driven projects in Astana, Kazakhstan,
Bamako, Mali, and in Panama City. He's got a master plan which
I do not know if he's had a chance to provide to you or not,
but a master plan of exactly what we are going to do for the
next five years on the basis of new construction, on the basis
of upgrades, on the basis of security-driven projects, and new
office buildings, and presence facilities that we have talked
about.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cramer. I have not evaluated your budget, but your
budget takes into account those new designs, those new plans,
and new facilities, as well?
Secretary Powell. Yes. Yes, it does.
EXCHANGE PROGRAMS
Mr. Cramer. I want to echo some of the remarks of Mr.
Mollohan about the exchange programs and the budgets for those.
I have co-chaired with Roger Wicker a Russian leadership
exchange program which I think has gone incredibly well, where
we have brought young potential Russian leaders here to the
United States, gotten Members of Congress--I think some 20 to
30 Members of Congress that have sponsored those groups that
have gone all across our country, settling into our
communities, going to church with people, visiting business
people, looking at land issues, school issues, all kinds of
issues. Now, that program is not funded out of your budget, but
it is funded out of another budget, so I think there are ways
that we could incorporate these programs. But I also want to
emphasize that I think these are programs very much worth of
budget increases and budget priorities, as well.
Secretary Powell. I could not agree with you more, sir.
And, as I said to Mr. Mollohan earlier, these programs are
terrific, and I had experience with them as a soldier when I
met foreign officers back when I was a captain and I followed
them throughout their careers and we have both ended up
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of our respective
services, and they always treasured the time they spent in the
United States school. That is the military part of it.
It is the same thing with Fulbright scholars, all your
other kinds of programs where you bring people from overseas,
have them come, live in our community, go to our schools, meet
our families, understand our customs and traditions. This is an
incredibly powerful investment.
Mr. Cramer. And it sure gets us the chance to overcome some
of the----
Secretary Powell. Absolutely.
Mr. Cramer [continuing]. Pre-set ideas of what we are
really all about.
Secretary Powell. Absolutely.
recrutiment at the state department
Mr. Cramer. And also I want to go back to an issue that we
discussed last year. You have done an incredible job with
recruiting people for the Department, and, as I have had the
few occasions to mix and mingle with our overseas State
Department employees, I have been most impressed. It is always
interesting to understand what family sacrifices they make, and
husband-and-wife teams and how they go about settling
themselves, especially when a spouse is not a State Department
employee.
In your comments you refer to a new web-based recruiting
tool, and vigorously asserting the truth. Can you tell me a
little bit more about what you mean by those?
Secretary Powell. We made a major effort last year to let
all young people in the United States and not-so-young people
in the United States know that the State Department was looking
for quality people who wanted to serve--serve in the front
lines of democracy, as we called it. And, as a result, we
doubled the number of youngsters applying for the Foreign
Service exam last fall, and that is why we needed those
positions that Congress gave us. No point in having a great
recruiting effort you cannot hire at the other end of the
process.
We are also concentrating on the Civil Service part of it,
as well, not just Foreign Service. We need great civil servants
to come into the Department, as well. And so we are putting a
lot more of this on the web--how to apply on the web, how to
find out information about jobs in the State Department and
Civil Service on the web. And so we are trying to make this
user friendly, web-based. More and more people have access to
the web and get information about the Department on the web.
DIPLOMTIC READINESS INITIATIVE
Mr. Cramer. And the Department's diplomatic readiness
initiative, what exactly is that?
Secretary Powell. It is a tiger team. It is a bunch of
people we have put together in their own little office drawing
from assets within the Department, and their mission is
diplomatic readiness--finding people who want to become part of
the Department, getting them ready to take the exams.
For example, people in my front office--I have a Cuban
American in my front office, my executive secretary, and on the
weekends she calls Hispanics who have taken the Foreign Service
exam, or at least applied for it, and she makes sure that they
show up to take it, to encourage them--that kind of direct
contact. Our Diplomatic Readiness Task Force works on issues
like that, cradle-to-the-grave, bringing people into the
Foreign Service, and let them know we have a career path for
them. We put out a training program now. They know what is
expected of them over time. It just gives total attention to
the readiness of our people to do the jobs that we have waiting
for them.
Mr. Cramer. How long has that task force existed?
Secretary Powell. I inaugurated it and put it in a new
office about six months ago.
Mr. Cramer. Very good. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. I thank you.
Mr. Secretary, we have a vote and we are not going to keep
you, so we are going to end in about four minutes.
Mr. Kennedy, did you want to----
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
Mr. Kennedy. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, welcome. I thank you for the job that you
are doing on behalf of our country. You are representing our
country very well and we are proud that you are our Secretary.
I would like to bring up a question that I brought up last
time that you were before this committee, and that has got to
do with the International War Crimes Tribunal.
As you know, last time we spoke about it--and I know of our
differences on it--there are over 52 countries that have
ratified the International Criminal Court, and it was at that
time you said that the Administration's position would be to
support the ad hoc courts that are already in existence, and
yet in your budget you actually have lower--you cut, basically,
funding for the ad hoc tribunals in former Yugoslavia and in
Rwanda. So I would ask you what other multilateral venue do we
have to bring the issue of criminal justice to light in an
international setting if we do not support the ICC and we do
not support the ad hoc?
And let me just say one final thing. I think that the
message that has been going around in the Congress about how we
cannot get entangled with the ICC because we might end up
becoming victims, our young men and women might be held
accountable under the ICC statute, but it is not true that we
are going to be under the ICC statute whether we ratify it or
not. Even if that is the case, would not it make sense to join
it, because if we did then we would be able to access the
theory of complementarity and be able to have first right to
try our own troops before they would ever be called before an
ICC? So in essence we have more protections for our troops if
we ratify it than if we do not, which is kind of a funny way of
thinking about it, wrapping your head around the idea that by
joining it you actually have more independence than by not
joining it. I would ask you to comment on that, as well.
Secretary Powell. We still believe that the ICC does not
serve our interest and it has some deleterious effects with
respect to our ability to conduct our operations around the
world and might put at risk some of the Constitutional
protections that we expect our soldiers to have and our
soldiers expect to have.
President Clinton believed this also at the time he signed
the treaty or the agreement, because in the signing statement
he as much as said that--that he did not intend to send it up
for ratification, and this Administration does not intend to
send it up for ratification, either.
With respect to the various international tribunals, we do
support them. My ambassador for war crimes tribunals,
Ambassador Pierre Prosper, testified before Congress last week
that some of these tribunals will be going out of service in
the timeframe 2007, 2008, and their workload is decreasing over
time, so I do not know what the specific numbers are with
respect to specific cuts in any of the tribunals----
Mr. Kennedy. It is four million for Rwanda and 2.5 for
Yugoslavia.
Secretary Powell. I would have to get for the record why
those specific cuts are in there, but I suspect it does not
reflect--I know it does not reflect a lack of support for these
tribunals, but it may reflect the declining workload, but I do
not know. I would like to give that to you for the record.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Secretary Powell. We just feel our soldiers are better
protected not as a signatory to the ICC, and we recognize that
it will go into effect once it is ratified by 60 countries.
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Secretary Powell. And when it goes into effect, it is with
the force of international law, and therefore all persons are
subject to it.
Mr. Kennedy. Right.
Secretary Powell. And we would have to then condition where
we send our soldiers and under what circumstances we send them
overseas as a function as to what dangers they might be put
under with respect to the ICC. The United States is different.
We are unique.
Mr. Kennedy. I understand that.
Secretary Powell. And I think we have a certain obligation
to our young men and women in uniform.
Mr. Kennedy. And that is why we have the theory of
complementarity built into the treaty, and I know that was
worked out through much work by the United States delegation.
The whole purpose of that was that then we would retain the
power to try our own troops under our own court martial system,
our own justice system, rather than have them immediately go
through the ICC. So it actually is the opposite. If we want to
protect our troops, we had better ratify it, because then we
maintain our first right of refusal, if you will, for trying
these.
Secretary Powell. That is not the judgment that this
Administration or the previous Administration came to, and I do
not believe we have gotten the level of protection, even with
complementarity, that I believe our young men and women are
entitled to.
EAST TIMOR
Mr. Kennedy. Could I ask you also about East Timor, the
fact that we have not been able to get, despite the memorandum
of understanding, the Indonesian government to help us at all,
helping to prosecute some of these war criminals as part of the
whole reconciliation process. Could you comment on that?
Secretary Powell. I would like to give that to you for the
record. There has been a problem with that tribunal, but I
would like to give you a more fulsome answer for the record.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
AID WORKERS IN WEST AFRICA
Mr. Kennedy. And the abuse by AID workers in West Africa.
Secretary Powell. A source of enormous concern to us, and
we are in discussions with the United Nations as to how to get
to the bottom of this, how to find out those who are
responsible and guilty and bring them to justice, but we have
to make sure that we do not throw out the programs. There's
some suggestion we should cut off funding for these programs,
but the only ones who would be hurt are the people receiving
the benefits----
Mr. Kennedy. I hear you.
Secretary Powell [continuing]. So we should not do that.
Mr. Kennedy. I hear you.
Secretary Powell. Yes.
U.S. POLICY IN COLOMBIA
Mr. Kennedy. Let me also say finally that in my
Congressional District we had a priest, Father Paul Guiterrez
Corrales, who was assassinated in Colombia recently. He was a
priest in my District. Obviously, the tumultuous war in
Colombia is affecting our international policy to a great
extent, and I just would like to make a point of saying that
this is a case that I am watching, and I would like you to
comment maybe to the committee--I know you may have already--
about what the State Department is doing to address these
issues.
Secretary Powell. I have commented to the committee
earlier, Mr. Kennedy, with respect to the fact that we are
reviewing our policy in light of the changed situation in
Colombia with the end of the safe havens and whether it is
necessary for us to assist the Colombians with counter-
terrorist efforts in addition to the counter-narcotics efforts
that we are assisting them with. That review is taking place
within the Department now.
To assist them as they move more aggressively against these
counter-terrorists or insurgents, some might call them, we will
run up against the limits of the current authorities that we
have under the counter-narcotics programs that we are running.
Mr. Kennedy. And we will be following that.
Secretary Powell. Yes.
GLOBAL POVERTY LOANS AND GRANTS
Mr. Kennedy. Finally, I would just say I had a very
interesting meeting with the president of the World Bank, Mr.
Wolfenson, a couple of weeks ago. He went through with me the
international poverty issue, which was featured in last week's
``Time'' or ``Newsweek'' magazine.
Secretary Powell. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. I am not sure which. And it really does point
to our international security in the developing world with the
booming populations who are in destitute poverty. As part of
our national security, we will not be able to be fully secure
unless we address the issues of global poverty.
I would just say I agree with President of the World Bank
Wolfenson that we should not convert these loan programs to
grants, because we take the money out from being recycled.
Basically, these loan programs through the World Bank are
programs that are interest free and almost like grants, and
when a country 30 years later gets to paying them back, and as
they often do, they put the money back in circulation where it
can go help another very troubled part of the world.
I would just say that I am very troubled by the prospects
of the Administration at Monterrey saying that they are about
to turn this loan program into a grant program, because I think
it will destroy what little we have in terms of recycled value
and international aid, and I hope that you may be able to
comment on that.
Secretary Powell. There is an argument over this issue as
to whether or not it is better just to give grant, and we are
inclined to think that we probably can strike a better balance
between loans and grants and give them grants so that the money
goes to immediate use and you do not saddle that country with
the debt, long-term or otherwise. And so I have the utmost
respect for Jim Wolfenson. It is an area that I hope to be able
to spend more time talking to him about so that we can have a
more unified position when we get to Monterrey.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, if we do go for the grant process then
it would make sense we would up the money in our international
aid budget.
Secretary Powell. I am always for upping the money
internationally.
Mr. Kennedy. I would imagine you are, so maybe we could
work on looking at those issues. Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Secretary, we are down to four minutes. Thank
you very much. We will submit additional questions for the
record or raise them in subsequent hearings. Trafficking in
persons is a big issue we were going to raise with you, also
the abuse of the children in West Africa. Also, we are waiting
for the report to come up on compensation with regard to
American victims of terrorism. In addition I wanted to raise
the issue of the return of criminal aliens to their country of
origin. There are 3,000 now in prison in the United States. We
should be asking Vietnam and those other countries to take them
back.
We thank you for your testimony.
Secretary Powell. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, April 11, 2002.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
WITNESSES
RICHARD ARMITAGE, DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE
GRANT S. GREEN, JR., UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR MANAGEMENT
Opening Remarks of Subcommittee Chairman Wolf
Mr. Wolf. The Committee will come to order. It is a
pleasure to have with us the Deputy Secretary of State, Richard
Armitage, and the Under Secretary of State for Management,
Grant Green, for their second appearances before the Committee.
I appreciate the great job that the Secretary and both of you
are doing, and your people are doing; and frankly the Bush
administration is doing with regard to all of the issues that
we are facing. There have never been greater challenges when
you look at Afghanistan and Middle East and what is taking
place in Africa. I want to let you know we personally
appreciate what you are doing. I am sure I speak for the rest
of the Subcommittee.
We will hear your testimony regarding the fiscal year 2003
budget request for the operation of the Department, including
the cost of improving security for employees overseas and other
management improvement initiatives. The budget request includes
funding to expand the efforts we began this year to
significantly increase staffing, both overseas and
domestically.
You are seeking funding for 631 new positions and
significant continued funding for capital technology
investments and embassy security programs. For many years, this
Committee has been very supportive and helped you to improve
the management of the Department. We look forward to hearing
about the progress you are making in bringing about needed
reforms and putting in place improved management structure and
many other issues. There will be a number of questions on
policy issues I am sure and a number of budget issues as well.
With that, let me recognize Mr. Serrano. And after that you
can proceed as you see fit. Your full statements will appear in
the record.
Opening Remarks of Ranking Minority Member Serrano
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning,
gentlemen, it is nice to see you here. It is obvious from the
chairman's comments that we are big supporters of the State
Department and the work you have to do. And I want to join the
chairman in saying that these are very difficult times. You
guys have done a great job and the ladies who are at the
Department also. We are very proud as Americans and very
grateful to you for the work that you are doing.
I will also tell you when the Secretary was here before
this Committee, I was careful not to ask him a single question
about Cuba and I didn't get him in any trouble anywhere in the
country. I am not promising you the same thing. And lastly, one
thing I mentioned to the Secretary, which is of great concern
to me and one that falls more on the Justice Department than on
your department, but since you are the State Department, and
since you play such a major role just keep in mind as we go
through this very difficult time in this country and as we try
throughout the world to root out the evil of terrorism and get
the bad guys, that in the process, we in this country don't
hurt the good guys and that we respect peoples' civil liberties
and civil rights, and we don't stereotype people ethnically,
racially or in religious terms.
We don't want to repeat what we did during World War II. We
don't want 20, 30, 40 years from now to feel about Arab
Americans and other groups the way we now feel about what we
did to the Japanese-Americans during World War II. And I know
this is a very delicate situation you have in your hands. And
as I said, it probably falls more on the Justice Department
than it does on you. But it is something that I need to remind
us and to remind myself, that we have to be balanced in this
approach so that as we get the bad guys, and we don't hurt the
good guys. And with that, I welcome your testimony and stand
ready to work with Chairman Wolf to make your life much easier
this year.
Opening Remarks of Deputy Secretary Armitage
Mr. Armitage. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Serrano, if I may
just comment on your comments. Sir, that is not a Justice or
State or Defense issue you raised, it is a human issue, and I
thank you for reminding us. It belongs to all of us. It is our
duty to respect every human being and treat them with the same
dignity and respect which with we want to be treated. I
appreciate the reminder.
Mr. Chairman, I owe you several thanks today. First of all,
to you, and your committee, thanks for supporting us so well.
We are extraordinarily grateful and we count on earning your
continued support. Number two, I want to thank you for the
letter that you sent me. I want to make some comments about the
Middle East in a while, and I think your letter, which I got
yesterday reminding us of the words of Dr. Martin Luther King
and the Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel do come to mind as Secretary
Powell is on the eve of his journey into Jerusalem. I want to
thank you for the letter.
Third I want to thank you and the committee for allowing us
to reschedule this hearing from March 21st, because what you
allowed us to do that day was to go to Andrews Air Force base.
I had the duty of welcoming back into this family the remains
of Barbara Green and her daughter, Kristen, and welcome back
into this family her husband, who was gravely injured and her
son. It gave us the opportunity with President Bush to
privately meet with them at Andrews Air Force base out of the
glare of the press lights. He didn't want press.
The President and Mrs. Bush spent some time with Mr. Green
and his son. Although obviously the President couldn't bring
back his wife, the President told the Greens that he would pray
for them, and he was secure in the knowledge that they were in
a better place. He went on to say that none--no less than our
men and women in uniform, the men and women of the Department
of State are fighting on the front lines, and he appreciated
their sacrifice. That reminded me vividly why we are here.
Mr. Chairman, before we were going to have the last
hearing, I asked your permission to poll the members of your
committee to see if there were particular issues they wanted me
to raise. I did receive some responses, and I will tick, tick,
right down if I may and I will end with you, Mr. Chairman.
Congressman Miller and Congressman Latham both wanted to talk
about embassy security, which my colleague Grant Green can
address in much greater length than I. We are appalled as
anyone else with the cost of security today.
General Williams, who directs our overseas building
operation, has decided on a modular construction plan, to
standardize embassies which we hope will allow us to bring down
the cost. He is using best business practices. He put together
an advisory panel from industry. Quite stunning the level of
these folks. I went down and spoke to them, and Grant spoke to
them. They are there to give us the latest, greatest ideas on
how to save our money, the money Congress appropriates to us
and how to make sure that we are as safe as possible. We will
continue to do that. I don't know how to go below the cost of
embassy security. It is something that we face in this day and
age and I don't think we will be able to get away from it.
Congresswoman, you were kind enough to talk to me about
your own concerns, which is small businesses and the
availability of our embassies and the State Department
particularly to help them. Of course, if you are Lockheed
Martin or Boeing, I guess you can easily get help, but small
businesses are particular. We do have a unit in the Department
of State dedicated to this. I am going to ask, with your
permission, that Assistant Secretary Tony Wayne come up and
provide you the information that we do have and make sure that
all of the small businesses in which you are interested know
what our embassies can and can't do.
Now out in the field, is the foreign commercial service is
in the main duty. Our ambassadors have this duty as well; we
accept it, we embrace it, and I appreciate you raising it to
me. With your permission, Tony Wayne will contact you.
Congressman Vitter raised the issue of the Middle East. I
want to make a few remarks. Secretary Powell is on his way to a
meeting with King Abdullah. Tonight, at 4:20 our time, he will
land in Jerusalem and begin his discussion with Prime Minister
Sharon, and most probably with Chairman Arafat on Saturday. You
saw he left Madrid after getting strong statements from what is
now called the Quartet, the UN, the EU, the Russians, and of
course the United States. Strong statements which he would not
have been able to get, and we would not have seen from the EU
or any of these folks left to their own devices. It was a
strong statement that paralleled the President's April speech
and called on both sides to make the necessary sacrifices.
It is obvious that the leadership of Chairman Arafat has
been a disappointment. Our President said that the other day.
He is, however, the elected leader of the Palestinian people.
He is what we have to deal with. It is clear that suicide
bombers are not martyrs. They are murderers. We have to do
something about the lack of hope that leads people to that type
of decision.
Finally, we recognize that the Israelis do have a right to
self-defense, but they have to realize that in this projection
of their self-defense, there can be repercussions that were not
considered beyond their control. That is why the Secretary has
been sent by the President, because we couldn't sit by in
silence as a friend of the Israelis and friend of the
Palestinian people while this suffering went on.
The Secretary is going to do his utmost, with the support
of the administration, to try to revive the vision which he
spoke of in his Louisville, Kentucky speech, and the President
was so eloquent at the UN of two states, Israel and Palestine.
It was the first time an American President has spoken about
the state of Palestine, living side by side in peace and having
a hope of a future for all of their peoples.
Congressman Serrano, on the question of minority rights,
you have raised this consistently. I want to assure you and
show you that not only do we hear you, but you can see results.
Unfortunately, many of the things that we do in our government
lives seem to have a gestation period. But I think in a year,
we have seen some changes that have happened. Let me just tell
you that last year we had 23,459 people who applied for the
foreign service exam, of which 8206 were minorities. 12,150 or
so actually took the exam, of which 4,086 were minorities and
652 minorities passed, which is the highest we have had since
we have kept these records.
Is that good enough? No. However if you look at that and
with the Pickering scholarships, with the Serrano scholarships
and the fact that we work with 52 universities to try to
recruit minorities from Texas to Howard, I think you can see
that we are pushing. You can quibble with us if you like
whether we are pushing hard enough or fast enough, and we will
take whatever guidance you want to give. When I came here last
year, I spoke about our office of civil rights. The State
Department was 76 out of 79 agencies when it came to EEOC
complaints, 76 out of 79.
Secretary Powell made it clear to Barbara Pope, who runs
the Office of Civil Rights, that she will be in the top five
this year. Right now, we have only 17 cases that are still
outstanding and that have been on hold for more than a year. We
are getting into the top 5. We are knocking on the door, and in
slightly less than the year that Barbara has been on the job.
Finally Mr. Chairman, you are responsible for us adding at
least 120.5 million dollars to our supplemental request. You
came back from a trip to Kabul. You showed us a video. That
video had a stunning effect on all of us and allowed us to get
OMB permission to put in among other things a budget request
for $120.5 million for the embassy in Kabul. I wanted to report
specifically to you, because you told me on the phone that
those Marines better have weights. Those Marines got their
weights. We took them from Islamabad and crossed through Kabul.
They are exercising in pretty shoddy quarters, but they are
exercising. I will stop there, sir, and thank you very much for
your support and Mr. Serrano's and Congresswoman Roybal-Allard
and look forward to your questions.
Opening Remarks of Undersecretary Green
Mr. Green. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, I am
happy to be here, along with the Deputy Secretary, to testify
on support of the State Department's budget for fiscal year
2003. The Secretary's management priorities are pretty simple.
They haven't changed: its people, its technology, its
facilities, its security and the resources necessary to achieve
those objectives. Thanks in great part to the tremendous
support from this Subcommittee, I think we are making
tremendous progress in restoring the management platform of the
Department, but it is still going to take a couple more years,
I think, to get us where we need to be.
Let me address people for just a second. With the FY 2002
funding the Department received, we have taken the first steps
to meeting the needs of both our overseas requirements and here
in the main State Department. We join the Secretary in asking
you for your support so we can maintain the hiring plan. We
have got to complete this plan in order to restore the health
of the diplomatic corps.
As the Deputy mentioned, in September, the foreign service
entrance exam had about 13,000 takers, the highest number since
1988 and a 63 percent increase over just the year before. We
are proud to have the highest number and percentage of minority
exam takers and passers ever. We have cut from 27 months to 10
months the time a successful applicant waits to be hired after
taking the test. Incidentally, we have filled all seats in the
most recent A100 course, which is our basic course for foreign
service officers, and we are well on our way to doing the same
for all of the fiscal year 2002 classes. They are subscribed
right now at 80 percent.
The next foreign service exam, and we have gone from one a
year to two a year, occurs this Saturday. We have over 25,000
people who have registered for that exam. Let me move----
Mr. Wolf. Is that an all-time high?
Mr. Green. I will check. It has got to be an all-time high,
because we were at 23,000 and that was the highest since 1988,
but I will confirm that. It is over 25,000. Regarding embassy
security, for just a moment, as you know, we have more than 30
U.S. Government agencies overseas that rely on us as the
platform at over 260 diplomatic and consular posts. Obviously,
as the Deputy mentioned, one of our major concerns about these
overseas facilities are security and safety where our people
work and live. Our security challenges again are pretty
straightforward, sustaining the security readiness as the
threat levels are elevated, strengthening our existing security
programs and having the flexibility to deal with increasing
threats worldwide.
In the area of technology, our priorities also have not
changed in the last year. They are OpenNet Plus, which is web
access for all State Department employees on their desktops by
mid 2003, based on increases we received in the 2002 budget;
provide classified connectivity and e-mail to every eligible
post by fiscal year 2004, and provide a foundation for
modernizing our outmoded 1950s messaging telegram system.
Lastly, test and evaluate the foreign affairs system
integration system, which is currently being piloted in posts
in Mexico and India which will enable us to communicate across
agencies and across posts.
Finally, facilities. In the aftermath of September 11, the
security and working conditions of our employees not only
overseas, but also in the United States, became a major
concern, and we are moving aggressively to improve both. The
deputy had mentioned some of the initiatives that had been
taken by our overseas building office. Let me add they have
also developed a long range overseas building plan covering six
years of planning data. That plan is in the final stages of
approval at OMB, and should be in your hands within 30 to 45
days. It will serve as a strategic road map for facilities and
increases the transparency in our decision making process. As
Rich mentioned, they have developed the standard embassy design
concept for small, medium and large embassies. This concept
will reduce the cost while speeding the construction and
enhancing the quality of our new embassies overseas.
By the end of this fiscal year over two-thirds of our
overseas posts should reach minimal security standards, meaning
secured doors, windows and perimeters. We are making progress
in efforts to provide new facilities that are fully secure with
13 major capital projects in design and construction, another
nine expected to begin this fiscal year, and nine planned for
fiscal year 2003. Obviously, these are our highest priorities.
They cost something. For the administration portion of the
foreign affairs account in fiscal 2003, in our budget
submission, we are requesting $5.9 billion.
Mr. Chairman I think I speak for the Deputy when I say we
will be happy to answer any questions that you and other
members of the Subcommittee may have.
Mr. Wolf. Good. Well, thank you both very much and we have
a number of questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
EMBASSIES IN AFGHANISTAN AND TAJIKISTAN
Mr. Wolf. On the supplemental request, you are seeking $322
million for State programs funded under this subcommittee. Over
$200 million of that is for the embassy security projects in
Afghanistan and Tajikistan. Can you describe the projects and
the American diplomatic presence that you are planning for both
countries?
Mr. Armitage. If I may, Mr. Chairman, in Kabul we have
spaces for 28 American diplomats. We have 21 there. There are
92 Marines present right now. There are any number of other
agencies, including CIA, who are there. In the short-term, we
are trying to make thorough use of trailers, et cetera, for 275
spaces total. We cannot, however achieve that total of
Americans until we have a much better situation on the ground.
For instance, we are going to have to dramatically kick up
our AID component. Right now, because of the security
situation, it is very difficult to get AID personnel out into
the field for extended stays because they have to go in an
armored vehicle with DS protection. This will change over time.
We do not have a full staffing profile. I am sure you are more
familiar with than I am, and you know what it needs to have in
terms of upkeep and rehab. We also want a secure chancery, or
work building.
In Dushanbe, Tajikistan, we are basically living in
something that is on the street. It is an old office building
and has barbed wire around it. Until recently, we had our
ambassador working out of Almaty and travelling to Dushanbe. We
hope we will have a full embassy, particularly as we have such
a large number of U.S. Forces.
Mr. Wolf. How many personnel will be in the embassy?
Mr. Armitage. I don't think we have a profile. We have 12
or 14 that are there now.
Mr. Wolf. When fully staffed, what is your expectation?
Mr. Armitage. An embassy of that size would have roughly
what we have in--slightly less than what we have in
Afghanistan.
Mr. Wolf. 24, 23?
Mr. Armitage. There will be more than that. I think with
other personnel it will be quite a bit higher.
Mr. Green. Mr. Chairman, the plan right now for the
chancery is 39 U.S. Desks and 42 foreign service nationals
desks, if you will.
Mr. Wolf. You have----
Mr. Green. Let me just add, because I just mentioned to
you, I talked to Chuck Williams. You and I both went to Kabul
and saw it at its worst. I saw it a little better than you saw
it, but not much. Chuck reported to me yesterday he spent a
day-and-a-half with the ambassador. They walked the ground. As
I mentioned to you, the two Butler-like buildings for the
Marines are up. They are prepared to be occupied by the
Marines. We are going to take about two weeks because there is
some concern about overhead cover. Chuck's people are going to
build a structure over these two buildings. They are light
weight. They are like a Butler Building and then have some
sandbag cover over the top. We are going to do the same with 55
or so relocatables that are now in place and ready to be
occupied.
As the Deputy said, we can now house about 250, 275 people
there. In addition to that, which of course is the temporary
arrangement, the ambassador and General Williams have agreed on
the concept for a full-up, permanent facility with an annex, a
GSO facility, Marine security guard compound and housing for
some of our people within the Kabul complex.
Mr. Wolf. Within your supplemental request is $25.6 million
to rehabilitate the chancery.
Mr. Green. That is going to be mostly for mechanical--if
you went into the basement of that place--you saw it--
mechanical, air, heat, some structural, water, some structural
improvements, doors, windows, blastproof doors and windows and
those kinds of things.
PUBLIC DIPLOMACY EFFORTS AND FUNDING
Mr. Wolf. Last month when the Secretary was here, I raised
the issue of a vigorous public diplomacy program. The Committee
is going to have a hearing on the 24th with Under Secretary
Charlotte Beers and we are getting outside witnesses to come in
to tell us what they believe we should be doing with regard to
telling the good American story abroad, particularly in the
Middle East. It is very disturbing to hear about low public
opinion of America among Kuwaitis when we think in terms of the
American soldiers who sacrificed their lives for the Kuwaiti
government and Kuwaiti people. Clearly, their media and their
government people are not speaking out to tell the story. I
know the story. You know the story.
Anyone who truly knows, knows that America is not anti-
Muslim. We were the ones who rescued the Muslim community in
Kosovo. We were the ones who led the effort with regard to the
Muslim community in Sarajevo and Bosnia. And if it had not been
for us and what is taking place in Kosovo with our
stabilization force there who knows what would have happened.
So the same with regard to Kuwait and all over the world.
And I think we have to do a better job with the media in the
Middle East. And I also believe that we should take our values,
the eternal values that were talked about in the Declaration of
Independence. Ronald Reagan said the Declaration was a covenant
with the world, not only with the American people, but with the
world. Many of these countries where our reputation is not that
good, where it ought to be very high, really don't have a free
press.
There are anti-Semitic statements in the press in Egypt. We
should jump on that and speak out, not criticizing the Egyptian
people, but criticizing the media and criticizing their
government, because as they say one thing, they feed the fire.
So we need a public diplomacy program that tells the good story
of the American people and of the American men and women who
are in Kabul today and throughout Afghanistan living in very
difficult conditions. The Afghan people are very appreciative
of what the United States Government and our people are doing.
If you ask the average Muslim on the street, they will tell
you they want more, not less. They want more American soldiers.
They want more Special Forces. They want more Marines, more
than we can perhaps even give. So I looked at the supplemental
request. You included $10 million for an exchange program, $7.5
million for information programs, and I have really serious
concerns. I know most other members on both sides of the aisle
share the perception that this is an enormous task. Is this
amount of money sufficient? This would not be sufficient to
sell a very good product in the United States. It is not fair
to make an analogy of a product. The product we are selling is
honesty, integrity, democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of
religion, freedom of movement, respect for women. I was in an
Afghan school and the women told me they wanted an education.
They are all anxious to have that education.
So is this really enough? Hopefully, we will get some
information out of this hearing to encourage and urge our
government to do more. Maybe we lost something in the abolition
of the USIA and the resources that we used to have, such as
libraries around the world. But we can't go back and revisit
that now. But is this really enough? Shouldn't we be pulling
together the best minds, both American and non-American,
prominent Muslims from the Middle East who are very supportive
for what the United States is doing. And there are many that
are--in fact, privately, almost all of them are. When I talked
to them off the record privately, they are all supportive. They
are all anxious. No one in the Kuwait government asked us to
leave. No one in the Saudi government but perhaps one or two
asked us to leave. And you can go right across the board.
In Mr. Hyde's bill, there is an authorization for $70
million. We have American men and women who have risked their
lives. You all have done a very great job. Our military has
done a great job. This is one of the areas that you may have to
invest and be bold and put more money in to tell the great
story that we have. So is this $7.5 million for information
programs and $10 million for exchange programs really enough to
tell the story?
Mr. Armitage. I would say the way you set it up, absolutely
not, but I need to tell you why we put that number in. The
tenets under which we move forward with the supplemental were
very strict because OMB and the administration wants to make
sure they are absolutely credible. One of the rules was you
cannot go in for money that is not an emergency. You have got
to be able to justify this as an emergency that needs to be
addressed before the FY03 bill comes forward, before the 2003
bill becomes law.
That from the beginning, I think, puts constraints on us.
Do we want more money? Absolutely. I have talked to Chairman
Hyde about his bill. But any amount of money would be wasted
unless we know exactly what we are doing. You correctly said
that in my words, if I may, our values are special because they
are universal values. That is what makes us special.
If you look at a word that has become unfashionable now in
politics, but if you look at focus groups and focus groups in
Egypt, if you ask what word springs to mind when you hear the
United States, the word was a four letter word, it was
``hope.'' It was only way down the list when you got to the
question about Middle East and Palestinian rights and things of
that nature.
Hope, freedom, et cetera were on the list. Charlotte Beers
will be up here and you and I talked about this hearing.
Charlotte looks forward to coming up here. One of the
preparations we did, and she is doing was to have all of our
PAO officers in. I believe we have been a little slow to truly
embrace our public affairs officers. I spoke to them yesterday
and found they were thrilled because we were paying attention
to them. I spoke in the Secretary's, stead. It proved to me
yesterday that we have first, really embraced our family and
got them ready to go out and do exactly what you want done and
what we need done.
Second, we have to know exactly what we are selling to
whom. What we are selling is hope. We are selling our universal
values. It sounds easy to do, but it is not quite that easy
because we have to go through the thicket of governments in
many cases which are not Democratic.
I appreciate your point criticizing the media, which, in
effect, in most of those governments, is criticizing the
government, but it allows you to do it and not get into a big
confrontation. The short answer is no it is not enough money,
but we are under pretty tight constraints to make sure that we
can look you in the eye and say that is about the money we need
in an emergency supplemental between the time we hope the
emergency supplemental is enacted and the time the 2003 bill is
enacted.
Mr. Green. You mentioned the travelling exhibit.
Mr. Armitage. Charlotte briefed us this morning. We have
had an exhibit from New York, the Twin Towers exhibit, and it
shows fire fighters in the moments of most stress during the
horror of September 11. It is going around the country. It is
going to 26 Middle Eastern cities. It went to Kuwait yesterday,
and it was such a hit because it shows humans and human
suffering, that we all suffered when the towers were hit.
It is in Jeddah now, and we are having the same response
from the Saudi population, which is even much more conservative
than Kuwait. That is the kind of thing that we have learned
that we are on the right track on and going in the right
direction because we are not talking about politics but human
values and universal values.
Mr. Green. To go a little further on that one, when it went
to Kuwait, they thought they had limited availability of people
to attend so they kind of had to be on the A list. Once the
officials in the Kuwaiti government went to it, they were so
impressed they opened it to all citizens. It is very striking.
It is very emotional when you see these fabulous photographs.
Mr. Wolf. I would like to see it when she comes up here.
Also I think in the political process sometimes when you are
making a message you have to say it 10 times before people hear
it. And we may all feel good at the first meeting, but
sometimes we have to have 10 meetings to make the case. We have
a great product. This is almost a God-ordained product. I mean
this is a product of the Declaration of Independence. Go to
Williamsburg and walk it. This is a product that will sell
every where in the world because it is the right product. It is
freedom, liberty, respect and dignity.
And I think we may have an emergency when I turn on the TV
and see the demonstrations and things like this. So the
Committee may need to put more money toward this effort. This
is not only a military effort, it is also to win the hearts and
the minds.
I think some of our friends in the Middle East ought to be
very careful. There is an article that Bob Kaplan wrote for the
Atlantic Monthly in March. He points out that Egypt and some of
these countries may very well see the closing down of certain
Americans' involvement there.
Mr. Armitage. I want to say what Charlotte is going to talk
about. One of the things she is going to talk about is that it
is not sufficient to have the message. We have to magnify the
message. One of the ways we are going to do it is these
exchange programs which you also mentioned, Mr. Chairman, where
we are bringing in journalists, and we sit them down. I had the
Middle Eastern journalists in my office the other day. We had
the Indonesians. They sat down with the leadership of State,
and we had at it. But the response when they go back home, when
they are allowed to write, is quite fantastic because they
magnify the message and get it out ten fold. We are not just
reaching one journalist. They are getting it out, and we found
that experience just recently in Indonesia. We are also finding
it in the Middle East States, such as Jordan, Kuwait. Obviously
Saudi Arabia less so, and Egypt less so.
Mr. Wolf. I will be looking forward to talking with her. I
am going to leave the subject, but I also think we should use
the Muslim community in the United States to speak out because
they know of our values. They are good citizens. They know of
our values. It would be powerful to have a Muslim living in the
United States who has come from Syria talk about the values in
the United States, the Muslim in the United States who has come
from Lebanon, someone who has come from Egypt to talk about the
goodness of the American people. What we have to tell people is
that most of the food that came to the Muslim community in
Afghanistan during the days of the Taliban was paid for by the
American people. We didn't go telling everybody and bragging
but the American people were feeding and paying for the food
that the average Afghan was eating during the reign of the
Taliban.
So I think there is an opportunity to use the Muslim
community in the United States who want to participate, who
want to be involved, to use them. There would be nothing
greater than a face of a Muslim from America to go back and be
on Al-Jazeera and say this is the goodness of the country I now
live in.
Mr. Armitage. I hosted Shariff Abdul-Rahim, which won't
mean anything to you unless you happen to be a basketball fan.
He is an NBA all star this year with the Atlanta Hawks. And he
agreed to work with us and publicize his life as a Muslim, and
this is MTV stuff. This reaches a lot of young people because
basketball is big. But that is the kind of thing that Charlotte
has got us doing. He agreed to do this. His father is an imam
in Atlanta, and he speaks quite passionately about this
country.
Mr. Wolf. He should be on television.
Mr. Armitage. We are following him around and filming him,
not talking about how many points he scored but what is life
like for you as a practicing Muslim in this country.
REPORT OF SUDAN ENVOY
Mr. Wolf. Shifting to Africa and then I am going to
recognize Mr. Serrano. On the issue of Sudan, one, I want to
thank the President and the Secretary for appointing Senator
Danforth as a special envoy. He is getting ready to make his
report, I understand, by sometime this month.
Mr. Armitage. End of the month.
Mr. Wolf. There was a news clip by Charles Cobb yesterday,
where it said Khidir Haroun Ahmed in Saudi Arabia said the
following thing. He said, Major General Ahmed Abbas speaking at
a nationally televised address in Khartoum this weekend is
calling for a holy war in support of the embattled Palestinians
and for freeing the Gaza Mosque from Zionists. Training camps
have been operating in Khartoum and the suburbs for years. We
know where they are and we know who has gone in certain
circumstances, although they have changed uniforms. The camps
have been set up pursuant to an order by Sudan President Umar
Hasan al-Bashir to train volunteers to join the fight against
Israeli military occupation.
The training camps are ready to receive volunteer fighters
as of today. I am not against talking to people that I don't
agree with. In fact you have to talk to people. But I think the
Sudan government better get the word from the Bush
administration. We are expecting them to bring about a just
peace by the end of this year. If there is not a just peace by
the end of this year, there will be a number of people who will
begin to aggressively push for other options to deal with the
problem here.
Could you tell the Committee what your plans are once
Senator Danforth submits his report? Let me say I congratulate
you. You have done a great job and I think there are a lot of
positive things taking place. But where do we go from here? The
report's filed. I don't know if Senator Danforth is going to
stay or not stay. That is up to him. But what is our policy now
to bring about a just peace, working with the English, working
with the Norwegians. Where do we go once the report is filed?
Mr. Armitage. Right now with the Norwegians in the Nuba
Mountains we have two U.S. Colonels working with them to be the
monitors. We have several issues going simultaneously with him,
all of which are extraordinarily well known to you, as it was
your idea.
Mr. Wolf. He was your idea. I just thought we were going to
have an envoy but I never even thought of him to be honest with
you.
Mr. Armitage. He is going to file his report and it is
supposed to be on the 28th, and we want him to give it to the
President. The only problem we have is scheduling one and make
sure he gets in to see the President and take the time he needs
to make his report. We have two colonels now in the Nuba
Mountains along with the Norwegians monitoring things. Some
food is now going forward. The cease fire is more or less
holding. The question of slavery is being looked at at this
very minute.
George Lukes, one of our diplomats, is on the team. I think
there is a 10-person team there. The very comments you referred
to--I didn't see that news broadcast, but a couple of days ago
we saw Bashir, the President screaming out about jihad and holy
war. Walt Kansteiner, our Assistant Secretary for African
affairs, was following with the foreign minister, saying this
is absurd.
Now the pushback we got from the foreign minister is for
domestic consumption. It doesn't mean anything. Saying it don't
make it so. We have to really be all over him on this one, and
we really have been tough on Bashir with this kind of language.
You were gentle. You didn't use the language that he allegedly
used in his speech, which was very, very inappropriate. We
can't have a relationship with a country that moves like that.
Mr. Wolf. Well, then I think when Senator Danforth makes
his report on the 28th, the administration has to be able to
articulate, as a result of this, what we are going to do.
Mr. Armitage. I brought with me today, because you
expressed in a phone call some interest in a meeting with him,
opposition leader John Garang. I got a memo from that meeting
and shows further some of the complications. We are working
with Garang and the southerners as you know trying get one
country, two systems, but the right kind of systems and the
right kind of setup. That is another complicated factor because
we are moving forward with Garang and his colleagues.
U.S. POLICY IN AFRICA
Mr. Wolf. Last question, and then I will go to Mr. Serrano.
Africa is having a difficult time. We had the CRS do a report
and we sent a copy to the Secretary. It said HIV/AIDS has cut
life expectancy in Botswana from 71 years to 39 years. Both of
us would be dead if we lived in Botswana. In Zimbabwe from 70
years to 38 years. U.S. Census Bureau experts predict that the
life expectancy throughout southern Africa will be 30 years old
by the year 2010.
There are so many other things. In that piece that Kaplan
wrote for the Atlantic, he said in Africa, the rising tide of
young males will be even more extreme than in the Middle East.
The top ten ``youth bowl countries'' are all in sub-Saharan
Africa. The next decade could be disastrous, judging by recent
political violence that has developed, and gang warlordism in a
number of African cities. He said, ``Nigeria is already
crumbling although too slowly to generate headlines.''
``The loss of central authority may be part of a long-term
transition that will ultimately yield positive results and in
the long-term it will provide new opportunities and havens for
global terrorist groups to strive in legally governing
realms.''
We had asked the Secretary to look at the possibility of
appointing a panel to take 90 days to come up with a policy for
Africa. We were going to put in legislation here and it would
take us months to get it out.
What we ask for in the letter is a blue ribbon panel to
come up with strategies and solutions to address how the United
States can help solve the massive challenges facing Africa. My
sense is not only are you having the AIDS problem, the health
problem, but you are going to have little Afghanistans
developing. This can be a Presidential panel or a panel
appointed by the Secretary of prominent people who know a lot
about Africa, far more than I know. How do we do this? Maybe
the establishment of a new university in Kenya. Africa is
crumbling before us. This is not a big expensive proposition--
20 people, 90 days, come up and see if the administration can
refocus because what we, the United States, are doing now isn't
working.
I think we have to try to do something different. It is not
just a question of spending more money, but spending it wisely
and getting the results for whatever we were spending. Not
supporting corrupt governments, but doing it in a way that help
these people.
Mr. Armitage. When I came back to government this time
after an 8-year absence, I was shocked more than anything else
by what I saw in Africa. What I saw in almost every country was
that the infrastructure was much worse than it had been 8 years
before. It happened for a lot of reasons, not the least of
which is the unbelievable prevalence of HIV/AIDS. You know the
map as well as I, east and west and north and south, and it
radiates in a horrifying stream showing the incidence of
infection and the implosion of HIV/AIDS.
I think the trap we fall into very often is we look at the
parts instead of the whole. For instance, we have been very
active in Sierra Leone trying to stop Charles Taylor. We have
been active in the DROC in trying to bring some sense to that.
We are happy that the Angola War has ended after 20-odd years.
But we are looking at the parts, and you are suggesting we look
at the whole. You mentioned Nigeria. You have a city, Lagos,
with 32 million people. No infrastructure can keep up with that
implosion of population.
You run the risk of having what you suggest, as you call it
in the military, a strategic center of gravity against the
government, and something that will develop into little
Afghanistans and things of that nature. I must admit to you I
don't know where that piece of literature from the Secretary
is. I will find out, and I will respond to you once I go back.
But I see we tend to focus on the individual problems where we
are making some small success, but we are missing the whole.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Serrano.
VISAS AND INFORMATION SHARING
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me ask you a
question and then move on to some comments I would like to
make. Recently we learned about the embarrassing and
potentially dangerous error that occurred at the INS where
student visas were mailed to two of the men who were
responsible for the September 11 terrorist attacks. What are
you doing at the State Department to ensure that similar
problems do not occur with various systems that you deal with
and how much money are you proposing to spend in FY 2002 to
enhance the entry exit technology and how will these work?
Mr. Armitage. Grant will get into the particulars. I don't
think I am putting him on the spot. Part of what is being
proposed by Mr. Ridge gets right at the whole problem of INS in
identifying who is who, and who has responsibility for
admitting people, and following up on people who are visitors
to our country. Part of the answer to your question, I think,
will lie on whatever legislation eventually comes out of the
Congressional process, but it is not just because of the
terrible embarrassment to the INS, but the people who are to
follow up and actually apprehend, if necessary. Justice, part
of INS, is separate from the people who have visas or the State
Department. Our difficulty historically has been that we don't
always get information from the FBI or CIA.
Since September 11, I can say with complete assurance that
has improved enormously. God knows it must after that horror.
But whether it still is where it ought to be, I think not.
Mr. Green. We have a strong track record, I believe, in
dealing with the other agencies in sharing information. We have
the Consular Lookout and Support Systems, the CLASS system
where we share very detailed information on people coming into
this country with the INS, Customs and DEA. We have on the law
enforcement side a tip-off system which we fund out of consular
affairs money which are run by our Intelligence Research
Bureau, which shares information with the law enforcement
community.
Subsequently that information provides name checks and
checks to INS and Customs. With the advent of Homeland Security
and the standing up of that, we are working with them very
closely on the terrorist tracking system. We have people
detailed there. We sit on six of their 11 subgroups, working
groups. I just think that, as the Deputy said, the sharing of
information is getting much better, unfortunately, in the
aftermath of September 11. We still have some difficulty on the
law enforcement side having them provide information to us.
That is also slowly getting better. We have about, as you
probably know, we will take in about estimated 1.2 billion in
various fees in the consular area this year. We keep about half
of that to support border security, pay for our consular
officers throughout the system, upgrade IT systems relating to
security and the border. If you draw a circle around the
country, we are the first line of defense for people coming
into the country. We are making tremendous progress both in
what we are doing in the information technology area, the
sharing of information and also in working very closely with
the Homeland Security Office.
LATIN AMERICAN POLICY
Mr. Serrano. I thank both of you for those comments. That
is a grave concern and it was pretty embarrassing and everyone
wants to make sure that it doesn't happen with other systems
that we have in place. Let me just be very careful how I say
this. I don't want to put you in a situation that you may not
want to be in, but when the chairman spoke about public
diplomacy and spreading our message, part of the message is the
fact that we have a unique system. We perfected it pretty well
and that is the whole issue of having a judicial branch, an
executive branch and a legislative branch. And we take each
branch very seriously.
Without mentioning names, I would just hope that the
Secretary, and that you folks begin to pay closer attention to
the fact that there are some members of the administration in
the State Department who have taken it on their own to
disregard comments coming out of Congress and publicly denounce
comments coming out of Congress in terms of what this Congress
feels should be some of our behavior in Latin America. You
know, as I look across here to Mr. Wolf and Mr. Vitter and Mr.
Miller, we have reached some decisions in the last few years on
Latin America and have taken a long time to get there. For all
of us it has been very painful to go there, to get to that
point. And now we have top officials at the State Department
get up in front of recorders in public and say we don't care
what Congress is saying on this issue.
I am not here to allow us to give in to anyone on a
particular issue, and I am not going to allow that to happen.
Well, there is a big difference between that statement and the
President saying I disagree with the Congress on the
supplemental, and I think for the good of the American people,
we should pass the supplemental. That is what this country is
about. But it is different to say that when Mr. Miller and I,
or Mr. Latham and I, reach a point where we reach some sort of
understanding on an issue that that issue should not be paid
attention to and for us to be seen by a member of the Secretary
of State's Department as a bunch of idiots with no power and no
responsibilities.
And that bothers me. The reason I don't want to mention the
person's name is because I will be on record as having
denounced them and there will be all kinds of back and forth,
and I don't want to get into that. You know who I am talking
about. You know what I am talking about. This year I am up for
reelection as we all are. I take very seriously that fact.
Every morning when I drive by the Capitol dome, as dramatic as
this may be, I get chills. I take very seriously the fact that
someone who came from a poor town in Puerto Rico and came and
lived in a public housing project in the Bronx became a Member
of the Congress. I didn't accomplish all that, and I didn't do
all that with the help of people in my district to be made an
idiot by someone who is appointed to our government.
So I would hope that you begin to look at that and at the
minimum, whisper to the gentleman and say they were elected,
you were not. You should pay a little respect.
Mr. Armitage. If I may, I got the message very loud and
clear, and I know to whom you are referring, and, as I
indicated this very day, I will take this up. It will not
happen again, at least with that individual. Let me make a
comment more generally about the responsibilities of the
various branches. One of the reasons we are the best hope, I
think, of mankind, at least as far as I am concerned, we as a
Nation, is because unlike every other great power that has ever
gone before us, we have got this necessary and creative tension
among our three branches of government which keeps power from
being concentrated in any one person's or groups' hands. It is
self-renewing. We all in Secretary Powell's State Department
understand exactly what the duties and the rights and
prerogatives are. We know who is appointed, and who earned it.
That is the policy and I will take this back and take care of
this matter.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you so much. Let me move on. As you
know, part of the reason why I was so careful in my
presentation is because of the great respect that I have for
you, and Secretary Powell. Some of the obvious things, he and I
come from the same neighborhood as well, and that carries.
Mr. Armitage. Yeah, but he speaks Yiddish.
Mr. Serrano. Well, when it comes to his budget, he is a
real nudge. We know what that is all about. And I came to
Congress incidently like so many children of my generation with
all kinds of troublesome thoughts about the State Department
and how much the State Department is responsible for any
mistakes our country made overseas.
Since then, I have gotten to really care for the work you
do, to respect and be very supportive of it. There is one issue
I am going to disagree with very loudly, and I am going to be
as vocal as I can. And that is the fact that I think we are
making a terrible mistake in Colombia. I think we are on the
brink of getting into what I call a Spanish speaking Vietnam.
That has been going on for over 30 years. It is hard to tell
who the good guys and the bad guys are anymore in Colombia. The
traditional left has no respect for the Colombia left--
interesting because they don't see them as true insurgent
revolutionaries.
The military folks of Latin America are not crazy about the
paramilitaries in Colombia. And not many people respect any
government in Colombia. With all of that in mind, I am troubled
by the fact that we have found a new gimmick in our country and
that is a gimmick that plays on the fears and sentiments of the
people. It is very shrewd because it makes it difficult for
guys like me to confront and the fact is that we no longer call
people insurgents or narco-traffickers or murderers. We call
them something dash terrorists. So now they are narco-
terrorists and we have to get the narco-terrorists.
In the process you are asking now in the supplemental for
changes in the language that will allow you to be involved
which is just what Bill Clinton told us he wasn't going to do,
and George W. Bush told us he wasn't going to do and that is to
allow the helicopters and the advisers to be used in a military
way to get the terrorists, not to get the paramilitaries, not
to get any corrupt people in the government, not to get the
Attorney General who is no longer enforcing or conducting the
human rights violations or studies or investigations, not to
get them. We have taken sides now. When we take sides, we are
making a terrible mistake. It will probably happen. I will be
probably one of a few lonely voices saying don't do this. It
will probably happen.
But even if it happens and we get involved, you folks don't
have the ability to curtail our involvement and suggest to the
President how far we should go or could go. I tell you
something, representing a district in the south Bronx, I am in
touch with people from Latin America on a daily basis. You
don't have to travel there. They are in my district, and they
live there, work there and travel there. They are very pro-
American, but they tell us that the thought of American
uniforms, soldier uniforms throughout any part of Latin America
will awaken the dormant left and bring back that ugly anti-
American sentiment.
In the Middle East Secretary Powell is saying guys, you
have to come to talk peace, and you have to be strong--the
first one to talk about a Palestinian State openly which is
right and the security of Israel. In the same way that is what
we should be doing in Colombia, not sending in--as we will and
you can say we won't but we will--we will send troops and we
will attack the insurgents and we will create a backlash. That
is a 35 years Civil War. And we can go in there and just clean
out a cave. So I hope you keep that in mind because I am sure
this will happen somewhere on down the line, and that you don't
let it get out of hand.
Mr. Armitage. Mr. Serrano, I take seriously your words.
This is an area in which we will disagree without being
disagreeable. You have very strong heartfelt sentiments. The
administration has them as well. I want to be clear on one
thing, and you cautioned us to make sure you limit your
involvement. I do want to be sure that it is understood, and it
was discussed yesterday at Mr. Kolbe's hearing, when we talk
about movement and we do want an expansion of the authority--we
want it, but we don't want to get rid of the Byrd cap or the
Leahy amendment, which discusses human rights particularly.
I want to be clear on that.
Second, part of the reason we came forward is because we
were very clearly warned and cautioned and advised by the
Congress. Come forward. Let us debate it, as our system
requires, and be clear about it. We have a disagreement, but I
hope we get some credit. We are trying to be clear about it. I
do take seriously your warning.
Mr. Serrano. One last comment: You are getting around us
when you include it in a supplemental that talks about a fight
on terrorism, and which talks about embassy security. You have
a choice. You either vote against the whole package or you
accept it as it is. Had you brought it to Congress alone as a
freestanding situation, the sentiment would be different. This
is a very smart way of doing it, but it is not a totally honest
way of doing it. This is too big of an issue to be in a
supplemental. This is a declaration of war, in many ways, and
that should stand by itself. Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Miller.
Cost of Embassy Construction
Mr. Miller. I just got back Tuesday from a trip with Mr.
Kolbe and some others to Africa--Mali, Ethiopia, Mozambique,
South Africa--we made numerous stops. Every time I travel
reinforces the admiration that I have for the people that work
for State. They do a great job and they often live in difficult
conditions. When I first came to Congress, I thought of people
going to Paris and going to embassy parties. That is not the
way it is in Addis Ababa and other places in the world. And it
is a great challenge to live in the lifestyle, the air they
breathe, the food that is available, I have great admiration
for State Department employees.
We were looking at a lot of the AIDS challenges and what we
are doing to address them. I know this work is not funded by
this subcommittee, but there is a lot being done.
When I visit places, I visit the embassy and see the
facilities. I am interested in the question of the cost and the
planning for new embassies and also the operational costs of
embassies.
How much do Congressional requirements contribute, if they
do, to that cost? We have security problems in Moscow from 20
years ago that affects some of our thoughts, and what happened
in Nairobi raises different security concerns. Comment on what
is going on with planning for new embassies, and buying the
land. We have nine planned for next year and nine the following
year. How does the cost vary between all of these? I know the
costs are not the same in Addis Ababa versus the one in Berlin
where I visited. That is going to be very costly.
Mr. Armitage. I do recall our telephone conversations, and
also concerns about the cost of embassies and the cost of
security of embassies, and I made some remarks. Basically we
are trying to control the costs by having modules or models
small, medium and large. They all look alike so they do not
have a unique design. Relatively alike. We save money that way,
through economies of scale.
Second, General Williams, who takes this business very
seriously, has put together a rather unique and formidable
industry panel. I spoke to him a couple of months ago. It will
give us the latest of what is business practice, how can we
save money, et cetera.
Grant can be more specific on how Congress costs us money.
But I think our system requires it in a way. I do not like all
of the ``Buy America'' aspects of it because it does raise
prices, and I think in some cases we could do a lot more if we
used a lot more local materials.
I do not know how to get around the absolute need to have
total and complete and continual oversight. So it may cost us a
little more, but I think the system demands it because when you
have gentlemen like yourself stand up and say you have been
there and done that and you know how people are living and how
they have done that and you can attest that you have got people
out there who are doing the Lord's work and are not living with
their face in the canape tray, they are in hard and dangerous
places doing work for our country.
Mr. Miller. On the Buy America, like basic things, light
bulbs, paper products and all of that? And what can we buy in
the local market versus have to import from the U.S.?
Mr. Green. On those kind of things, expendables, we are
buying a lot more----
Mr. Miller. We are not required to buy our bulbs and such?
Mr. Green. Absolutely not. We warehouse those in Europe and
ship them to the various posts. At risk of repeating some of
the things that the Deputy said, I think the whole thing on
overseas construction and positive movements began with the
reorganization of the building operations and pulling them and
making them a stand-alone organization. General Williams has
made, I think, tremendous progress in reorganizing that, making
it a results-based organization, with accountability.
I do not know if any of your staff have been over and sat
in on some of these review sessions, but if they have not, and
they are interested in how we are doing things overseas in a
business-like way, I would encourage them to do that. These
happen a couple of times a month, and all of the stakeholders
are in the room, 30, 40 people from contractors to the design
people to the architects to the actual construction folks, and
they go through every one--not every project, but I just sat
through one on China about 2 weeks ago. It is a very business-
like process.
Rich mentioned the three standard embassy designs that we
have adopted which reduce costs. We will put a facade on them
that fits the local community or the local country's
architecture, but basically they are a standard design. This
enables us to not design something new and go into those costs
every time.
Another thing that I think is interesting in the cost area
is we now have approval from OMB to do a pilot in 2003,
assuming the Congress agrees, on cost-sharing. In other words,
other agencies, other departments which rely on our platforms
would share in the construction costs of those facilities.
This does two things. It spreads the cost and it makes
other departments and other agencies look very carefully at
right-sizing. Now there is no incentive. There is no incentive.
When you have to start paying for desk space in a classified
portion of an embassy, you will ask yourself, I think, twice
whether I really need five people, and can I get by with three.
RIGHT-SIZING AT EMBASSIES
Mr. Miller. Tell me in an embassy, other than State
Department people, how many other agencies?
Mr. Armitage. It is 30 in a big----
Mr. Miller. Thirty other agencies, that is what you are
talking about? The 30 people from Agriculture, Commerce?
Mr. Green. Some agencies do not--this Subcommittee has a
lot of interest in what we do overseas. Some of the other
oversight committees do not have that same interest. I go back
to right-sizing. I don't want to beat a dead horse. We are
under a lot of pressure to right-size. Make sure you have the
right number of people at the right post. Other agencies
frankly do not think much about that. I do not think a lot of
them even know how many people they have overseas at a
particular post.
Mr. Miller. With 30 different agencies, that is a large
number to be there. I know they are all under the ambassador.
He or she is in charge in that country, but you are talking
about a large number of desk spaces. When we visit these
embassies, you meet a lot of them and they play critical roles.
Mr. Green. Sure they do. Sure they do.
Mr. Miller. But right now there is no way to oversee the
numbers in the budgets?
Mr. Green. There is not a systematic, organized way to do
it. Now, that being said, a couple of years ago there was an
interagency group that went out to about a half dozen embassies
and tried to divine a concept for right-sizing and they could
not even agree on a concept. GAO recently went to Paris. They
have not completed their report, but I was briefed on it about
a week ago, and they believe now they have a concept, a
structure for possibly right-sizing an embassy. We are going to
have a hearing the end of this month and discuss that, among
other things. While, as you say, the chief of mission has
tremendous authority to run that post, we, very frankly, with
some of the other agencies do not have a lot of leverage. And
as the world changes, and as there is more and more emphasis on
health issues, terrorist issues, drug issues, you get--you
continue to get a larger influx of law enforcement people and
health and ag and----
Mr. Armitage. FBI.
Mr. Green [continuing]. FBI, and it is tough to just say
hey, no. Go home.
Mr. Miller. I met a lot of them. Whether it is CDC people
or the FBI, certainly a larger presence, and each has a
critical role.
Mr. Green. Sure.
MIDDLE EAST POLICY
Mr. Miller. One other comment about Africa. Where it is
heading is just a huge concern as HIV, the role of Government
there, whether it is the president of South Africa or Swaziland
and the acceptance of the cause of it, the spread of it. The
orphan crisis there. The role of women is just horrible. But I
see we are trying, the international community is trying.
I know we do not have much time, but let me briefly switch
over to the Middle East, which is not a budget issue. I had
limited news while we were gone. We watched CNN International
for our news in Africa. But we are not popular over in that
part of the world. I mean, the perception is that we have
chosen sides, we are pro-Israeli--Israel's position, and the
image is that we have given a green light to Sharon to do
whatever he wants. Secretary Powell shows up in Morocco and
they say what are you doing here? Get off to Jerusalem,
basically I think is what was said.
I know we were talking about this communications issue
earlier. It is more than just communications. So please comment
about what we are doing there, and comment about the settlement
issue. I know we do not have much time. But the settlement
issue is a thorn in the sides of the Palestinians and we are
defending these settlements, basically our country is, because
we are defending the Sharon policy.
Mr. Armitage. The President has called for a halt to
settlement activity.
Mr. Miller. We have been calling for a halt to that for 20
years.
Mr. Armitage. It is one of these things, depending on how
you look at that time, the settlements, there was an allowance
for natural growth. Well, how much is that? How much is
``natural growth,'' and how do you define it? The wording that
surrounded settlements historically is not clear, and we are
hoisted on our own petard. I think it is not right to blame all
of our image problems in the Middle East on the Palestinian
question. I think to some extent that is the immediate one, and
it is certainly causing the demonstrations right now that we
are seeing in front of our embassies, whether it is in Bahrain
today or in Cairo or anywhere else. I think it is more subtle,
and in part television is a reaction against oppressive
governments at home and lack of the ability for young people to
express themselves in other ways. We did not give a green
light. The President said: Withdraw now. The reason Secretary
Powell went the way he did, and why he is in Amman Jordan right
now, is because we are going to make progress. Not only does
Israel have to stop the military activity, but Arafat has to be
told by the Arabs that he has to get in line. He has to once
and for all stand up and show some leadership. That is why the
crown prince of Saudi Arabia in Morocco, that is why he went to
Cairo and Amman, and will arrive tonight. We have to get the
moderate Arabs to put some steel in Arafat to do the right
thing. His leadership has been, as I said earlier,
disappointing, to say the least. That is why the Secretary went
about it this way.
Finally I might say in Madrid you saw the statement by the
Quartet. The statement issued by the Quartet is one that none
of those organizations, the U.N., I think, or the Russians,
would have ever issued on their own, calling for the
Palestinians as well as the Israelis to restrain themselves.
There was a method to this madness, if you will.
Mr. Miller. Causing problems for our friends, whether it is
in Egypt or Jordan and such by these demonstrations and the
image that--CNN is not the only source--that all you see is
what is taking place in Palestine. And I do not know how much
they show of the bus bombings in Israel which are a horrific
sight, and the terrorism that takes place there, but the image
is the U.S. is being very one-sided.
Mr. Armitage. Yet every single person in the region and
probably in the world wants us to fix it. While we have the
image that you talked about, I think there is also the almost
palpable hope that we will fix it because we are the only ones
that can.
Mr. Miller. Well, let us hope that we can. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Ms. Roybal-Allard.
DEFENSE TRADE CONTROLS
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I
want to express my concern for the lack or the small amount of
money that is being allocated for information. I share the
Chairman's concerns about that. Because I think lack of
information is a part of the problem that we are facing, for
example, in the Middle East. And it is an emergency because I
do not think we are going to be able to begin to turn things
until, for example, in this case the Muslim world learns to
trust the United States, and the only way they can do that is
through gaining a better understanding of what it is we stand
for and what it is we have already done to help the Muslim
world.
By not having that kind of information, it contributes to
the hatred that exists about the United States and makes it
easy to feed that hatred and to turn it into the kind of
terrorist threats that we are facing now. So I think getting
out information is critical.
And in talking to Muslim Americans in my own district, they
themselves are frustrated by the fact that accurate information
is not getting out and that they, even though they have
volunteered in various ways, are not being utilized to get the
message out to their families and the friends that are still in
those areas. So I just wanted to make that statement.
Last year we talked about some of the problems that small
businesses were experiencing with the Office of Defense Trade
Controls and at that time you attributed some of the problems
to the fact that you were understaffed and you were, in fact,
starting to take steps to make the whole process more user-
friendly.
What I would like for to you do is tell me what you have
been able to do since then, but also to respond to a GAO report
that was issued in December that found a lot of deficiencies
that still existed in the agency and also to respond to them. I
believe there was a difference of opinion about that report and
I would like to give you an opportunity to respond to that.
Mr. Armitage. Thank you. Lincoln Bloomfield, the Assistant
Secretary for Political and Military Affairs, has been tasked
by Secretary Powell to not only make this whole process user-
friendly, whether it is small business or otherwise, by the
way, because the complaints were not just limited to small
business. I was in business. I was one of the complainers, so I
know.
I do not have at my fingertips the processing time, but the
processing time was down sufficiently for a group of industry
folks come in to see me just to thank us for having made that
move. Linc Bloomfield has more people on it and has cut down
the process time. I apologize, I do not know what it is. I
received an industry group not so long ago that thanked me for
that and urged us to continue. The question of the GAO----
Ms. Roybal-Allard. If I can, let me just summarize a part
of it maybe that you can respond to. It says that the State
Department has not established formal guidelines for
determining the agencies and offices that need to review
license application. As a result, the licensing office refers
more license applications to other agencies and offices than
may be necessary. The reviewers in the State Department
reviewing offices consider license reviews low priority.
I am reading directly from it.
Mr. Armitage. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Are those guidelines being established?
Do you disagree with----
Mr. Armitage. I am not sure how much I disagree with it. I
am looking at the defense trade control paper that I have here.
What I have is sort of along the lines of what I was briefing
on a minute ago about people coming in and telling us that we
were moving in the right direction. Processing time lines are
at an all-time low and the outside auditors have determined
that even with the process deficiencies which you speak about,
the department handles its case as equally efficient as other
agencies with much greater additional human resources.
Perhaps there is a difference of opinion, but that is what
our outside auditor is telling us. I want to be clear with you.
In no way am I or Secretary Powell or any of us saying that we
have got it right.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. I guess really what I am trying to
find out, based on these findings--for example, the State
Department lacks procedures to monitor the flow of license
applications through the review process. The planned business
system upgrade needs to focus on ensuring a timely flow of
applications and implementing a mechanism to track the progress
of applications. Otherwise the benefits of the upgrade may be
limited.
I guess my question is that these things have been
identified and are you now taking steps to remedy them?
Mr. Armitage. I want to say yes, we are, but since I do not
personally--I have not personally looked at this, let me take
that back, if you do not mind. I think we are, but I do not
want to say something that I have to come back and say that I
was wrong. I would like to take that question and come back
with a correct answer that I can stand by.
[The information follows:]
While a good deal of work is already under way to make
updated and revalidated business rules fully operational, we
believe future IT development will provide the tools to further
improve process efficiency. This will include electronic
transmittal of data with electronic ``clocks'' and ``ticklers''
to monitor and track cases.
Assistant Secretary Bloomfield recently convened a session
of the Defense Trade Advisory Group during which industry
representatives were briefed about the upcoming IT pilot
program and were asked for their input. A kick-off session with
industry participants in the pilot will be initiated soon.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. I appreciate that. I have gotten
complaints from businesses in my district. I have one more
question. This actually comes from a constituent who did not
have a good experience. He has an idea and has recommended that
the ODTC inaugurate a pilot program that is designed to provide
a one-stop-shopping for small businesses or other companies who
are new to the licensing process. And the idea is to set aside
two or three licensing officers to screen new registrants and
shepherd them through the voluntary disclosure and licensing
process, with the ultimate goal being to make sure that small
businesses do not get lost in the process, that they gain a
positive experience in learning how to go through the process
and hopefully not have to hire these high-priced counsels to
accomplish the same thing.
Mr. Armitage. In other words, you want to put me out of my
private job. I see where you are going here.
If you will write me the name of that constituent where I
can find him, I will have Linc Bloomfield call them, as a
result of this conversation, and probably this afternoon.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. Thank you.
HIRING AT STATE DEPARTMENT
Mr. Wolf. Thanks. We have three votes, but we are almost at
the end of one. I will just ask a few questions and then we
will recess for probably about 15 minutes at the most and come
right back.
The Congress fully funded your fiscal 2002 request for
additional personnel. Between the CJS bill and the
supplemental, you have received 871 new positions. You are now
seeking an additional 631 new positions in your budget request
for fiscal year 2003. This takes you well beyond your original
goal of 1,158 new positions for full diplomatic readiness. What
more remains to be done or has the definition of readiness
changed based on September 11?
Mr. Armitage. What has changed, we are still looking for
1,158 foreign service officers. The additional numbers to make
up the 600 odd that you have spoken about are DSA, more
diplomatic security, and computers----
Mr. Wolf. That was changed based on 9/11?
Mr. Armitage. It is in addition to.
Mr. Wolf. So 9/11 changed that?
Mr. Armitage. Yes, the DS, it did.
Mr. Green. The 1,158, I think this often gets confused.
Those are new positions over 3 years, which we hope to get us
back up to the level that we need to be. That does not include
attrition, which runs about overall through civil service,
foreign service probably runs about 400 a year, and it does not
include these added diplomatic security CA personnel that are a
result of principally 9/11.
So this year--or 2003, I should say, 2003, we are looking
at a total of 1,411 folks to come in across the board. Civil
service, foreign service, both foreign service generalists and
specialists. So the 1,158 that we often throw out and people
seem to hang on, those are the positions we need and hopefully
over 3 years, 360 last year, 399 in 2003--I should say 360 in
2002, 399 in 2003, and 399 in 2004 is what we hope to have to
make up those shortages that we have to give us the training
float.
Mr. Wolf. Right. I understand.
We are just going to recess. We will be back in about 15
minutes. Thank you.
[Recess.]
EMBASSY IN ROME
Mr. Wolf. The hearing will resume. Can you tell us a little
bit about the embassy problem in Rome, the counterterrorism
issue that you had in Rome?
Mr. Armitage. The recent holes and whatnot?
Mr. Wolf. People were arrested, who were they?
Mr. Armitage. We have had different cells over the last
year, a lot of intelligence information about various cells and
al Qaeda operatives, and it reached a crescendo at the time of
the President's visit some time early summer. We actually had
to have the Italian police bust a few safe houses to disrupt
activities. We continue to receive reports of that. Recently in
the embassy in Rome, some water systems looked like they had
been tunnelled into. My understanding of the investigation is
that it is relatively inconclusive, and we have not found that
these folks were actually going to introduce something into the
water system. However--and the holes were relatively small.
They did not do a very good job if they were going to introduce
something into the system.
Because of the high level of threats that we have been
receiving generally, we took it seriously. Two weeks ago in
four Italian cities we had to put out a travel notice because
of our fear that Americans would be targeted.
Mr. Wolf. So arrests were made in the Rome situation?
Mr. Armitage. I do not think they were technically
arrested, but I think they were held for a while and they are
gone.
REWARDS FOR JUSTICE PROGRAM
Mr. Wolf. The department received an additional $51 million
in emergency supplemental funding for emergencies in diplomatic
and consular services. Part of the funding was for the Rewards
for Justice Program which has been widely publicized both here
and abroad. These would be rewards for information preventing
terrorist acts or information leading to the arrest and
conviction of terrorists. What kind of response and results
have you seen from the program and how much has been paid out
in rewards?
Mr. Armitage. Sir, I will have to take that. I do not know
the answer. With your permission, I will take it. Does anybody
know?
Mr. Millette. We have not paid rewards yet. We have paid
for advertising.
Mr. Armitage. Jim Millette tells me that we have not paid
any rewards yet. I cannot tell you how many hits we have had.
Mr. Wolf. Tell us how much was spent for advertising.
Mr. Armitage. And how many hits we get out of this.
Mr. Wolf. So no rewards have actually been paid?
Mr. Armitage. No, sir.
BORDER SECURITY POSITIONS AND FEES
Mr. Wolf. Border security, the department's primary
homeland security role, is in your consular and border security
activities which are funded through fees, not appropriated
funds. The budget includes a program increase of $78 million
for these activities from anticipated fee revenue including an
additional 98 new consular positions. What initiatives are you
undertaking to safeguard the Nation's borders and to improve
the visa application and review process? If somebody comes in
from Syria, they are making application for a visa, how does
that tie back in with regard to INS? How is that tied back in
with regard to the FBI?
Mr. Armitage. Let me give you sort of the long-winded
answer, if I may, and Grant probably wants to either correct it
or add to it.
Mr. Wolf. You are a great team.
Mr. Armitage. We have done this before. Sir, the consular
fees are one of our many ways of bringing some revenue to the
department, which obviously is applied to border security. We
have been down, since September 11th, 13 or 14 percent. We are
right now contemplating and have out for public comment a raise
in the visa fee from $45 to $65.
Mr. Green. $65, correct.
Mr. Armitage. Which will make up for that shortfall. We are
looking for 70 consular affairs people and 28 or so domestic.
Mr. Green. 98 new ones overseas and 36 domestic. That was
in 2002, and we are looking for 70 and 28--70 overseas and 28
domestic this year, which will permit us to strengthen further
our border security process.
Back to your question, though, on how do we--if somebody
applies for a visa in Syria, that goes into the CLASS system,
which is distributed and available to the border agencies, INS
and DEA. Then it is also distributed into the TIPOFF system
which gets into the law enforcement component of it. What
Homeland Security is doing now is attempting to rationalize,
systematize all of those various IT systems so that in the end,
hopefully, I think their objective is to get to one system that
everybody plugs into, where now you have different ones.
BORDER SECURITY AND VISAS
Mr. Wolf. Well, if somebody does come from Syria, does that
information first go to INS?
Mr. Green. Absolutely. It goes into the CLASS system which
is available to the INS.
Mr. Wolf. And also the FBI?
Mr. Green. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wolf. And that person is not granted a visa until----
Mr. Green. If they fit the category that we are looking
for, they will not get a visa for, I think, 20 days.
Mr. Wolf. That is the way that fellow Rahman came in. He
came from Egypt and the Sudan, there was a visa granted to him,
and now he is in a prison, and he was involved in the bombing
of the World Trade Center in 1993. So the more you can keep
this from coming to our shores by----
Mr. Armitage. Going to Grant's point, being the first line
of defense is how our consular officers are referred to by the
Secretary, by the senior leadership in the department.
Now we got a little bad publicity after 9/11 because we
changed--we profiled, frankly. We profiled people in our visa
application process. People who are of a certain age, primarily
male, who came from certain countries where the visa
application process was slowed down, just to make sure we could
look through all the various databases to make sure that we
were not letting a bad character in inadvertently. We took some
heat for it, but I think it has worked out fairly well.
TRAINING OF CONSULAR OFFICIALS
Mr. Wolf. What you are doing to upgrade the credibility and
reputation of the consular offices? Generally the reputation
has been it is staffed by the most junior person. They are not
going to go on and move up. It is not the best job. That has
been the history when you go around and talk to them. That does
not mean it is not a very important job. I think it is. The
Secretary ought to have an awards program and single out people
in the consular offices that are doing a good job.
Mr. Armitage. We are making sure that they are looked at,
and the consular cones are looked at when it comes time to get
a chief of mission. The executive secretary is now a consular
affairs officer. She was previously an ambassador. That is,
probably for a system like the Foreign Service, is the way you
really score and make it clear that the consular officer is
full-fledged foreign service family member, and that is where
the reward is. They see they are becoming chiefs of mission.
Mr. Green. We have to do that across those cones in which
we have difficulty in both recruiting and retaining.
Mr. Armitage. And public diplomacy.
Mr. Green. But it is in many cases, particularly in some of
the larger posts, drudgery. As you know, having visited. We try
to rotate people through there. They are not just consular
officers that serve in those positions. We rotate political
officers, ECON officers and so on, so that everybody gets a
bite of that apple. But it is difficult.
Mr. Wolf. Do they meet with the FBI before they go abroad?
Is there a training program at the Foreign Service Institute
whereby an FBI agent is brought in for one of the courses, to
tell them what they should be looking for? Is there some
mechanism?
Mr. Green. Rather than give you what I think is the answer,
let me give you some specifics. I have got to assume that in
the A100 course there is certainly exposure to many law
enforcement----
Mr. Armitage. They have a lecture, but that is not quite
the question that you raised.
Mr. Wolf. Particularly since 9/11.
Mr. Green. And as they go on in their consular training, I
have to assume that, but let me give you specifics.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
RETURN OF CRIMINAL ALIENS
Mr. Wolf. Certain countries refuse to accept the return of
criminal aliens who are currently being detained in the United
States. There are 3,000 of those detainees and the Justice
Department's costs of detention are substantial. $70 million a
year. Section 621 of last year's CJS bill prohibits the use of
funds by State and Justice to grant visas for countries that
deny the return of such aliens, Somalia, Vietnam.
Mr. Armitage. Cambodia.
Mr. Wolf. Cambodia. This restriction is triggered by
determination by the Attorney General. Mr. Ashcroft expressed a
willingness to make such a determination.
How are you coordinating this with your ambassadors and
with others? By the end of the year I may offer an amendment on
the floor, not put it in the bill, just put it out on the floor
and let members vote, that we do this legislatively to Vietnam.
If Vietnam cannot take back their 340 people. Give me a break.
Now if they take them back, good for them. Good for us. And
also good for the American people, because they will not get
out of jail and rob somebody in the United States or kill
somebody.
So could you talk to us a little bit about that?
Mr. Armitage. Yes, this is a very instructive issue. The
Attorney General not only has a willingness to do it, he has
done it. He invoked, I think it is 243D or B, whatever, in the
case of Guyana. Of course, the State Department took the
position that it would be the end of the world, you cannot do
that. What do you think happened after we--the Attorney General
did invoke it? Within a month Guyana has come to a decision
that they would accept their returnees. It worked just like the
legislation proposed.
We are now using that same threat with Vietnam and Cambodia
particularly. The Attorney General, there is no doubt in my
mind if he does not feel he is getting satisfaction, he will
invoke it in those cases. The most recent one, Guyana, worked
very well for them.
CENTER FOR SECURITY TRAINING
Mr. Wolf. I would encourage you. Armenia has 35 such
people. I am very supportive of Armenia. I was in Nagorno
Karabakh. I think what happened to the Armenian people has been
a tragedy. But I also think Armenia ought to take back these 35
people. Somalia, 51 from Somalia. I would encourage to you do
that. And hopefully we can wrap this up by the end of the year
and find out who really wants to trade with us or have dealings
with us. I did not serve in Vietnam. You did, and I appreciate
that. I have admired you. I have never voted for MFN for
Vietnam but if we are going to trade with them particularly
after the number of lives that we lost in Vietnam, and
colleagues that both of you must have had in Vietnam, clearly
the Vietnamese government better take these people back. If
they do not, we ought not grant any visas. And my sense is this
also goes to the diplomatic corps.
You are requesting 52 million for the establishment of a
Center for Antiterrorism and Security Training in the
Washington, D.C. area. The facility would host training for
State Department diplomatic security agents as well as foreign
law enforcement officers under the Antiterrorism Assistance
Program funded by Mr. Kolbe's foreign operations bill.
Why is this necessary and what will we be doing at this
center? Could you not work it in with Quantico or expanding
Quantico or develop some relationship there?
Mr. Green. Well, sir, the problem we have now, is that we
are spread all over the country.
Mr. Wolf. Yes.
Mr. Green. We have in theory a capacity to train about
3,000 of these people a year. We need to train more than that.
We would like to train 700 under the ATA program and 3,000 of
our diplomatic security agents. We lose a lot of training time.
We are out there with a tin cup begging for ranges and
defensive driving facilities. We need to have a location close
to Washington, which provides a couple of advantages. This
certainly eliminates lost training days, TDY, and travel time.
It also permits those individuals, particularly the foreign law
enforcement personnel who come here for training, to interface
with other law enforcement agencies here in town.
Mr. Wolf. I think it is a great idea.
Mr. Green. A full range of training from medical training
to dog training to ranges, and defensive driving. We will still
have a couple of specialized training facilities like in
Louisiana. We have got a pipeline security facility there
because Louisiana has got a lot of pipelines. We will retain a
small desert training facility in the Southwest. We really need
to bring this together so that we do not waste so much money in
shuttling people around the country and we can expand the
capability through additional training. We are looking at
several sites. Obviously Aberdeen is one that is high on our
list.
Mr. Wolf. I would encourage to you look in Virginia, too. I
mean, I am not trying to--let me say for the record, I do not
put things in my area that ought not be there. If it does not
fit in, then it ought not go. But you also have a facility out
in Warrenton that is a very large, large facility which used to
be with another government agency. And you have----
Mr. Green. Indian Town Gap has been looked at.
Mr. Wolf. You have AP Hill and others. But you feel this
would be an opportunity? Would you then close down other ones?
Where do they go now? Glynco now?
Mr. Green. They would still go to Glynco for normal law
enforcement training. For the foreign terrorists and
antiterrorist training program, the person would come from law
enforcement and individuals from other countries do not go to
Glynco. We have training facilities around the country where we
send them.
Mr. Wolf. Now you train a group in my district, you train
an Egyptian team in Front Royal with regard to the dogs. There
is a dog training facility, ATF and Customs have that. How
would that differ? Would they continue to be there or would
that be then moved to----
Mr. Green. I do not know specifically, sir, but I can
certainly get that.
Mr. Wolf. If you could let us know, because I am interested
in this.
Mr. Green. Okay.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Wolf. Also, how much of it would be diplomatic security
as opposed to the ATA program?
Mr. Green. If we get a single facility, what we are looking
at is 7,000 a year ATA and about 3,000 a year diplomatic
security.
Mr. Wolf. Okay.
Mr. Green. So 35 percent, 65 percent.
EMBASSY SECURITY FUNDING
Mr. Wolf. We are just beginning on the effort to upgrade
the security of all the overseas facilities. Only 3 programs
have been funded from the list of posts requiring urgent
replacement. With all that is left to do and with the current
environment of increased terrorist threats against U.S.
interests worldwide, is it the wrong time to be seeking less
money for embassy security?
Mr. Green. I do not know that we are seeking less. I think
maybe the confusion is in 2002, there was some AID money
included in that number. I think we are really, I think, $24
million higher than----
Mr. Armitage. We have $82 million in 2003 foreign ops
capital construction.
Mr. Wolf. 2002 was $665 million.
Mr. Green. But that included AID. That included about $80
million for AID and----
Mr. Wolf. So if you add that in.
Mr. Armitage. We put it in the foreign ops with Mr. Kolbe.
Mr. Green. So we are actually about a plus $25 million in
2003.
EMBASSY IN BEIJING
Mr. Wolf. We recently received a reprogramming request from
the Department to reallocate $224 million from other priority
fiscal year 2002 embassy security capital construction projects
to the project in Beijing, which your fiscal year 2003 budget
defines as a nonsecurity project. Why are you proposing to do
that, and is the Beijing project a security-driven project as
your reprogramming suggests, or is it driven by post
responsibilities and staffing outgrowing the existing facility?
Mr. Armitage. What it is driven by is a reciprocal
agreement with China. We completed our negotiations with them.
They are moving ahead on their embassy, and we want to move on
the exact same scheduling. We do not want them finishing their
embassy before ours is finished and then finding ourselves with
having difficulty with getting materials introduced. You are
right. The Beijing embassy is on the list and is in the second
tier, and we are using nonsecurity money or requesting to use
nonsecurity money. I think the fact of the matter is where
Beijing may not be a physical security post, it is clearly a
technical security post.
Mr. Wolf. But they do not even allow the Falun Gong to
unveil a banner in Tiananmen. So if they do not want somebody
to come to the embassy, they will not come to the embassy.
Mr. Armitage. It is not so much a physical security as it
is technical security and electronic surveillance. I could make
the argument that it really is a security expenditure.
Mr. Wolf. On that issue, in addition to China, in addition
to the threats of terrorists and criminals fraudulently
obtaining visas, I think there is an urgent need to prevent
visas to those who would commit espionage. I have read things
and have read articles and have talked to individuals talking
about this could potentially be a serious problem with regard
to China, that China may very well have people trying to steal
secrets from the United States, particularly from high-tech
companies. So what do we do to make sure that personnel who are
responsible for issuing visas in China are sensitive to this
issue?
Mr. Armitage. I know it is primarily a domestic law
enforcement issue with FBI, and it is a real problem,
particularly on the West Coast. But it has spread to the East
Coast. It is particularly, as you suggest, in high-tech
machinery, high-tech manufacturing processing. Industrial
espionage is a big factor in China's espionage plans.
I do not know that we have particularly raised this with
consular affairs office. I think it is a little difficult to
know the motives behind some of these people, if they otherwise
qualify for a visa, they are a business person and they want to
do business but they have a sideline of doing industrial
espionage, like the Japanese did for a number of years. Like
the French have had for some years. I guess I need more advice
on it.
INFORMATION SHARING IN GOVERNMENT
Mr. Green. Let me just add one thing, if I might, sir. Very
frankly, we have to do better--I do not mean State Department
necessarily, the Government--we have to do better in having the
FBI share some of that information with us. Of all the sharing
of information that is going on within the Federal Government,
the weakest link as far as our consular offices are concerned
is getting law enforcement information from the FBI. And they
get--I am not throwing rocks, they get into sources and methods
and all of those kinds of things. We have got to have better
cooperation there.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. Well, we will talk briefly. I wanted to
mention it because I wanted to ask you if you could do
something. I think you understand the point that I am trying to
make.
Mr. Green. Yes, sir.
LONG RANGE CONSTRUCTION PLAN
Mr. Wolf. Your testimony last year and this year referred
to the Bureau of Overseas Building Operations' long range
planning efforts, but the committee still has not seen the
plan. If it is linked to appropriation requests and spending
plans, this plan could potentially be a major step toward
making the embassy security and construction program function
more efficiently, including the congressional review process.
Mr. Green. You are going to see it 30 to 45 days. It is at
OMB right now.
Mr. Armitage. 30 to 45 days.
Mr. Green. It is a good document.
VICTIMS OF TERRORISM
Mr. Wolf. Section 626 of last year's bill asked the
President to submit a legislative proposal to establish a
comprehensive program to ensure fair, equitable compensation of
all U.S. victims of international terrorism, including those
with hostage claims against foreign states. The proposal has
not been submitted yet. State has taken the lead in developing
the proposal. I am not asking you to give me specifics at this
time, but could you talk about what type of proposal we might
see, what do you think would be fair, and when the Congress
might very well see something?
Mr. Armitage. We do have the lead. We are required by
legislation to develop such a proposal. Even last night
Assistant Secretary Paul Kelly and others were over at OMB
working on that proposal. Do you know what the timetable is?
Mr. Kelly. It is over at OMB. We are pushing them to get it
over here. Our proposal specifically contains $250,000
compensation across the board for anyone killed in the line of
duty. We are looking at a funding source. That seems to be the
potential concern with OMB, how is this going to be funded? Is
it going to be State's blocked funds? Is it going to be from
the Justice crime fund? Is it going to be appropriated funds?
We are trying to resolve that.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. So you think something will be up here by?
Mr. Kelly. A decision coming out of the OMB within the next
week.
Mr. Wolf. With that, I think what we will do is we will
just submit the rest of the questions for the record. And I
appreciate both of you taking the time, and the hearing is
adjourned.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
W I T N E S S E S
----------
Page
Armitage, Richard................................................ 113
Beers, Charlotte................................................. 441
Gershman, Carl................................................... 108
Green, G.S., Jr.................................................. 113
Keith, Ambassador Kenton......................................... 421
Nathanson, Marc.................................................. 481
Negroponte, J.D.................................................. 185
Pattiz, Norman................................................... 481
Powell, Hon. C.L................................................. 1
Telhami, Professor Shibley....................................... 405
Wood, William.................................................... 185
I N D E X
----------
Secretary of State
Page
AID Workers in West Africa....................................... 72
Colombia and US involvement...................................... 24
Diplomatic Readiness Initiative.................................. 65
Embassy Construction............................................. 39
East Timor....................................................... 69
Exchange Programs................................................ 64
Extradition issues with Mexico................................... 29
FY 03 Administrative budget request.............................. 37
FY 03 Request for Cultural and Educational Exchanges............. 35
FY 03 Request for Public Diplomacy............................... 20
FY 03 Request for Public Diplomacy............................... 35
FY 03 Request for Peacekeeping Activities........................ 33
Global Poverty Loans and Grants.................................. 72
International Criminal Court..................................... 65
Management Issues................................................ 18
New Challenges for Foreign Policy................................ 27
OPAP Recommendations............................................. 19
Opening Remarks of Subcommittee Chairman Wolf.................... 1
Opening Remarks of Subcommittee Ranking Member Serrano........... 4
Opening Remarks of Secretary of State Colin Powell............... 5
Problems facing Africa........................................... 22
Recruitment at the State Department.............................. 64
Remarks of Committee Chairman Young.............................. 29
Remarks of Committee Ranking Member Obey......................... 37
Terrorist activities in Sudan.................................... 21
US involvement in Latin America.................................. 29
US Policy in Colombia............................................ 72
Violence in the Middle East...................................... 31
Winning Support in Afghanistan................................... 28
Questions for the Record:
Chairman Wolf: International Property Protection............. 74
Rep. Charles Taylor:
Immigrant Task Force..................................... 77
Colombia: ONDCP-Sponsored Study of CoCo Assessment
Methodologies.......................................... 78
Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard: Refugees......................... 82
Rep. Dan Miller: Mexican Extradition......................... 91
The National Endowment for Democracy
Statement of Carl Gershman....................................... 108
Department of State, Administration of Foreign Affairs
Border Security and Visas........................................ 151
Border Security and Positions and Fees........................... 151
Center for Security Training..................................... 155
Cost of Embassy Construction..................................... 143
Defense Trade Controls........................................... 147
Embassies in Afghanistan and Tajikistan.......................... 132
Embassy in Beijing............................................... 160
Embassy in Rome.................................................. 150
Embassy Security Funding......................................... 160
Hiring at State Department....................................... 149
Information Sharing in Government................................ 161
Latin American Policy............................................ 140
Long Range Construction Plan..................................... 161
Middle East Policy............................................... 146
Opening Remarks of Deputy Secretary Armitage..................... 114
Opening Remarks of Ranking Minority Member Serrano............... 113
Opening Remarks of Subcommittee Chairman Wolf.................... 113
Opening Remarks of Under Secretary Green......................... 117
Public Diplomacy Efforts and Funding............................. 133
Report of Sudan Envoy............................................ 136
Return of Criminal Aliens........................................ 155
Rewards for Justice Program...................................... 150
Right-sizing at Embassies........................................ 145
Training of Consular Officials................................... 152
US Policy in Africa.............................................. 138
Victims of Terrorism............................................. 161
Visas and Information Sharing.................................... 139
Questions for the Record:
Ranking Minority Member Serrano:
Grenade Attack at Islamabad Church....................... 163
Recruitment and Hiring................................... 164
Educational and Cultural Exchange Programs............... 174
Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard: Diversity in the State Department
Workforce.................................................. 177
Department of State, International Organizations
Abuse of Children in West African Refugee Camps.................. 227
Ambassador to East Timor......................................... 237
Concluding Remarks of Subcommittee Chairman Wolf................. 185
Fee Splitting in the Tribunal Courts............................. 235
FY 03 Request for Peacekeeping Activities........................ 241
Human Rights Commission.......................................... 239
Human Rights in China............................................ 202
Opening Remarks of Ambassador Negroponte......................... 189
Opening Remarks of Ranking Minority member Serrano............... 188
Opening Remarks of Subcommittee Chairman Wolf.................... 185
Opening Remarks of William Wood.................................. 202
Oversight of Peacekeeping Expenditures........................... 236
Peacekeeping Cap and FY 03 Request............................... 230
Peacekeeping in Afghanistan...................................... 231
Peacekeeping in Congo............................................ 228
Problems Facing Africa........................................... 229
Renovation of US/UN Building..................................... 238
Rwanda Tribunal.................................................. 234
Sexual Trafficking in Bosnia..................................... 236
UN and Afghanistan............................................... 232
UN and a Palestinian State....................................... 240
UN and Sexual Trafficking........................................ 242
UN Auditors at Tribunals......................................... 238
UN Ban on Human Cloning.......................................... 241
UN Sanctions on Liberia.......................................... 225
US Rejoining UNESCO.............................................. 242
War Crimes Tribunals............................................. 233
Weapons Inspectors in Iraq....................................... 243
Questions for the Record:
Chairman Wolf:
Sanctions on Liberia..................................... 246
War on Terrorism/Afghanistan............................. 247
UN Peacekeeping in the Congo (MONUC)..................... 248
Peacekeeping Reform and Oversight........................ 249
UN Regular Budget/Zero Nominal Growth.................... 252
United Nations Capital Master Plan....................... 253
International Criminal Tribunals......................... 254
UN Human Rights Commission............................... 255
Ranking Minority Member Serrano: United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organizations (UNESCO)............. 256
Public Diplomacy
Collaboration.................................................... 468
Concluding Remarks of Subcommittee Chairman Wolf................. 504
Cultural Outreach................................................ 474
Dealing with Negative Opinions................................... 432
Governmental Coordination........................................ 451
Hollywood........................................................ 473
Latin America.................................................... 471
Media............................................................ 452
Nagative Opinions of the U.S..................................... 431
Opening Remarks of Ambassador Keith.............................. 421
Opening Remarks of Chairman Marc Nathanson....................... 481
Opening Remarks of Governor Norman Pattiz........................ 490
Opening Remarks of Ranking Minority Member Serrano............... 407
Opening Remarks of Dr. Shibley Telhami........................... 409
Opening Remarks of Subcommittee Chairman Wolf.................... 405
Opening Remarks of Undersecretary Beers.......................... 441
PD Authorization................................................. 466
Polling and Intelligence......................................... 451
Private Sector partnerships...................................... 472
Progress of Broadcasting Initiatives............................. 496
Public Affairs Officers Conference............................... 466
Radio and TV Marti............................................... 498
Radio Station in Afghanistan Status.............................. 497
Recent Opinion Polls and Perceptions............................. 435
Speaking to People............................................... 469
Supplemental Spending............................................ 451
Support in Moderate States....................................... 434
Quesstions for the Record:
Chairman Wolf:
Difference Between Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs
Function............................................... 507
Non Traditional Public Diplomacy Programs................ 508
Public Diplomacy as a Function of the State Dept......... 509
Interagency Coordination of Public Diplomacy............. 510
Ranking Member Serrano: Public Diplomacy's Role in Improving
Relations With Europeans and Latin Americans............... 511
Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard:
Exchange Programs........................................ 513
Department Structure and Support for Public Diplomacy........ 515
International Education Policy........................... 516
Gilman International Scholarship Program................. 517
Overseas Advising Centers................................ 518
Public Diplomacy in the U.S.............................. 519