[Senate Hearing 108-427]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-427
STATE DEPARTMENT: POLICY AND PROGRAMS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 12, 2004
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
senate
93-316 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana, Chairman
CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio BARBARA BOXER, California
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee BILL NELSON, Florida
NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire Virginia
JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey
Kenneth A. Myers, Jr., Staff Director
Antony J. Blinken, Democratic Staff Director
(ii)
?
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Biden, Hon. Joseph R., Jr., U.S. Senator from Delaware, opening
statement...................................................... 4
Chronology of administration statements prior to the war..... 28
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from California, submission for
the record:
Article from The New York Times, Feb. 7, 2004, ``The Struggle
for Iraq: Intelligence; Agency Alert About Iraqi Not
Heeded, Officials Say''.................................... 62
Feingold, Hon. Russell D., U.S. Senator from Wisconsin, prepared
statement...................................................... 38
Lugar, Hon. Richard G., U.S. Senator from Indiana, opening
statement...................................................... 1
Nelson, Hon. Bill, U.S. Senator from Florida, submission for the
record:
Letter to President Bush, Feb. 10, 2004, concerning the
deteriorating conditions in Hispaniola..................... 48
Powell, Hon. Colin L., Secretary of State, U.S. Department of
State, Washington, DC.......................................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 16
Responses to additional questions for the record from:
Senator Biden..............................................57, 65
Senator Voinovich..........................................41, 69
Senator Sarbanes........................................... 52
Senator Coleman............................................ 71
Senator Feingold...........................................37, 70
Senator Bill Nelson........................................ 79
(iii)
STATE DEPARTMENT: POLICY AND PROGRAMS
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2004
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:34 a.m. in room
SR-325, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard G. Lugar
(chairman of the committee), presiding.
Present: Senators Lugar, Chafee, Allen, Voinovich, Biden,
Sarbanes, Feingold, Boxer, Bill Nelson, and Corzine.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD G. LUGAR, CHAIRMAN
The Chairman. This hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee is called to order. This is a very special meeting.
We have the Secretary of State with us. We appreciate that we
are in the process of concluding a rollcall vote on the Senate
floor, but the time of the Secretary and of all members is
valuable. Therefore, I will proceed with my opening statement.
Hopefully, we will be joined shortly by the ranking member of
the committee, Senator Biden, and then we will call upon the
Secretary for his testimony.
At some point, as I have advised the Secretary, we are
hopeful to have a quorum of our membership. At such appropriate
time as I see that we will continue the Law of the Sea markup,
hopefully can have a vote and at least take committee action on
that important convention as a part of our work today.
Today the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is pleased to
welcome Secretary of State Colin Powell. Mr. Secretary, we are
eager to hear your views on the status of our alliances, the
Bush administration's plans for making further progress in Iraq
and Afghanistan, the status of negotiations pertaining to the
Middle East and the Korean Peninsula, and your assessments of
the State Department's budget.
During last year, American foreign policy achieved an
extensive list of accomplishments, some of which have gone
unnoticed but shall not today. The President put forward bold
plans to fight the global spread of AIDS and to establish the
Millennium Challenge Corporation, which will encourage
political and economic progress in developing nations that
embrace positive reforms. Congress worked closely with the
White House and the State Department on these initiatives, and
passed legislation that would implement them.
Our commitment of substantial funds to the Liberian crisis
and to the Middle East Partnership Initiative have similarly
demonstrated the United States intends to provide leadership in
fighting poverty and disorder that are so often at the root of
conflict.
The United States continues to make progress in securing
international assistance for counterterrorism efforts
throughout the world. In particular, great strides were made
during 2003 to solidify cooperation from Saudi Arabia and other
Persian Gulf states. Many nations in Europe, Central Asia, and
Southeast Asia have continued to be good allies in the war on
terror.
In our own hemisphere, the Colombian Government, with U.S.
support, has made measurable progress in increasing personal
security for its people. Murders and kidnapings were down
significantly in 2003. Colombians are traveling in parts of the
country that until recently were thought to be too dangerous.
In Russia, the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction
Program and its associated programs continue to safeguard and
destroy the arsenal of weapons of mass destruction built by the
former Soviet Union. Through the G-8 Global Partnership Against
Spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction, we have secured $10
billion in commitments for this endeavor from our allies over
the next 10 years of time. Congress passed legislation that
allows the Nunn-Lugar program to be used outside the states of
the former Soviet Union and, with President Bush's strong
encouragement, chemical weapons destruction at Shchuchye in
Russia has been accelerated. We must ensure that the funding
and momentum of the program is not encumbered by bureaucratic
obstacles or undercut by political disagreements.
The United States has also moved forward in the area of
arms control negotiations. Last year, at the request of the
President, the Senate ratified the Moscow Treaty governing the
strategic nuclear arsenals of Russia and the United States. In
coming weeks, the Foreign Relations Committee intends to report
the resolution of ratification of the IAEA Additional Protocol
to the Senate. This protocol will strengthen the international
community's ability to detect illegal weapons programs.
Yesterday President Bush called for immediate ratification of
the Additional Protocol.
Libya's decision to open its weapons of mass destruction
program to international inspection and its acceptance of
responsibility for Pan Am 103 constitute a remarkable success
for United States foreign policy, resulting from close
cooperation with allies, specifically Great Britain, firm
diplomacy, and the demonstrations of our resolve in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
State Department diplomacy played an important role in the
growing opportunity for rapprochement between India and
Pakistan. If this initiative can produce a more stable and
prosperous subcontinent, our own security will be immeasurably
improved.
American diplomacy also contributed to movement toward a
peace agreement in Sudan, the ratification of a constitution in
Afghanistan, and the conclusion of a breakthrough tax treaty
with Japan, which will be a boost to any American company doing
business in that country.
During the last year, even as our relationships with some
of our NATO allies were strained by the war in Iraq, the Senate
ratified the treaty admitting seven Eastern European nations to
NATO. The administration also secured agreement for a central
NATO role in the International Security Assistance Force in
Afghanistan. In my view, NATO must build on these successes by
defining a broader mission for itself in maintaining stability
in the greater Middle East. This should include an expanded
NATO presence in Afghanistan outside Kabul and a role in Iraq's
stabilization. Progress in these areas by NATO would help heal
the rifts created by disagreements over the use of force in
Iraq.
Our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, though difficult, have
produced important successes. The people of those two countries
are better off now than they were under Saddam Hussein and the
Taliban. Schools are operating. Police forces and national
armies are being trained. Free media is being established and
women are participating in society in many more ways than they
have done before.
However, our experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan
demonstrate we must be better prepared to undertake post-
conflict missions. To this end, the Foreign Relations Committee
has organized a Policy Advisory Group that is attempting to
come to grips with how the State Department and our government
as a whole should organize and prepare itself to deal with
complex emergencies. Some of the best national security minds
in Washington have participated in these discussions, including
Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Marc Grossman. I
anticipate that the committee will put forward a legislative
proposal in the coming weeks.
Public diplomacy is another area where deficiencies must be
corrected if our policies are to succeed in the Middle East and
elsewhere. I was heartened by the appointment of Margaret
Tutwiler as Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy. She
has worked well with our committee and is committed, as you
are, Mr. Secretary, to boosting the effectiveness and frequency
of our communications with foreign populations. I believe this
will require a sea change in the orientation of the State
Department, particularly as it relates to training, language
expertise, and avenues of professional advancement.
Regionally, more attention must be paid to Latin America.
Venezuela, Bolivia, and Haiti face severe challenges to their
constitutional governments, and Mexico's importance to our
prosperity and security continues to be misunderstood and
undervalued by policymakers in both executive and legislative
branches. President Bush's immigration proposal is an excellent
starting point, but the U.S.-Mexican bilateral relationship
must be elevated to a higher priority.
With the establishment of the Global AIDS Initiative and
the Millennium Challenge Corporation, this administration has
done more to improve our engagement with Africa than any
administration in recent memory. I believe, however, that our
policies will not be fully successful in Africa until we
improve our economic engagement with the continent. To this
end, I am hopeful for strong administration support of the
extension of the African Growth and Opportunity Act, AGOA,
which I have introduced in the Senate.
Mr. Secretary, this partial but lengthy list of foreign
policy successes and priorities demonstrates how expansive the
global challenges for the United States are. We want to hear
from you about the needs of your Department in this era when it
occupies the front lines in the war on terrorism.
I want to compliment you personally on your efforts to
expand funding for the State Department and for foreign
assistance programs. You have brought strategic vision to
budgetary questions involving the Department and this committee
could not ask for a better partner in explaining the importance
of our international affairs budget to the American people.
The progress we have made in the last 3 years has begun to
reverse the damaging slide in diplomatic funding that occurred
during the 1990s. Most Americans recognize the importance of
investments in national security, but often our national
conception of foreign affairs focuses too heavily on the crisis
of the moment and fails to appreciate the painstaking work that
occurs every day in the State Department and in other agencies.
To win the war against terrorism, the United States must assign
U.S. economic and diplomatic capabilities the same strategic
priority we assign to military capabilities.
We must continue our investment in diplomats, embassy
security, foreign assistance, and other tools of foreign
policy. If a greater commitment of resources can prevent the
bombing of our embassies, secure alliance participation in
expensive peacekeeping efforts, or improve detection of
terrorists seeking visas, the investment will have yielded
dividends far beyond its costs.
I yield now to my distinguished friend Senator Biden for
his opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., RANKING MEMBER
Senator Biden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
It is great to have you before us, Mr. Secretary. We are a
friendly crowd, and I have told any staff member if they
editorialize with their facial expressions they are fired. I
want to just say for the record, I get as angry as you when
that happens. But you are in friendly territory here, among
Democrats and Republicans.
Let me say I associate myself with some of the remarks my
colleague the chairman has made. There are a number of
successes that are out there. But it is the nature of this
oversight process, we tend to focus on those things which are
in limbo or where there is disagreement.
I want to say at the outset before I give you my formal
statement that I also know that, having been here for now I
guess seven Presidents, that there are always and should be,
and it is healthy, disagreements within administrations about
policy, but once policy is determined there is a team,
everybody is on the same team. So I am going to be asking you
some questions here which for all I know you might have been on
the other side of an argument internally, that may be more
consistent with what I think should have happened or maybe not.
But I do not want you to--we have known each other a long time
and I know you will not; this is not about you, this is about
policy areas I would like to explore.
So welcome. I realize this is now the political season. We
are going into a Presidential election. But the problems we
face and the seriousness with which we have to address them,
particularly in your job and ours, it does not stop because it
is a political season, and hopefully we can move beyond a lot
of that.
Our Iraq policy I believe at this moment appears to be a
little bit in limbo. The June 30 deadline for transfer of
sovereignty is looming and Mr. Sistani's demand for elections
has put in doubt our ability to proceed on key points of the
November 15 agreement, which is starting to look a little more
difficult to implement here.
I have had the opportunity, as I know my colleague the
chairman has and others, to have some private and frank
conversations with the Secretary General of the United Nations.
We all understand his dilemma as well and we are trying to
figure our way through this. I agree that we need to end the
appearance of occupation as soon as possible, but it is also
vital, it is also vital that Iraqis have some confidence in the
process and believe that a neutral referee is going to be on
the scene after June 30 so that the current disputes do not
escalate into a civil war.
I think, quite frankly, as you know because I am like a
broken record with you on this and with others in the
administration, I believe we have missed some meaningful
opportunities to share the burden more fully with our friends
and allies in Iraq, and I hope we do not miss the final
opportunity because I think we are at a point where everyone in
Europe, including the French, have decided that,
notwithstanding their occasional unwarranted and untoward
comments and actions, that success in Iraq is essential. I
think everybody is, sort of like that old expression: Nothing
to focus one's attention like a hangman's noose. Failure in
Iraq is of greater danger, quite frankly, to the French and the
Europeans than it is even to us, because it is their front yard
and our back yard.
So I think the elements are there to significantly broaden
the coalition to take on responsibility for securing the peace
in Iraq, and I look forward to hearing some of your thinking,
if time permits today--if not, I know you are always
available--on the U.N. role in Iraq's future beyond generic
assertions that it is going to be significant, or whatever
phrase the President uses, also on the possibility of holding
direct elections for a transitional government.
On the security side, I had the privilege of preceding you
in Brussels at the NAC when you appeared on a Friday calling
for NATO to participate in Iraq and eventually take that over.
I could not agree with you more. I would like to talk to you a
little bit about that if time permits, and I would appreciate
an update, if you are able to in open session, on recent
discussions with our NATO allies on those matters. Obviously,
if you would rather not do some of this in public, even though
it is not, quote, ``classified,'' but would limit your
negotiating ability, I appreciate that.
On Afghanistan, I am very pleased the administration has
agreed to expand the International Security Force. I do not
want to get you in trouble, but if I am not mistaken a guy
named Powell suggested that a couple years ago. But progress I
think has been awfully slow. I have had the opportunity, as
others have, to spend some time with a man I have great respect
for and I know you do, General Jones, our Supreme Allied
Commander-NATO, and as you know he has some concerns about the
pace as well. The administration's security solution, which is
these small Provincial Reconstruction Teams, I quite frankly
think are inadequate to the task, and at some point maybe we
can talk about that.
So too are the resources for reconstruction. You did a
great job heading to Japan immediately after our successes in
Afghanistan. The President declared--his words, not mine or
yours--a ``Marshall Plan for Afghanistan.'' I quite frankly
think that we have got a long, long, long way to go,
notwithstanding we are occupied in other parts of the world as
well.
Afghanistan is again the world's top supplier of opium, and
the ability to help them construct a legal economy has been
sort of difficult, in large part because in significant parts
of the country warlords continue to control the total
environment.
I want to commend you for your recent op-ed piece in the
Moscow press, with which I agree completely. Russia, as you
observed, has traveled an enormous distance since the collapse
of the Soviet Union. Unlike you, however, I and I suspect the
chairman and others as well are very concerned about the recent
backsliding in Russian democracy, especially regarding the rule
of law and independent media, and also about continuing Russian
brutality in Chechnya and meddling in Georgia and Moldova.
One issue that begs for a coherent policy is nuclear
proliferation. Yesterday the President delivered an important
speech on that subject and I am very glad to see he has turned
his attention to this subject in a much more concentrated way.
I support many of the President's proposals, such as
encouraging countries to criminalize proliferation activities,
getting all countries to sign and implement the Additional
Protocols of the IAEA, and enhancing the IAEA's oversight,
safeguards, and verification capability.
But we cannot just rely, in my view--I am not suggesting
you think otherwise, but--we cannot just rely on the preemptive
use of force if we are going to contain this deadly threat. But
I worry that in too many cases ideology for the first 3 years
of this administration has trumped or at least gotten in the
way of nonproliferation policy.
The President says he wants to reexamine the essential
bargain, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and I think it
warrants being reexamined. But in return everybody has to
remember what that bargain was, that in return for not pursuing
nuclear weapons states can receive assistance for civilian
nuclear power applications. But there was another part of that
central bargain of the NPT, which was that--that I believe this
administration has ignored. That is that the nuclear powers
will gradually move away from nuclear weapons while non-nuclear
weapons states refrain from acquiring them.
Over the last 3 years I believe we have sent mixed signals
at best and negative signals at worst, that the United States
has undermined our message that other nations must forgo the
bomb. For during this period the administration has raised the
specter of the possible use of nuclear weapons against non-
nuclear weapons states. We have begun exploring new nuclear
weapons of dubious utility, and we have walked away from the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
It does not really embolden the rest of the world to think
that we are keeping the second part of that implicit bargain in
NPT, which was that we would move away, move in the opposite
direction.
A year ago, Deputy Secretary Armitage, who I do not want to
ruin his reputation, but of all the people I have ever dealt
with in my entire career of almost 32 years now he is the
straightest, most up-front, and most honest interlocutor I have
ever encountered. Now, that probably is going to cause him to
be fired, but I really mean it. He is first rate. He testified,
when we asked him on the crisis of North Korea, he said that he
saw no crisis in North Korea because, ``I think we have got
some time to work with this.'' But he added: ``I do not think,
given the poverty of North Korea, that it would be too long
after she got a good amount of fissile material that she would
be inclined to engage with somebody, a non-state actor or a
rogue state.''
I hope the administration heeds your close friend's warning
here. I know we have the multi-party talks, but quite frankly I
do not see them going very far now, either. The administration
has been working the North Korean issue with varying degrees of
intensity since it took office. In that time the situation has
gone from bad to worse. It may have happened anyway no matter
what the administration was. It may not be controllable.
But North Korea has kicked out international inspectors,
has removed the 8,000 fuel rods that have been stored in
Yongbyon, and says it has reprocessed them, which is the most
logical thing to happen, although we cannot confirm with
absolute certainty that they have done that. We are left to
wonder when the administration will view North Korea's growing
stockpile of nuclear materials as an urgent matter that
warrants serious, immediate negotiation.
In Pakistan, after numerous assurances that no
proliferation was occurring, we are now told that Dr. A.Q. Khan
acted for years to sell nuclear technology without the
knowledge or consent of the Pakistani Government. Quite
frankly, I think that is incredibly fictitious. The idea--and I
could be wrong; I am going to ask you about this--that Dr. Khan
could be loading up the equivalent of C-141s and flying off
material to other parts of the world and the ISI or the
Pakistani military not know he is doing it, I find that
absolutely, totally, completely beyond my comprehension.
I hope I can be proven to be wrong on that. But the fact of
the matter is it is difficult to believe, and I look forward to
hearing the administration's assessment of this matter and how
the United States should respond from this point on.
A year ago the administration doubted the usefulness of
international inspectors. Today we must conclude that
inspectors, for example in Iraq, did a good job. The IAEA
deserves credit for its inspections in Iran over the last year,
and we have agreed that the IAEA will help monitor the
dismantlement of Libya's program. Such an important institution
I think deserves our strong support, not the sniping. It has
not come from you, but it has come from this administration
consistently since it has taken office.
Finally, let me say a few words about the budget. Once
again, I commend you for securing a significant increase in the
foreign affairs budget. I think we have had some great
Secretaries of State, but in my time here I have known of no
one who has engendered the loyalty, the thanks, and the
gratitude of the employees of the State Department more than
you. You have done with them what you did when you were the
commander of every unit you ever commanded and when you were
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. You have instilled pride in
them. They know you are fighting for them. I think it has had a
marked increase in their ability, capability, and confidence,
and I want to publicly commend you for that.
I happened to be with a group of State Department folks and
two high-ranking people, who were high-ranking officials and
Democrats in previous administrations, and to hear them talk
about what you have done for the Department would please you
very, very, very much. I do not think we recognize it often
enough and how important that is. It is raw leadership you have
provided, and once again you have fought for their budget and
your budget.
The major increase is devoted to the Millennium Challenge
Account and combating HIV-AIDS, two programs that are just
getting off the ground, but these increases I am concerned may
appear to have come at a price. Development assistance
programs, which the President pledged would not suffer as a
result of the Millennium Challenge Account, are reduced in the
FY 2005 budget request. There may be a rationale for that I do
not understand, but I would like to talk about that. So are
refugee programs and aid to Russia and other neighboring
states. Other important programs such as the anti-narcotics
programs and international broadcasting are essentially
straight-lined, with no increases for inflation.
I think one of the things--there is a lot of things that
the chairman and I agree on and there is unanimity in this
committee, one of which I think is the significant need for a
fundamental reworking and beefing up of our public diplomacy. I
think it takes a great deal more than we have in this budget.
I know you were--I think you were there early on when the
President asked several of us in the Oval Office right after 9-
11 and after Afghanistan and we were worried about the Arab
street to put together a program. I would like to resubmit to
you a program that we put together, the total cost of which
over a period of time is about a half a billion dollars.
I think we need something robust. I think we need something
significant. I think that the chairman and Mr. Hyde are
committed to, not working on the proposal I make, but working
on such a proposal. So I hope, notwithstanding the fact it is
basically flat-lined here, you will have an open mind to
hearing some of our suggestions. We are a global power with
global responsibilities and we cannot let our attention on Iraq
and the Middle East cause us to lose our focus on other vital
regions of the world.
There is a lot more to talk about. We could do this for a
week. There is so much at stake here. Mr. Chairman, in the
interest of time I am going to stop here. I look forward to
having the opportunity today and, I know we cannot get it all
done today, but over the next month or so to go into more depth
on some of the issues that are raised here.
I will probably warn you--not warn you--advise you I want
to talk a little bit about Pakistan at the front end of this
meeting and then maybe about Iraq and nonproliferation if there
is time. But again I compliment you on the esprit de corps you
have created, which has often been missing at the State
Department. It is a big deal and you deserve all the credit,
all the credit.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Biden.
I think, Secretary Powell, you can receive the ambience of
a strong bipartisan support for the Department and for your
work and on so many issues, and we appreciate that.
Would you please proceed now with your testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. COLIN L. POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Secretary Powell. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have
a prepared statement for the record and would submit it at this
time.
The Chairman. It will be placed in the record in full.
Secretary Powell. And I will provide some brief remarks
summarizing that statement after I respond to a few of the
points that you made, Mr. Chairman, and those made by Senator
Biden.
Let me say what a pleasure it is for me to appear again
before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It is always a
joy to be with the members of the committee and your very
professional, very experienced, very well-behaved staff. So I
am very pleased to see that this morning.
Mr. Chairman, you listed so many areas that I could spend 5
hours talking about, but I will not do that. But it kind of was
stunning to me to hear someone else list all the things that we
have been working on. In the State Department we tend to be
running the ground game. We tend not to be able to throw deep
passes all the time. But every day, in so many different ways,
wonderful diplomats and other individuals from all over the
government, accredited to our missions around the world, are
out there getting the job done for the American people.
Suddenly you find a Libya that is willing to give up its
weapons of mass destruction. Suddenly you find a Sudan that is
closer to peace than it has ever been in 20 years. Suddenly you
go from a situation where India and Pakistan were almost at war
with each other 18 months ago and we were worried about nuclear
conflagration on the subcontinent, to a point now where they
are cooperating with each other in moving forward and even
starting to inch up on the difficult issue of Kashmir. And we
find that Pakistan feels sufficiently confident in their
position and, with our help and pressure, we are dealing with
the the A.Q. Khan situation and we are going to get that
network all ripped up.
The Moscow Treaty, the proliferation security initiative--
all the things you have mentioned, Mr. Chairman, we are proud
of, and especially proud of the young men and women of the
Department who have done this for the American people, for the
President, and for his foreign policy.
You paid me great tribute and I deeply appreciate that, but
I could not have done it without the support that I received
from this committee, from all the Members of Congress, and all
the other committees that I report to. When I go out and visit
our embassies and I give them a little pep talk, a ``meet and
greet,'' as they are called--and you gentlemen and ladies have
been kind enough to do it for us as you go out and visit our
embassies--but I never finish one of those meet and greets
without saying: And by the way, I want you folks to know that
Congress supports you and the American people support you.
I also tell them: I will go up and make the request for
money and not only they give me what I ask for, they want to
give me more, and I have to kind of say, no, that would not be
right; I can only support the President's request, I cannot go
any further, do not give me any more money.
But it is a reflection of the appreciation that you have
for what they are doing, and it is so important to those young
men and women to know that it is not just the Secretary who
understands and appreciates what they are doing, but that you
appreciate what they are doing, you support them, and that the
American people support them. That is what makes it all work.
As I have told the committee on many occasions beginning I
think at my very first hearing, I am a foreign policy adviser
to the President, but I have also been given an organization to
run, and I know a little bit about running organizations. I
told you we would recruit. I told you we would fix the
information technology system, we would fix our building
operation, and our security procedures. I think the Department
has done all of those things and done it in a manner that the
Congress should have every reason to be proud of and approve
of. We could not have done it without the support of this
committee, and once again I thank you for that.
Mr. Chairman, I am sure in the course of our questioning we
will get into all of the many issues that have been raised by
you and by Senator Biden. What I would like to do is just go
through my statement completely and then we can get into the
various issues.
The President's FY 2005 international affairs budget
request for the Department of State, USAID and other foreign
affairs agencies totals $31.5 billion and it is broken down as
follows: foreign operations, $21 billion; State operations,
$8.4 billion; P.L. 480 food aid, $1.2 billion; international
broadcasting, $569 million--and I always am trying to see if we
can raise that number because of the challenges that we face of
the kind Senator Biden mentioned--and the U.S. Institute for
Peace, $22 million.
The President's top foreign policy priority is winning the
war on terrorism. Winning on the battlefield with our superb
military forces is just one step in this process, just one
element of our campaign. To eradicate terrorism altogether, the
United States must help create stable governments in nations
that once supported terrorism, nations like Iraq and
Afghanistan, and we must go after terrorist support mechanisms
as well as the terrorists themselves. We must also help
alleviate conditions in the world that enable terrorists to
bring in new recruits.
To these ends, our foreign affairs agencies will use the FY
2005 request money to continue to focus on the reconstruction
of Iraq and Afghanistan. We will continue to support our
coalition partners to further our counterterrorism, law
enforcement and intelligence cooperation. And we will continue
to do everything we can to expand democracy and help generate
prosperity, especially in the Middle East as well as in other
parts of the world.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, 48 percent of the
President's budget for foreign affairs supports the war on
terrorism, our No. 1 priority. For example, $1.2 billion
supports Afghan reconstruction efforts, security efforts, and
democracy building. More than $5.7 billion provides assistance
to countries around the world who have joined us in the war on
terrorism. And $3.5 billion indirectly supports the war on
terrorism by strengthening our ability to respond to
emergencies and conflict situations. Finally, $190 million is
aimed at expanding democracy in the greater Middle East, which
is crucial if we are ever to attack successfully the motivation
to terrorism.
Mr. Chairman, two of the greatest challenges confronting us
today are the reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan, and let
me first turn to Iraq. The Coalition Provisional Authority and
the Iraqi Governing Council have made great strides in the
areas of security, economic stability, and growth, as well as
in democratization. Iraqi security forces now comprise more
than half of the total security forces in the country.
In addition, the Coalition Provisional Authority has
established a new Iraqi Army, issued a new currency, and
refurbished and equipped schools and hospitals. As you know,
the CPA is taking steps to return sovereignty to the Iraqi
people this summer.
Much work remains to be done. Working with our coalition
partners, we will continue to train Iraqi police, border
guards, and Civil Defense Corps, and the army in order to
ensure the country's security as we effect a timely transition
to democratic self-governance and a stable future. At the same
time, we are helping provide critical infrastructure, including
clean water, electricity, reliable telecommunications, and all
the other infrastructure systems that are necessary for this
country to get back up on its feet.
Thousands of brave Americans, in uniform and in mufti, are
in Iraq now, working tirelessly to help Iraqi succeed in this
historic effort. Alongside their U.S. military colleagues,
USAID, State Department, and Departments of the Treasury and
Commerce and so many other government organizations are working
together to implement infrastructure, democracy building,
education, health, and economic development programs. These
efforts are producing real progress in Iraq.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, we are trying to implement the
15 November agreement. We are working hard to finish work on a
basic administrative law that Iraq will use until they are able
to put into place a full constitution. We are still committed
to having a transitional government in place that we can turn
responsibility over and sovereignty over to on the 30th of
June.
We have been in touch with the U.N. team that is now in
country, led by Ambassador Brahimi, who we know so well and who
did such a great job in Afghanistan. He has met within the last
24 hours with the Ayatollah Sistani and we are waiting for a
fuller report of his activities.
Clearly, we all would like to see elections as soon as
possible, so there is no question about the legitimacy of the
government to make sure that the new government is
representative of all the people of Iraq. But elections take
time, take preparations. We are hoping that Ambassador Brahimi
will come out with some ideas as to how we can continue to
march toward early transfer of sovereignty, but also deal with
the concerns that have been raised with respect to full
elections.
Obviously, the security situation is challenging. We see
that in the bombings that have taken place recently, where the
insurgents there, the terrorists who are there, the old regime
elements, are now going after police. They are going after
those individuals who have been brought in to protect Iraqis,
and they are now killing their own citizens as well as
continuing to strike coalition targets.
These regime-remaining elements will be dealt with. I think
you will see that over time the terrorists will be dealt with
by our military forces, by our coalition partners and their
military forces, but increasingly by Iraqis taking on the
burden for their own security.
This is not the time to shrink back from the challenge that
is ahead. This is the time to move fully forward so that we do
not lose this opportunity to create a democracy for the people
of Iraq which will benefit the region and benefit the world.
A lot of debate is taking place right now with respect to
the reason for the conflict, whether or not there were
stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. That debate will
continue and many different groups are looking into it--two
congressional committees, Director Tenet has a group looking at
it, and the President has formed a commission also to look at
it, and others are examining this question.
There is no doubt in my mind, however, that Saddam Hussein
had the intent, never lost the intent. Nobody has ever said he
lost the intent. He had the capability in terms of the
infrastructure, in terms of the knowledge as to how to use
these weapons. He was developing delivery means, new delivery
means for these weapons, both in the form of missiles and
UAV's. The one question that we are still debating is: Did he
have stockpiles and what happened to them if he did have them?
The best intelligence information available to the
President and all of his advisers, available to the
intelligence community, available to the United Nations,
available to the United Kingdom and France and Germany and all
others, left no doubt in our mind that he had stockpiles; in
addition to all of these other elements of his capability, when
matched with his intent, presented a threat to the region, to
his own people, to the world, to the United States.
The President did not just jump in and act preemptively. He
took it to the United Nations and made the case to the United
Nations. We got Resolution 1441 passed. I then took our
intelligence case to the United Nations last February 5. It was
not a political case. It was a solid intelligence case that
represented the best judgment of the intelligence community.
That is why Director Tenet and I spent 4 days out at CIA
looking over all the holdings that he had to make sure that we
were confident of our judgment, and that is why Director Tenet
accompanied me to that meeting.
We were confident at that time that we knew the intent, we
knew most of the elements of his capability, and we expected to
find stockpiles.
The work is not finished. The Iraqi Survey Group continues
its work. Dr. Kay does not believe we will find those
stockpiles, but we will continue to work to prove once and for
all whether or not there is anything there.
But Dr. Kay, who says he does not think anything is there,
also says he is absolutely convinced we did the right thing,
that Saddam Hussein was in material breach of his obligations,
no question about it, violated all U.N. resolutions, to include
1441, and if left to his own devices, if released from the
pressure of the international community, if released from the
pressure of sanctions, there is no doubt in Dr. Kay's mind, nor
is there any doubt in my mind, that you would have seen those
programs take new life and come back to haunt the region, haunt
the people of Iraq, and haunt the international community as we
worried about the nexus between those kinds of weapons and
terrorism.
So while we debate this question, while we debate this
question about the stockpiles, I hope there is no question in
the mind of any American citizen, and if there is we need to
dispel it. The President acted on good, solid information that
was available to us at that time and that he did the right
thing, and the world is a lot better off with no Saddam
Hussein. We do not have to worry about the question of weapons
of mass destruction in the future, nor do we have to worry
about finding any more mass graves that have been filled by
this awful person who is no longer in power.
What we have to do now as a Nation and as an international
community is to come together and help the Iraqi people to
build a new society based on a solid foundation of democracy
and living in peace with its neighbors.
Senator Biden asked about how we are working with the
international community. We have a strong coalition. We are not
there alone. There are many other nations with us there. Japan
has now just dispatched troops and, for the first time since
World War II, they have been able to do this, in the spirit of
helping the Iraqi people.
We think we will get greater support from NATO. As Senator
Biden noted, I am working and so is Secretary Rumsfeld and
other colleagues in the government, working with NATO to
structure a role. No NATO member has opposed a future role for
NATO in Iraq. They want to focus on Afghanistan right now, but
we are considering what NATO might do in Iraq.
We should not fool ourselves into thinking there are huge
pots of troops waiting around in NATO nations who have not yet
contributed to this effort that we will suddenly have access to
if NATO as an alliance agrees to this. I think it unlikely we
will get large numbers, if any numbers, of German troops or
French troops. But I think it is possible to structure a role
for NATO, taking over one of the zones perhaps in Iraq, that
could enjoy the support of all of the NATO nations.
Mr. Chairman, Afghanistan is another high priority for this
administration. The United States is committed to helping build
a stable and democratic Afghanistan that is free from terror
and no longer harbors threats to our security. After we and our
coalition partners defeated the Taliban government, we faced a
daunting task of helping the Afghan people rebuild their
country. We have demonstrated our commitment to this effort by
providing over $3.7 billion in economic and security assistance
to Afghanistan since 2001.
Through our assistance and the assistance of the
international community, the Government of Afghanistan is
successfully navigating the transition that began in October
2001. Afghanistan adopted a constitution last month and is
preparing for democratic national elections in June. With
technical assistance from the United States, Afghanistan
successfully introduced a new stable currency in October 2002
and is working to improve revenue collections in the provinces.
The lives of women and girls are improving as women pursue
economic and political opportunities and as young girls return
to school or in many cases go to school for the first time ever
in their lives.
Since 2001 the United States has rehabilitated 205 schools,
140 health clinics, and trained 13 battalions of the Afghan
National Army. Also, President Bush's commitment to de-mine and
repave the entire stretch of the Kabul-to-Kandahar highway was
fulfilled. The road had not been functional for 20 years. What
was once a 30-hour journey has now been reduced to a journey of
only 5 to 6 hours. But more importantly, we are starting to
connect the country back together once again through this kind
of road effort and road efforts that will be forthcoming in the
next year.
While the Afghanistan of today is very different from the
Afghanistan of September 2001, there is still much left to
accomplish. In the near term, the United States will assist the
Government of Afghanistan in its preparation for elections next
June to make sure that they are free and fair. To demonstrate
tangible benefits to the Afghan people, we will continue to
implement assistance on an accelerated basis, and the request
before you today contains $1.2 billion in assistance for
Afghanistan that will concentrate on education, health,
infrastructure, and assistance to the Afghan National Army.
Mr. Chairman, the challenges we face in Iraq and
Afghanistan are huge and complex, daunting and dangerous, but
we can overcome them. It is hard to rebuild with one hand and
fight off attacks with the other, but we are going to do it. We
are going to fight off these attacks and we are not going to
walk away from either of these two countries until the mission
has been accomplished.
We regret every life that is lost, whether that life is
American, British, Canadian, Spanish, Italian, German, Iraqi,
Afghan, or any other of the brave and dedicated people who are
involved in this effort. But these men and women know and their
families know that they do not risk life and limb in vain. They
know that together we are changing the world. We are bringing
freedom and democracy to people who have never known it before
or who have had it denied to them for ages. We are drying up
the swamps in which terrorism can flourish. We are bringing
hope where hope was a forlorn stranger just a short time ago.
And in the Taliban and in Saddam Hussein, we have eliminated
two of the world's most dangerous regimes.
Mr. Chairman, as part of the war on terrorism President
Bush established a clear policy to work with other nations to
meet the challenges of defeating terror networks with global
reach. This commitment extends to the front-line states that
have joined us in the war on terrorism and to those nations
that are key to successful transition to democracy in both Iraq
and Afghanistan. Our assistance enables countries cooperating
closely with the United States to prevent future attacks, to
improve counterterrorism capabilities, and to tighten border
controls.
As I mentioned earlier, the FY 2005 budget provides for
more than $5.7 billion for assistance to countries around the
world that have joined us in this effort, including Turkey,
Jordan, Afghanistan of course, Colombia, Pakistan, Indonesia,
and the Philippines. While progress has been made attacking
terrorism organizations globally and regionally, much work
remains to be done, and the President's budget strengthens our
financial commitment to our coalition partners to get this work
finished.
Mr. Chairman, one aspect of the war on terrorism is going
after weapons of mass destruction and their proliferation.
Thank you for what you have done with the Nunn-Lugar program
over the years. That is one of the key programs that goes after
this challenge. You have seen what has happened now that we
have bottled up Libya and removing their potential to be both a
source and an owner of weapons of mass destruction. You have
seen what has happened in Pakistan recently.
Yesterday President Bush spoke at the National Defense
University, as you noted, and outlined a new approach from the
administration to this growing danger. He described how we
worked for years to uncover the A.Q. Khan network. We never
ignored it. We knew all about it. But we had to quietly go
about identifying all elements of this network and dealing with
it, and by learning more through our efforts with Libya about
the network we were able to take the case to President
Musharraf and let him know of the danger that lurked inside of
Pakistan, a danger to Pakistan, a danger to the rest of the
world.
The President spoke to President Musharraf on a number of
occasions. I spoke to President Musharraf about this on a
number of occasions. My staff did a quick check last night and
President Musharraf and I have had 82 phone calls over the last
2-plus years, many of which dealt with these kinds of issues.
And I am very pleased at the action that President Musharraf
has taken in response to his recognition of the danger
presented by this network, as well as the encouragement we have
given him to deal with this danger.
I think the President's speech yesterday provides new
opportunities to go after this proliferation challenge and I am
sure it will enjoy the support of this committee.
Mr. Chairman, I could go on and go down every one of the
items that you listed or every one of the items that Senator
Biden listed, but I might find myself repeating too many points
that would take away from the time available for members of the
committee to raise the specific questions and give me a chance
to respond to those questions.
So let me close, Mr. Chairman, merely by saying once again
how much we appreciate all the efforts that this committee has
made to support us and to say how proud I am of what my
Department has been doing in all these areas, whether it is
matters of war, getting rid of a tyrant like Saddam Hussein, or
whether it is matters of peace, solving regional conflicts in
Liberia, in Sudan, in the Congo, seeing results in Libya,
seeing some improvement in Iran, or whether it is going after
some of the greatest problems we have on the face of the Earth
that are not tyrants or wars, but are disease and pestilence,
poverty, ignorance.
The Millennium Challenge Account, our HIV-AIDS work, the
wonderful work done by USAID, all of these efforts are so
important in creating the kind of world we want to live in, and
they often go unsung. People do not often write headline
stories about food being delivered or inoculations being
administered or great people out in USAID-land or in our
embassies that, day to day, go and get this work done for the
American people.
On their behalf, I thank you for your support, and I am
prepared for your questions.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Powell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Colin L. Powell, Secretary of State
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify on the State Department's portion of the
President's Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2005.
The President's FY2005 International Affairs Budget for the
Department of State, USAID, and other foreign affairs agencies totals
$31.5 billion, broken down as follows:
Foreign Operations--$21.3 billion
State Operations--$8.4 billion
P.L. 480 Food Aid--$1.2 billion
International Broadcasting--$569 million
U.S. Institute of Peace--$22 million
Mr. Chairman, the President's top foreign policy priority is
winning the war on terrorism. Forty-eight percent of the President's
budget for foreign affairs directly supports that priority by assisting
our allies and strengthening the United States' diplomatic posture. For
example: $1.2 billion supports Afghanistan reconstruction, security and
democracy building, and more than $5.7 billion is provided for
assistance to countries around the world that have joined us in the war
on terrorism, and $3.5 billion indirectly supports the war on terrorism
by strengthening our ability to respond to emergencies and conflict
situations. Moreover, $190 million is aimed at expanding democracy in
the Greater Middle East, in part to help alleviate the conditions that
spawn terrorists.
In addition, $5.3 billion is targeted for the President's bold
initiatives to fight HIV/AIDS and create the Millennium Challenge
Corporation, both of which will support stability and improve the
quality of life for the world's poor--and, again, help to relieve
conditions that cause resentment and despair.
Mr. Chairman, let me elaborate a bit on how some of these dollars
will be spent.
WINNING THE WAR ON TERRORISM
Winning on the battlefield with our superb military forces is just
one step in defeating terrorism. To eradicate terrorism, the United
States must help create stable governments in nations that once
supported terrorism, go after terrorist support mechanisms as well as
the terrorists themselves, and help alleviate conditions in the world
that enable terrorists to bring in new recruits. To this end, in FY2005
the State Department and USAID will continue to focus on the
reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan, support our coalition partners
to further our counterterrorism, law enforcement and intelligence
cooperation, and expand democracy and help generate prosperity,
especially in the Middle East.
Building a Free and Prosperous Iraq
The United States faces one of its greatest challenges in
developing a secure, free and prosperous Iraq. The USG is contributing
almost $21 billion in reconstruction funds and humanitarian assistance
to this effort. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund are
expected to provide another $4 to $8 billion in loans and grants over
the next three years. These resources, coupled with the growing
assistance of international donors, will ease the transition from
dictatorship to democracy and lay the foundation for a market economy
and a political system that respects human rights and represents the
voices of all Iraqis.
The Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) and the Iraqi Governing
Council (IGC) have made great strides in the areas of security,
economic stability and growth, and democratization. Iraqi security
forces now comprise more than half of the total security forces in the
country. In addition, the CPA has established a New Iraqi Army, issued
a new currency and refurbished and equipped schools and hospitals. And,
as you know, the CPA is taking steps to return sovereignty to the Iraqi
people this summer.
Much work remains to be done. Working with our coalition partners,
we will continue to train Iraqi police, border guards, the Civil
Defense Corps and the Army in order to ensure the country's security as
we effect a timely transition to democratic self-governance and a
stable future.
At the same time, we are helping provide critical infrastructure,
including clean water, electricity and reliable telecommunications
systems which are essential for meeting basic human needs as well as
for economic and democratic development. Thousands of brave Americans,
in uniform and in mufti, are in Iraq now working tirelessly to help
Iraqis succeed in this historic effort. Alongside their military
colleagues, USAID, State Department and the Departments of the Treasury
and Commerce are working to implement infrastructure, democracy
building, education, health and economic development programs. These
efforts are producing real progress in Iraq.
Winning the Peace in Afghanistan
Mr. Chairman, Afghanistan is another high priority for this
Administration. The U.S. is committed to helping build a stable and
democratic Afghanistan that is free from terror and no longer harbors
threats to our security. After we and our coalition partners defeated
the Taliban government, we faced the daunting task of helping the
Afghan people rebuild their country. We have demonstrated our
commitment to this effort by providing over $3.7 billion in economic
and security assistance to Afghanistan since 2001.
Through our assistance and the assistance of the international
community, the government of Afghanistan is successfully navigating the
transition that began in October 2001. Afghanistan adopted a
constitution last month and is preparing for democratic national
elections in June. With technical assistance from the U.S., Afghanistan
successfully introduced a new stable currency in October 2002 and is
working to improve revenue collection in the provinces.
The lives of women and girls are improving as women pursue economic
and political opportunities and girls return to school. Since 2001, the
United States has rehabilitated 205 schools and 140 health clinics and
trained thirteen battalions of the Afghan National Army (ANA). Also,
President Bush's commitment to de-mine and repave the entire stretch of
the Kabul-Kandahar highway was fulfilled. The road had not been
functional for over 20 years. What was once a 30-hour journey can now
be accomplished in 5 or 6 hours.
While the Afghanistan of today is very different from the
Afghanistan of September 2001, there is still much left to accomplish.
In the near-term, the United States will assist the government of
Afghanistan in its preparations for elections in June to ensure that
they are free and fair. To demonstrate tangible benefits to the Afghan
people, we will continue to implement assistance on an accelerated
basis. The FY2005 Budget contains $1.2 billion in assistance for
Afghanistan that will be focused on education, health, infrastructure,
and assistance to the ANA, including drawdown authority and Department
of Defense ``train and equip.'' For example, U.S. assistance efforts
will concentrate on rehabilitation and construction of an additional
275 schools and 150 health clinics by June 2004, and complete training
and equipping of fifteen army battalions. The U.S. will also extend the
Kabul-Kandahar road to Herat so that people and commerce will be linked
East and West across Afghanistan with a ground transportation link
between three of the largest cities.
Support for Our Coalition Partners
As part of the war on terrorism, President Bush established a clear
policy to work with other nations to meet the challenges of defeating
terror networks with global reach. This commitment extends to the
front-line states that have joined us in the war on terrorism and to
those nations that are key to successful transitions to democracy in
Iraq and Afghanistan.
Our assistance enables countries cooperating closely with the
United States to prevent future attacks, improve counter-terrorism
capabilities and tighten border controls. As I indicated earlier, the
FY2005 Budget for International Affairs provides more than $5.7 billion
for assistance to countries around the world that have joined us in the
war on terrorism, including Turkey, Jordan, Afghanistan, Pakistan,
Indonesia and the Philippines.
U.S. assistance has also resulted in unparalleled law enforcement
and intelligence cooperation that has destroyed terrorist cells,
disrupted terrorist operations and prevented attacks. There are many
counterterrorism successes in cooperating countries and international
organizations. For example:
Pakistan has apprehended more than 500 al Qaeda terrorists
and members of the Taliban through the leadership of President
Musharraf, stronger border security measures and law
enforcement cooperation throughout the country.
Jordan continues its strong counterterrorism efforts,
including arresting two individuals with links to al Qaeda who
admitted responsibility for the October 2002 murder of USAID
Foreign Service officer Lawrence Foley in Amman.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization has endorsed an
ambitious transformation agenda designed to enhance its
capabilities by increasing deployment speed and agility to
address new threats of terrorism.
Colombia has developed a democratic security strategy as a
blueprint for waging a unified, aggressive counterterror-
counternarcotics campaign against designated foreign terrorist
organizations and other illegal, armed groups.
The U.S. and its Southeast Asian allies and friends have made
significant advances against the regional terrorist organization Jemaah
Islamiyah which was responsible for the Bali attack in 2002 that killed
more than 200 people. In early August 2003, an Indonesian court
convicted and sentenced to death a key figure in that bombing.
Since September 11, 2001, 173 countries have issued orders to
freeze the assets of terrorists. As a result, terror networks have lost
access to nearly $200 million in more than 1,400 terrorist-related
accounts around the world. The World Bank, International Monetary Fund
and other multilateral development banks have also played an important
role in this fight by strengthening international defenses against
terrorist finance.
While progress has been made attacking terrorist organizations both
globally and regionally, much work remains to be done. The FY2005
President's Budget strengthens our financial commitment to our
coalition partners to wage the global war on terror. Highlights of the
President's request include $700 million for Pakistan to help advance
security and economic opportunity for Pakistan's citizens, including a
multi-year educational support program; $461 million for Jordan to
increase economic opportunities for Jordanian communities and
strengthen Jordan's ability to secure its borders; and $577 million for
Colombia to support President Uribe's unified campaign against drugs
and terrorism.
In September 2003, at the United Nations, President Bush said:
``All governments that support terror are complicit in a war against
civilization. No government should ignore the threat of terror, because
to look the other way gives terrorists the chance to regroup and
recruit and prepare. And all nations that fight terror, as if the lives
of their own people depend on it, will earn the favorable judgment of
history.'' We are helping countries to that judgment.
Mr. Chairman, one of the aspects of the War on Terrorism that gives
us a particular sense of urgency is proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction. These terrible weapons are becoming easier to acquire,
build, hide, and transport.
Yesterday, President Bush spoke at the National Defense University
(NDU) and outlined the Administration's approach to this growing
danger. The President described how we have worked for years to uncover
one particular nefarious network--that of A.Q. Khan.
Men and women of our own and other intelligence services have done
superb and often very dangerous work to disclose these operations to
the light of day. Now, we and our friends and allies are working around
the clock to get all the details of this network and to shut it down,
permanently.
We know that this network fed nuclear technology to Libya, Iran,
and North Korea.
At NDU yesterday, President Bush proposed five measures to
strengthen the world's efforts to prevent the spread of WMD:
Expand the PSI to address more than shipments and transfers;
even to take direct action against proliferation networks.
Call on all nations to strengthen the laws and international
controls that govern proliferation.
Expand our efforts to keep Cold War weapons and other
dangerous materials out of the hands of terrorists.
Close the loophole in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty
that allows states such as Iran to produce nuclear material
that can be used to build bombs under the cover of civilian
nuclear programs.
And, finally, disallow countries under investigation for
violating nuclear nonproliferation treaties from serving on the
IAEA Board of Governors.
As the President said yesterday, the nexus of terrorists and WMD is
a new and unique threat. It comes not with ships and fighters and tanks
and divisions, but clandestinely, in the dark of the night. But the
consequences are devastating. No President can afford to ignore such a
threat.
Expansion of Democracy in the Middle East
We believe that expanding democracy in the Middle East is critical
to eradicating international terrorism. But in many nations of the
Middle East, democracy is at best an unwelcome guest and at worst a
total stranger. The U.S. continues to increase its diplomatic and
assistance activities in the Middle East to promote democratic voices--
focusing particularly on women--in the political process, support
increased accountability in government, assist local efforts to
strengthen respect for the rule of law, assist independent media, and
invest in the next generation of leaders.
As the President emphasized in his speech last November at the
National Endowment for Democracy (NED), reform in the Middle East is of
vital importance to the future of peace and stability in that region as
well as to the national security of the United States. As long as
freedom and democracy do not flourish in the Middle East, resentment
and despair will continue to grow--and the region will serve as an
exporter of violence and terror to free nations. For the United States,
promoting democracy and freedom in the Middle East is a difficult, yet
essential calling.
There are promising developments upon which to build. The
government of Jordan, for example, is committed to accelerating reform.
Results include free and fair elections, three women holding Cabinet
Minister positions for the first time in Jordan's history, and major
investments in education. Positive developments also can be found in
Morocco, which held parliamentary elections last year that were
acclaimed as free, fair and transparent.
In April 2003, the Administration launched the Middle East
Partnership Initiative (MEPI), an intensive inter-agency effort to
support political and education reform and economic development in the
region. The President continues his commitment by providing $150
million in FY2005 for these efforts.
To enhance this USG effort with a key NGO, the President has
doubled the NED budget to $80 million specifically to create a Greater
Middle East Leadership and Democracy Initiative. NED is a leader in
efforts to strengthen democracy and tolerance around the world through
its work with civil society. We want that work to flourish.
As President Bush said in his November speech at NED: ``The United
States has adopted a new policy, a forward strategy of freedom in the
Middle East. This strategy requires the same persistence and energy and
idealism we have shown before. And it will yield the same results. As
in Europe, as in Asia, as in every region of the world, the advance of
freedom leads to peace.''
Public Diplomacy in the Middle East
And the advance of freedom is aided decisively by the words of
freedom.
Democracy flourishes with freedom of information and exposure to
diverse ideas. The President's FY2005 Budget promotes expansion of
democracy in the Middle East by providing public access to information
through exchange programs and the Middle East Television Network.
New public diplomacy efforts including the Partnerships for
Learning (P4L) and Youth Exchange and Study (YES) initiatives have been
created to reach a younger and more diverse audience through academic
and professional exchange programs. In FY2005, the P4L and the YES
programs, funded at $61 million, will focus more on youth of the Muslim
world, specifically targeting non-traditional, non-elite, often female
and non-English speaking youth.
U.S. broadcasting initiatives in the Middle East encourage the
development of a free press in the American tradition and provide
Middle Eastern viewers and listeners access to a variety of ideas. The
U.S. revamped its Arabic radio broadcasts in 2002 with the introduction
of Radio Sawa, which broadcasts to the region twenty-four hours a day.
As a result, audience size for our Arabic broadcasting increased from
under 2 percent in 2001 to over 30 percent in 2003. Based on this
successful model, the U.S. introduced Radio Farda to broadcast to Iran
around the clock. Building on this success, the FY2005 President's
Budget Request provides over $70 million for Arabic and Persian radio
and television broadcasts to the Middle East. In early 2004, the United
States will launch the Middle East Television Network, an Arabic
language satellite network that will have the capability of reaching
millions of viewers and will provide a means for Middle Easterners to
better understand democracy and free market policies, as well as the
U.S. and its people.
OUR NEW APPROACH TO GLOBAL PROSPERITY
President Bush's approach to global economic growth emphasizes
proven American values: governing justly, investing in people, and
encouraging economic freedom. President Bush has pledged to increase
economic engagement with and support for countries that commit to these
goals through an ambitious trade agenda and new approaches to
development assistance focusing on country performance and measurable
results.
The Millennium Challenge Account (MCA)
In February of 2003, we sent the Congress a budget request for the
MCA and legislation to authorize the creation of the Millennium
Challenge Corporation (MCC), the agency designed to support innovative
development strategies and to ensure accountability for results.
The MCC will fund only proposals for grants that have clear,
measurable objectives, a sound financial plan and indicators for
assessing progress.
The Congress appropriated $1 billion for MCA for FY2004. The FY2005
Budget request of $2.5 billion makes a significant second year increase
to the MCA and paves the way to reaching the President's commitment of
$5 billion in FY2006.
Trade Promotion Authority (TPA)
President Bush recognizes that the fastest, surest way to move from
poverty to prosperity is through expanded and freer trade. America and
the world benefit from free trade. For this reason, one of his first
actions upon taking office in 2001 was to seek TPA, allowing him to
negotiate market-opening agreements with other countries. The President
aims to continue vigorously to pursue his free trade agenda in order to
lift developing countries out of poverty, while creating high-paying
job opportunities for America's workers, businesses, farmers and
ranchers and benefiting all Americans through lower prices and wider
choices. As the President said in April, 2001 at the Organization of
American States: ``Open trade fuels the engines of economic growth that
creates new jobs and new income. It applies the power of markets to the
needs of the poor. It spurs the process of economic and legal reform.
It helps dismantle protectionist bureaucracies that stifle incentive
and invite corruption. And open trade reinforces the habits of liberty
that sustain democracy over the long term.''
Since receiving TPA in 2002, the President has made good on his
promise, completing free trade agreements with Chile and Singapore,
which were quickly approved by Congress and went into effect on January
1. We have recently completed negotiations with five Central American
countries on the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) and are
working to bring the Dominican Republic into that agreement. Earlier
this week, we announced the conclusion of an agreement with Australia.
Negotiations are ongoing with Morocco, the Southern African Customs
Union (SACU), Bahrain, and on the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas
(FTAA). We are concluding comprehensive agreements that include market
access for goods and services, strong intellectual property and
investment provisions, and include commitments for strong environmental
and labor protections by our partners. These arrangements benefit
Americans and our trading partners.
Building on this significant progress, the President intends to
launch free trade negotiations with Thailand, Panama, and the Andean
countries of Colombia, Ecuador, Bolivia and Peru. The President has
also stated his vision for a Middle East Free Trade Area by 2013, to
ignite economic growth and expand opportunity in this critical region.
Finally, the President is committed to wrapping up successfully the
World Trade Organization's Doha agenda. The United States has taken the
lead in re-energizing these negotiations following the Cancun
Ministerial.
CARING FOR THE WORLD'S MOST VULNERABLE CITIZENS
Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief
When President Bush took office in January 2001, the HIV/AIDS
pandemic was at an all time high, with the estimated number of adults
and children living with HIV/AIDS globally at 37 million, with 68
percent of those individuals living in sub-Saharan Africa. From fiscal
years 1993 to 2001 the total U.S. Government global AIDS budget was
about $1.9 billion. As part of the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, the
President proposed $2 billion in fiscal year 2004 as the first
installment of a five-year, $15 billion initiative, surpassing nine
years of funding in a single year. The President's Emergency Plan for
AIDS Relief represents the single largest international public health
initiative ever attempted to defeat a disease. The President's Plan
targets an unprecedented level of assistance to the 14 most afflicted
countries in Africa and the Caribbean to wage and win the war against
HIV/AIDS. In addition, programs will continue in 75 other countries.
By 2008, we believe the President's Plan will prevent seven million
new infections, treat two million H1V-infected people, and care for 10
million HIV-infected individuals and those orphaned by AIDS in
Botswana, Cote d'Ivoire, Ethiopia, Guyana, Haiti, Kenya, Mozambique,
Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia.
Announced during President Bush's State of the Union Address on
January 28, 2003, the Emergency Plan provides $15 billion over five
years for those countries hardest hit by the pandemic, including $1
billion for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.
The FY2005 Budget provides $2.8 billion from State, USAID, and the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to combat global AIDS,
more than tripling funding for international HIV/AIDS since the
President took office.
Over the past year, we have worked with the Congress to pass
legislation laying the groundwork for this effort and to appoint a
senior official at the State Department to coordinate all U.S.
Government international HIV/AIDS activities. Ambassador Randall Tobias
has been confirmed by Congress and has now taken steps to assure
immediate relief to the selected countries. He announced mechanisms to
initiate services in five key areas, such as care for orphans and
vulnerable children as well as care and antiretroviral treatment for
HIV-infected adults.
As a crucial next step, the FY2005 Budget Request expands on the
Emergency Plan. By working together as a highly collaborative team, and
placing primary ownership of these efforts in the hands of the
countries that we are helping--just as you will recall the Marshall
Plan did so successfully in post-WWII Europe--the Department of State,
USAID and HHS can use significantly increased resources quickly and
effectively to achieve the President's ambitious goals in the fight
against global AIDS.
Mr. Chairman, President Bush summed it up this way in April of last
year, ``There are only two possible responses to suffering on this
scale. We can turn our eyes away in resignation and despair, or we can
take decisive, historic action to turn the tide against this disease
and give the hope of life to millions who need our help now. The United
States of America chooses the path of action and the path of hope.''
These dollars put us squarely on that path.
Emergency Humanitarian Assistance--Helping Others in Need
The President's Budget Request reflects a continued commitment to
humanitarian assistance. The request maintains U.S. leadership in
providing food and non-food assistance to refugees, internally
displaced persons, and other vulnerable people in all corners of the
world. In addition, the budget reflects the findings of the Program
Assessment Rating Tool (PART) evaluations completed for the United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and for USAID's Public Law 480
Title II international food assistance, which confirmed a clear purpose
for these programs.
In 2003, the Administration provided funding to several
international and nongovernmental organizations to assist nearly
200,000 Angolan refugees and internally displaced persons return home
after decades of civil war.
In an Ethiopia enveloped by drought, the Administration led
international efforts to prevent widespread famine among 13 million
vulnerable people, providing over one million metric tons of emergency
food aid (valued at nearly half a billion dollars) to the World Food
Program and NGOs, funding immunizations for weakened children, and
supplying emergency seeds to farmers.
In Sudan, the Administration worked with the United Nations and the
Government of Sudan so that vital assistance could be delivered to the
Sudanese people. This year the U.S. will provide about $210 million in
vital assistance to the people in the south, including approximately
125,000 metric tons (valued at nearly $115 million) in food aid, as
well as non-food assistance, such as sanitation and water. We
anticipate that a comprehensive peace agreement in Sudan will allow us
to expand significantly our development assistance to help the Sudanese
people in effecting a long-awaited recovery following decades of civil
war. The FY2005 Budget includes $436 million in humanitarian and
development, economic, and security assistance funding, much of which
will be contingent upon a peace settlement between the government and
the south.
The FY2005 Budget ensures that the Administration can continue to
respond quickly and appropriately to victims of conflict and natural
disasters and to help those in greatest need of food, shelter, health
care and other essential assistance, including those in areas starting
to recover from conflict and war, such as Liberia. In particular, the
budget requests funding for a flexible account to give the President
the ability to respond to unforeseen emergency needs, the Emergency
Fund for Complex Foreign Crises, funded at $100 million.
KEEPING AMERICANS SAFE AT HOME AND ABROAD
Mr. Chairman, we also have a sacred responsibility to look to the
security of our citizens, here and overseas, when that security is a
part of our responsibility.
Capital Security Cost Sharing Program
The State Department has the responsibility to protect more than
60,000 U.S. Government employees who work in embassies and consulates
abroad. Since the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa,
the State Department has improved physical security overseas; however,
as many of you are well aware, many posts are still not secure enough
to withstand terrorist attacks and other dangers. To correct this
problem, in 1999, the State Department launched a security upgrade and
construction program to begin to address requirements in our more than
260 embassies and consulates.
Working with the Congress, President Bush has accelerated the pace
of improving and building new secure facilities. Moreover, we have
reorganized the Overseas Buildings Office to manage the effort with
speed, efficiency, and effectiveness. Within the budget, we are
launching a plan to replace the remaining 150 embassies and consulates
that do not meet current security standards over the next 14 years, for
a total cost of $17.5 billion. To fund construction of these new
embassy compounds, we will begin the Capital Security Cost Sharing
(CSCS) Program in FY2005. We will implement this program in phases over
the next five years.
Each agency with staff overseas will contribute annually towards
construction of the new facilities based on the number of positions and
the type of space they occupy. We arrived at the cost shares in the
FY2005 President's Budget Request in consultations with each agency and
the State Department's Overseas Buildings Office.
CSCS is also a major component of the President's Management Agenda
Initiative on Rightsizing. Along with securing facilities, we have
focused on assuring that overseas staffing is deployed where they are
most needed to serve U.S. interests. As agencies assess the real cost
of maintaining staff overseas, they will adjust their overseas staffing
levels. In this way, new embassies will be built to suit appropriate
staffing levels. The program is already producing rightsizing results.
Agencies are taking steps to eliminate unfilled positions from their
books to reduce any unnecessary CSCS charges, which in turn is leading
to smaller embassy construction requirements.
Border Security
Prior to September 11, 2001, the State Department's consular
officers focused primarily on screening applicants based on whether
they intended to work or reside legally in the United States. In
deciding who should receive a visa, consular officers relied on State
Department information systems as the primary basis for identifying
potential terrorists. The State Department gave overseas consular
officers the discretion to determine the level of scrutiny that should
be applied to visa applications and encouraged the streamlining of
procedures.
Today, Consular Affairs at the State Department, working with both
Customs and Border Protection and the Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services at the Department of Homeland Security, are
cooperating to achieve our goals more effectively by sharing
information and integrating information systems.
The Department of State has invested substantial time, money, and
effort in revamping its visa and passport process as well as its
provision of American Citizen Services. The Department has more than
doubled its database holdings on individuals who should not be issued
visas, increased training for all consular officers, established
special programs to vet applications more comprehensively, increased
the number of skilled, American staff working in consular sections
overseas, and improved data-sharing among agencies. The State
Department, along with the Department of Homeland Security, is
currently developing biometrics, such as fingerprints, digital
photographs or iris scans, for both visas and passports in order to
fulfill requirements of the Patriot and Border Security Acts and the
International Civil Aviation Organization.
As a part of the State Department's efforts to screen visa
applicants more effectively, and in particular to ensure that a
suspected terrorist does not receive a visa to enter the United States,
we will be an active partner in the Terrorist Screening Center (TSC).
The TSC, established in December 2003, will maintain a single,
consolidated watchlist of terrorist suspects to be shared with Federal,
state, local and private entities in accordance with applicable law.
The Department of State will also participate in the Terrorist Threat
Integration Center (TTIC), a joint-effort aimed at reducing the
potential of intelligence gaps domestically and abroad.
To achieve our goal of secure borders and open doors, in FY2005 the
State Department plans to expand the use of biometrics to improve
security in the visa and passport processes; more effectively fill gaps
worldwide by hiring people with specific skills including language
expertise; improve and maintain all consular systems; and more broadly
expand data sharing with all agencies with border control or
immigration related responsibilities. The budget in FY2005 includes
$175 million for biometric projects including photographs and
fingerprints to comply with Border Security and Patriot Acts.
The Border Security program underwent a PART analysis in the
development of the FY2004 and FY2005 budgets and this budget request
reflects the results of those analyses. The Department is moving ahead
on program management improvements that clearly link to the Department
of Homeland Security goals related to visa policy.
THE CRITICAL IMPORTANCE OF DIPLOMATIC READINESS
We created the Diplomatic Readiness Initiative (DRI) in 2002 to
address staffing and training gaps that had become very adverse to the
conduct of America's diplomacy. The goal of DRI was to hire 1,158 new
foreign and civil service employees over a three-year period. These new
hires, the first over-attrition hires in years, would allow us to
provide training opportunities for our people and greatly improve the
Department's ability to respond to crises and emerging priorities
overseas and at critical domestic locations. To bring these new people
on board--and to select the best men and women possible--we
significantly improved Department hiring processes, to include
recruiting personnel from more diverse experience and cultural
backgrounds and people who could fill critical skill gaps. In the
process, we broke records in recruiting and thus had the best and the
brightest from which to select. The Department of State will be reaping
the benefits from this process for many years to come. We also created
new mandatory leadership and management training, enhanced public
diplomacy and consular training, and made significant increases in the
amount of language training available for new Foreign Service Officers.
DRI hiring has supported the Department's efforts in responding to
crises since September 11th and provided the additional resources
necessary to staff overseas locations that truly represent the front
line in the war on terrorism.
Some of these positions, however, are being diverted to support new
requirements not envisioned by DRI, such as permanently staffing new
embassies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, and possibly in Tripoli. Because
of this, the FY2005 Budget Request provides additional resources to
continue our DRI commitment.
DRI has allowed the Department to focus on recruiting, training and
retaining a high quality work force, sized to requirements that can
respond more flexibly to the dynamic and demanding world in which we
live. We need to continue it.
USAID has begun a similar effort to address gaps in staffing in
technical skills, calling it the Development Readiness Initiative.
USAID plans to hire approximately 40 Foreign Service Officers in FY2004
under this initiative. This Budget Request includes authority for USAID
to hire up to 50 additional Foreign Service Officers in FY2005, in
order to fill critical skill gaps identified through a comprehensive
workforce analysis.
Mr. Chairman, I have focussed your attention for long enough. There
is more in the President's Budget Request for FY2005; but what I have
outlined above represents the top priorities for the State Department.
I will be pleased to answer any questions you have about these
priorities or about any other portion of the budget request in which
you are interested. If I cannot answer the question myself, I have a
Department full of great people who can; and I will get you an answer
for the record.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
Let me suggest that for our first round of questioning we
have an 8-minute limit. I will begin the questioning.
Secretary Powell, you have addressed the decision to go to
war in Iraq and some of the issues that have been discussed by
others. Let me simply say that Senator Biden as chairman of
this committee conducted some extensive hearings in the summer
of 2002. This committee was privileged to hear from a number of
sophisticated Iraqis, scholars about Iraq, as well as officials
of our government both past and present. I believe that we
developed a very good idea, prior to any decisionmaking phase,
of the complexity of the situation, and the gravity of the
problem facing the world, as well as the United States
specifically, and the credibility with regard to the lack of
cooperation of Saddam Hussein.
Now, following the July and August recesses in both of our
branches of government, the President called a meeting on
September the 5th that I remember vividly. Senator Biden and I
were invited to be a part of that. As I recall, you were there,
and leaders of Congress, leaders of the administration. The
President said: We are going to the U.N. He detailed leaders he
was going to call. He commissioned you, as you have said today
and, very modestly, after arduous negotiation, obtained
Resolution 1441.
He also said that he was going to coopt the Congress. He
was going to ask us for a vote giving authority for military
action in the event that Iraq continued to be uncooperative and
defied the world, both as a measure to help you in your
negotiations, but likewise as a marker of the credibility of
our country.
I remember asking him: How soon do you want it? And he
said: Some time in this calendar year. The committee, under
Senator Biden's leadership, crafted a resolution.
I mention this because the Biden-Lugar resolution has been
bandied about a good bit by many who found it satisfying,
others who did not. Leaving that aside, it was a serious
attempt in a bipartisan way on the part of this committee to
indicate our support for the fact that our country needed to be
credible in the world and likewise supportive of the President.
Now, our specific resolution did not find favor with White
House counsel, I would say quite frankly. I regret that was the
case, but I simply note that for the record. In due course
other arrangements were made. Senator Biden and I both voted
for the resolution as it finally came before the Senate, as did
a fair number of our colleagues on this committee. And I say
this for myself, as a member of the Intelligence Committee, I
believed that in front of me was all of the intelligence that
was in front of you. We had access if we were diligent in
wanting to pursue it.
So it was not a question of being misled, misguided. We had
to make judgments as public servants, and we did. Now, I
mention all of that because there was one thing that we also
drew to the attention of the administration, and that was the
lack of preparation as we saw it, in the event we came into
conflict, for the day after the conflict ended. If we were
confident in our Armed Forces, confident in the battle plan, we
were not confident the day after, literally.
We expressed that again as the new chairman came, namely
myself. We had hearings, and sometimes we had lack of
cooperation from Pentagon witnesses and from others who might
have been informed, but who also might not have been. There may
not have been that much of a plan. It is alleged that you had
plans. It is alleged that somehow or other the administration
did not have all the best planning there.
However it may be, this is a serious matter. Jerry Bremer
and his group have been doing, in a pragmatic fashion, very
well. The mission of Kofi Annan and the U.N. now is very
important. The President embraced it, and so have we as leaders
in the Congress.
I get to this point: simply that we really need to work
together to think through what this country does in nation-
building. That used to be a bad term. It is not now. I heard
General Jones at the Wehrkunde conference in Munich saying
again, as he told our committee: We are going to be there, we
are going to stay, we are going to have a successful
Afghanistan, we are going to build the nation. That may not
have gotten through to everybody in America, but it certainly
has with this administration and those of us in Congress who
support the thought that there ought to be in your shop, in
Defense, the National Security Council, somewhere, a group of
people who are prepared to build nations as a part of our
foreign policy.
Not that we want to do this every day, but we have at least
two instances now that are very big in scale and that must be
very successful.
I have mentioned our Policy Advisory Group and we have
discussed this a bit, as well as Mr. Grossman's participation.
Is it my understanding that you or members of the
administration, quite apart from what we are discussing over
here, are discussing these issues, and that you may come
forward with either an administrative order or legislation that
you want us to act upon?
If the latter, I would just say that we are eager to be
helpful. We are not trying to rearrange the administration, but
we really are trying, as we did before, to spur the kind of
thinking that we think is important on behalf of our country. I
think you are resolved to do the same thing. Can you make any
general comment about this preparation of the hereafter?
Granted that we have two tough issues ahead of us, but we may
have many more down the trail?
Secretary Powell. Mr. Chairman, first of all I am very
pleased that you have created this Policy Advisory Group and
very pleased that Under Secretary Grossman is working with you.
We are thinking and considering different alternatives within
the administration and working with colleagues in the Defense
Department, the National Security Council, and elsewhere. I
have written you a letter which came up last night describing
some of the things we are working on: creating a reserve corps
of people within the Department that I can reach out and grab.
The very fact that you have allowed me to increase staffing
over the last few years allows me to start to put in place that
kind of reserve corps of people that I can call upon.
In a conflict situation--and I have been involved in a few
over the years, from Panama through Desert Storm through
Afghanistan and now this current gulf war--it has to be of
necessity, the military, the Department of Defense, in the
first instance after the conflict. They are there, they have
the capacity, they have the resources that are not available in
any other branch of government.
It does not mean that the other branches of government do
not have a role to play. We do. But initially and
traditionally, if you look at Japan and Germany and elsewhere,
it is the military that has the organizational ability and the
resources to take charge of a place.
For those in the room who may be old soldiers, sailors,
airmen, or marines, there is an old general order: Take charge
of this post and all government property in view. That is what
the military does well, and that is what was done in this
instance of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Now Don Rumsfeld and I are going through the transition
period with Ambassador Bremer and I am starting to stand up a
very large mission that will take over from the CPA when
sovereignty is transferred to the Iraqi people. But we are
looking as to how we can do this better, because there has
always been not the smoothest meshing of gears in every one of
these operations I have been involved in. The Pentagon does it,
takes over quickly, and then they look around for who takes it
over from them, and we are usually doing a little too much ad
hoc-ism at that point. I think we do have to do a better job of
this.
I look forward to working with the committee on this
matter. I have to be a little careful about buying into
anything yet because I think ultimately the President has to
have the flexibility to decide what he wants the administration
to do in any particular circumstance, and to put it in as a
matter of law, this is something we should discuss at
considerable length, Mr. Chairman, and make sure we do not do
something that binds a future President.
The Chairman. Well, I would agree, but at the same time the
urgency is there. I hope and I pray that the President sees
that as you do, as we do. That is one reason for raising this
question publicly in this forum today.
Secretary Powell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I would just add one footnote and that is
that still there lies the problem of the day after, quite apart
from the turnover from the military to you. This may be an
issue that has to be addressed by our military, and perhaps by
the President again. In other words, if the forces that are
lean and mean eliminate the military elements of a Saddam
Hussein or the Taliban or whoever, who polices? Who keeps the
ministries open, the oil fields sound, the rest of the
situation in order? Maybe military police, but if so then, even
with the lean and mean fighters, there need to be a lot of
police who come in.
I am not trying to revisit the whole strategy. This is your
job and that of the President, the Secretary of Defense, and
others. But there is a gap here and we are concerned about it.
You are concerned about it. The country is concerned about it,
because it just did not work very well. In fact, there were
semi-disastrous elements in what otherwise was a remarkable
military operation.
So that we do not see repetition of this, it seems to me
that we need some confidence-building in our own public policy.
That is the purpose of raising these questions. If not you and
the State Department, who? And hopefully you are a
participant--obviously you are--in those conversations and it
would be preferable for us to try to legislate and not to get
into an argument with the administration.
The preferred course would be for the administration to
suggest a program, in which legislation may be a part, and in
which administrative adjustments could be made quickly.
I yield now to my distinguished friend Senator Biden.
Senator Biden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I cannot think of anything that this committee can do that
is of greater organizational and structural consequence than to
engage this question. You put together an incredibly impressive
bipartisan panel of experts that served in many administrations
to help us understand the needs and come up with organizational
structures to deal with it and I think it would be a
significant contribution if, working together, we were able to
deal with this in a structural way.
Let me pursue part of the chronology that the chairman
pursued about our hearings and our meetings on September 5, et
cetera. Throughout this period we were having these meetings
and these discussions and these hearings and our meetings at
the White House, and the President was available to me and to
others, ranking members, senior members, during this period, I
spent hours with him, cumulative with him, more than 5 hours,
maybe less than 10, but hours, discussing these subjects.
One of the constant--I should not say debates--
intersections of disagreement he and I had during this period
was whether or not Saddam was an imminent threat. You said in
your testimony today in stating the case why what we did was
the correct thing to do that we acted on good, solid
information. I do not doubt for a minute you acted on
information. I do not think it was good and solid. We thought
it was good and solid. I think it has proven not to be so good
and so solid.
I am not trying to quibble. I am not in any way questioning
your integrity. I believe you acted and stated what you thought
to be the facts, and they may turn out still to be the facts,
some of them.
But one of the things, I might say--and you were the only
one during this period--and I am going to ask to have submitted
to the record a cursory gleaning of the statements made by
senior administration officials about whether this was an
imminent threat. No one used the word ``imminent,'' but they
did use ``immediate,'' ``moral,'' ``urgent,'' ``grave,''
``serious and mounting,'' ``unique,'' ``there is a desire to
strike America with weapons of mass destruction now.``
I would note the only thing we could find in the record
other than the statement that Secretary Powell made at the
United Nations in February was Secretary Powell admitted,
quote, ``Iraq threatens not the United States.'' That is what
you said during--in terms of whether there was an immediate
threat. Your quote was that you admitted that Iraq threatens,
``threatens not the United States.''
Now, that was before February. Again, the reason I am
raising this is to go to this larger issue of what we knew and
what we did not know and what we prepared for and what we did
not prepare for.
I would ask unanimous consent that these statements, that I
do not suggest are dispositive or include all statements
relevant, but the ones we honestly tried to find what people
were saying at the time to characterize the threat, be
submitted for the record at this time.
The Chairman. The submission will be published in full.
[The statements referred to follows:]
IMMENINT vs. GATHERING--ADMINISTRATION STATEMENTS
Although President Bush did not use the words ``imminent threat''
directly, his spokesman did and the President and other high ranking
officials used synonymous phrases: ``immediate threat'', ``mortal
threat,'' ``urgent threat,'' ``grave threat,'' ``serious and mounting
threat,'' ``unique threat,'' and claimed that Iraq was actively seeking
to ``strike the United States with weapons of mass destruction''--all
just months after Secretary of State Colin Powell admitted that Iraq
``threatens not the United States.''
TIMELINE
March 20, 2003: The U.S. launches its first strikes against Iraq.
May 1, 2003: President Bush declares an end to major combat operations
in Iraq.
How President Bush and His Administration Described the Iraq Threat
BEFORE The War
``This is an American issue, a uniquely American issue. And it's--
as I reminded the members, that--I say uniquely American issue because
I truly believe that now that the war has changed, now that we're a
battlefield, this man poses a much graver threat than anybody could
have possibly imagined. Other countries, of course, bear the same risk.
But there's no doubt his hatred is mainly directed at us. There's no
doubt he can't stand us. After all, this is a guy that tried to kill my
dad at one time.''--President Bush in Houston, September 26, 2002.
``On its present course, the Iraqi regime is a threat of unique
urgency.''--President Bush, October 2, 2002, after reaching agreement
with House leaders on Iraq resolution.
``This is about imminent threat.''--White House spokesman Scott
McClellan, February 10, 2003.
``No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to
the security of our people and the stability of the world than the
regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.''--Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld in testimony to the House Armed Services Committee, September
19, 2002.
``Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not
imminent--that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear
weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned
about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these
weapons.''--Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, September 18, 2002.
``There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands
alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one
place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or
chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists.''--
President Bush, October 7, 2002.
``There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat
to America in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein.''--President Bush,
October 28, 2002.
``I see a significant threat to the security of the United States
in Iraq.''--President Bush, November 1, 2002.
``The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace.''--
President Bush, October 16, 2002.
``The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency.''--President
Bush, October 2, 2002.
``There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is.''--President Bush,
October 2, 2002.
``The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion:
Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest
otherwise is to hope against the evidence.''--President Bush, September
12, 2002, speaking at the United Nations.
``Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq
poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of
the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its
neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the
international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq
and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both
pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has
demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States
and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction.''--
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, January 20, 2003.
``He's a threat that we must deal with as quickly as possible.''--
President Bush, September 13, 2002, remarks to press.
``In the attacks on America a year ago, we saw the destructive
intentions of our enemies. This threat hides within many nations,
including my own. In cells and camps, terrorists are plotting further
destruction, and building new bases for their war against civilization.
And our greatest fear is that terrorists will find a shortcut to their
mad ambitions when an outlaw regime supplies them with the technologies
to kill on a massive scale . . .
The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the
United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of
U.N. demands with a decade of defiance.''--President Bush before the UN
on September 12, 2002.
Iraq is ``a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to
our allies.''--Vice President Dick Cheney, January 31, 2003.
``Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His
regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several
different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered
seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa.''--Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld, January 29, 2003.
``Well, of course he is.''--White House Communications Director Dan
Bartlett responding to the question ``is Saddam an imminent threat to
U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right
here at home?'' January 26, 2003.
``The danger is already significant and it only grows worse with
time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today--and we
do--does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he
grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?''--
President Bush, September 7, 2002, speech in Cincinnati.
``The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat
posed by Iraq, whose dictator has already used weapons of mass
destruction to kill thousands.''--President Bush, November 23, 2002,
radio address.
``The gravity of this moment is matched by the gravity of the
threat that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction pose to the world. Let
me now turn to those deadly weapons programs and describe why they are
real and present dangers to the region and to the world.''--Secretary
of State Colin Powell, February 5, 2003, at United Nations.
Iraq was ``the most dangerous threat of our time.''--White House
spokesman Scott McClellan, July 17, 2003.
``I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before
September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took
place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months
before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack
on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself
forward a year, two years or a week or a month . . . So the question
is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?''--
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, November 14, 2002.
``Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical
and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive
nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of
inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein
can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must
not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful
thinking or to willful blindness.''--Vice President Dick Cheney, August
29, 2002 speaking to veterans of the Korean War in San Antonio, Texas.
``The message I plan to give all the leaders I speak to and to the
Arab public is that the cause of this problem that we have is in
Baghdad. It is Saddam Hussein who refuses to abandon his pursuit of
weapons of mass destruction. The United Nations has an obligation and,
as part of the United Nations, the United States has an obligation to
do everything we can to cause him to come into compliance with the
agreements he made at the end of the Gulf War. He threatens not the
United States. He threatens this region. He threatens Arab people. He
threatens the children of Egypt, the children of Saudi Arabia, the
children of Kuwait with these weapons. He has used them before, so I
think we all have a solemn obligation to keep him in check.''--
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell at press briefing in Cairo, Egypt on
February 24, 2001.
Senator Biden. Now, again the reason I raise this is in
discussions during this period with the President the question
was twofold always: one, not whether Saddam was a bad guy. I
voted for this resolution. I think the resolution that Dick and
I put together was a much more sound and substantive and
rational way to approach this, but that is obviously, we
authored it so we think it is better.
But, having said that, I nonetheless voted for the
resolution because I thought it was very important you have the
power to go and negotiate at the United Nations knowing that
you could say: The Congress is behind us; if you do not move
with us, we may have to move ourselves.
Now, but during this period in my discussions with the
President it always was, my discussion, how immediate this
threat was, how urgent this threat was, how much time we had to
wait, how much time could we wait, how much time did we have to
build a coalition, how much more time were you to be given in
your effort to build a coalition? That is the place where I
found myself always at odds with the President's point of view.
Now, here we are at a time when things are better than they
were several months ago, in my view, but at a critical point
about what we do now, what we do now in terms of the November
agreement we made and in face of the comments and insistence by
Sistani, Grand Ayatollah Sistani, that there be immediate, full
and popular elections, which you and I both know is not
possible. I mean, even if we agreed to it there is not the
voter rolls, there is not the mechanism, there is not the
means.
You have asked Secretary Annan to play a significant role
in Iraq by trying to mediate a resolution to the political
standoff with Sistani and others. As you have pointed out,
Brahimi is meeting today or has met and will be soon reporting.
Is there in your view any possibility of the Secretary
General staking out a strong and definitive proposal for a U.N.
role in Iraq absent his knowledge, foregone knowledge, that you
have worked out with the Perm Five what we would all be willing
to do? I kind of see this as putting the cart before the horse.
We definitely want the U.N. and Kofi and Brahimi to negotiate
this. I am not speaking about any conversation I have had with
Annan, but my impression is, speaking with U.N. officials, is
that they are not at all sure whether they are willing to take
a strong stand and what to recommend, absent knowing that at
least the Perm Five in the Security Council are all on the same
page.
Am I missing something here?
Secretary Powell. I have had many conversations with the
Secretary General and with Mr. Brahimi and the President has
met with the Secretary General on this subject as well. The
Secretary General's role right now and Mr. Brahimi's work is
for the purpose of assessing the situation and coming back with
advice to the Secretary General and through the Secretary
General to the rest of us as to what might be possible with
respect to elections and what might be possible with respect to
the political process in general.
I do not think that Ayatollah Sistani has insisted on
immediate elections.
Senator Biden. No, he has not.
Secretary Powell. He said elections, and who can argue
against elections? But what is possible in the immediate future
with respect to putting an election together? We are anxious to
hear what Mr. Brahimi and the Secretary General will have to
say about that. I would not want to prejudge the outcome of Mr.
Brahimi's mission. He will be back soon enough and then we can
make a judgment.
What I said to the Secretary General in our conversations
is that: I think you have a vital role to play. You have a role
to play now before sovereignty is transferred, in helping us
understand what is possible, what can get all of the Iraqis
together behind a particular approach. And you have an even
more important role to play after sovereignty is transferred,
when I think the U.N. will be required to be there in
considerable strength, with considerable authority, to help
write the final constitution and to help organize full
elections throughout the whole country for a totally
representative national assembly, and from that national
assembly to come up with a government, an executive branch that
will be representative of the people's wishes.
So I see it in two phases: the current phase, where the
U.N. is engaging again and will provide us advice based on
their experience and based on the work of Ambassador Brahimi;
and when we get to the transfer of sovereignty, then the U.N.
will have an even more important role to play.
I think that the current Resolution 1511 is adequate for
the moment; no need for another U.N. resolution. But once we
reach that point where sovereignty is transferred, it might be
quite appropriate at that time to have a U.N. resolution that
captures the situation at that moment and gives the Secretary
General whatever additional authority or instructions the
Secretary General believes he needs to carry out the work with
the new transitional government of Iraq.
I think at that point it will not be a difficult task to
get not only the Perm Five behind such a resolution, but to get
the whole Security Council behind such a resolution. The last
three resolutions on Iraq dealing with the situation we are in
now were all passed unanimously by the Security Council.
Senator Biden. If I may, Mr. Chairman, just follow this up
and then I will cede.
I do not doubt what you just said. My problem with it is
this: Since all the parties--and you have been talking with the
parties; I have not talked with all the parties. I talked with
the Kurdish leadership. I have had a chance to meet with some,
Shia leadership and not any Sunni leadership, quite frankly.
What I think is happening is we are in the mean time
supposed to--they are in the mean time supposed to come up with
this interim law. Everyone, without knowing what is going to
follow on to Bremer, is laying down their absolute demands. The
Kurds think we made a deal on federalism. The Shia are
insisting on popular elections. The Sunnis have a different
deal.
I really think we are making a mistake, for what it is
worth, not having these discussions with the Perm Five now as
to what specifically the follow-on entity to Bremer will be, so
that the parties who are now negotiating, from their
perspective, the best deal they can get into the initial piece
of legislation that is going to be the basis upon defining the
future country, where they will not have to figure they have to
play their hole card all the way through. I think we are making
a mistake, just for the record, of not having these
negotiations privately with our Security Council friends now
about what that entity will be--in no way undercutting the
President's position that Bremer stays in charge until
sovereignty is turned over, in no way embarrassing the
administration for a change of position or anyone else.
But it just seems to me that, absent that, you may find the
three major entities in Iraq so committed to extreme positions
that we end up in a circumstance not being able to put this
puzzle together. But that is just one man's view and I will
come back to that. That is the reason I asked the question.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Biden.
Senator Chafee.
Senator Chafee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Mr. Secretary. I think Senator Biden's line of
questioning was good, but I do want to change tacks a little
bit. I will just say on the whole discussion of weapons of mass
destruction there are 23 of us in the Senate that did not think
there was an immediate threat, and I even went so far as to say
a year ago: I do not think we are going to find any weapons of
mass destruction. I just did not see the proof. We wanted to
see real hard cold proof. I never saw that.
But what I would like to ask is that--at the end of last
year the Bush administration commissioned a study of the Arab
Muslim world, the Derijian study, and they traveled extensively
throughout the world and issued their report: ``Changing Minds
and Winning the Peace.'' I do not think there is any doubt
that, with foreign fighters coming into Iraq, that the problem
extends beyond just Iraq and goes throughout the Muslim world.
What Mr. Derijian and his people said as they issued the
report is that: ``Hostility toward America has reached shocking
levels.'' They also said: ``Large majorities in the Arab Muslim
world view U.S. policy through the prism of the Arab-Israeli
conflict.'' Now, you might argue with that, but that is what
their study said. Whether that is right or wrong, that is what
their study said, the Bush administration's own study.
In the President's hour-long State of the Union, he did not
mention once, not one syllable, of the Arab-Israeli conflict,
and here today in your statement you did not mention that
either, although you did run down, of course, Iraq,
Afghanistan, Korea, Libya, Sudan, Liberia, and other
countries--not one mention of what is happening between the
Palestinians and the Israelis.
You might deduce from the Derijian report that our success
in Iraq depends on at least some progress, not necessarily
significant, but some effort, of which I do not think there is
any visible display of that, not even any effort, not a mention
in the State of the Union, not a mention here.
So my question, Mr. Secretary: Can you tell me what we are
doing, just straight facts? Shoot straight with the committee,
Mr. Secretary. What are we doing on this conflict?
Secretary Powell. Well, first of all on the Derijian
report. We appreciate the work of Ambassador Derijian and his
team and we are taking the report to heart and doing whatever
we can to fix our public diplomacy and outreach efforts to deal
with the problems that he saw.
With respect to the conflict, we are doing a great deal. We
are in touch with both of the parties. We are following closely
Mr. Sharon's proposals of recent weeks about evacuating the
settlements in Gaza. What we have said to the Israelis: That is
interesting; we want the settlements closed, but we want to
know exactly how that is going to be done and where will those
settlers go and how does it affect settlement activity in the
West Bank. We have to understand the total picture.
We have been pressing and I spent a good part of yesterday
pressing the Palestinian side, through the various Foreign
Ministers that I spoke to yesterday, to come forward with a
security plan to start taking action against terrorists in a
very significant and decisive way. Only when that happens, only
when Prime Minister Abu Ala can wrest more control away from
Chairman Arafat, will the security forces that are in the
Palestinian community, in the Palestinian Authority, and direct
them against these terrorist organizations, not to start a
civil war tomorrow morning, but to go after these terrorist
organizations. Unless that is done, we are going to be
frustrated in seeing the two sides start to march together down
the road map.
The Israelis are now making some unilateral moves. We do
not want to see a solution that is so unilateral that it does
not really provide the kind of stability that we are looking
for. But the Palestinians must move and we made that clear to
them.
Two weeks ago, Ambassador Wolf, who is in charge of our
monitoring group, was sent out to talk to the parties. We will
have another team going out within the next week or so to
followup on some of the ideas that Prime Minister Sharon has
put forward to make sure we understand them and how we can use
those ideas and hopefully movement on the Palestinian side on
security to get this process moving.
We also have been in touch with our European Union
colleagues. I spoke to the Foreign Minister of Ireland
yesterday, who is the current President of the European Union.
He met with the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority to
convey the same kind of message to him.
So even though it was not highlighted in the State of the
Union Address and not in my shorthand presentation this
morning, I can assure you that it is a matter of utmost urgency
for us, because we fully understand that this conflict between
the Palestinians and the Israelis is the source of a great deal
of the anti-American feelings that exist in that part of the
world and does affect what we are doing in Iraq and that part
of the world.
I would do anything to find a magic bullet to solve this
one. But the problem is the same problem that has been there
for the 3 years that I have been working this account, and that
is terrorism, terrorism that still emanates from Hamas,
Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and other organizations that are not
interested in peace, not interested in a state for the
Palestinian people. They are interested in the destruction of
Israel.
Until the Palestinian leadership and Authority says no,
stop, will not happen, we are not going to tolerate it and we
are going to go after those organizations that feel that way,
it will be difficult to get the kind of progress we need moving
down the road map. The road map is still in place, still
supported by the President. We are ready to act on it.
The immediate goal that I have is to get Prime Minister
Sharon to meet with Prime Minister Abu Ala. Contacts are taking
place and we are working that, and I hope that that meeting
will happen soon and that may give us a basis to engage more
fully if the two sides will begin to engage one another.
Senator Chafee. How would you comment on extraneous
initiatives that are taking place, the Geneva Accords, that
seem to be--that seem to exist because of the leadership vacuum
that many accuse this administration of having?
Secretary Powell. The Geneva Accord, as it is called, the
proposal that was put forward, really is consistent with the
third phase of the road map. It is a way to move through the
third phase of the road map, and so I was quite pleased to
receive the authors of that in my office and talk to them about
it. But it is not an alternative to the road map.
There was a bit of a controversy when I decided to receive
those individuals and the other individuals who put forward
another idea. But we are open to all ideas. No reason we should
not listen to the various ideas out there to see how they might
complement the road map.
Senator Chafee. Do you think that in the end we are going
to end up where Geneva suggests we end up?
Secretary Powell. There are many approaches to getting to a
final solution. There are many ideas out there as to what one
does with Jerusalem, many ideas with respect to what a
Palestinian state might look like living side by side in peace
with Israel. So the Geneva authors had one idea. There are many
other ideas out there.
But what we have to do is get started down phase one of the
road map, and that begins with ending terror. Once you end
terror and once you get the parties moving forward, then there
are all sorts of ideas for phase twos and phase threes, phase
two and phase three, to bring into being a Palestinian state
with interim features associated with it and then ultimately to
get to a final Palestinian state living in peace side by side
with Israel.
My focus is on getting this started, and if we can get into
phase three there are lots of ways to look at phase three
solutions. But we have got to get started with phase one.
Senator Chafee. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I will just say
that I could not agree with you more and condemn and deplore
the suicide attacks. However, you might argue that ever since
Cain killed Abel there are going to be criminals and to suggest
that until these suicide attacks are ceased we cannot engage
ourselves I just think is unrealistic. There are always going
to be criminals, unfortunately.
Secretary Powell. I agree, there will always be somebody,
no matter what the Palestinian side does, there will always be
somebody who will want to come forward and try to blow it all
up with a suicide attack. But what we are not yet seeing is
determined effort on the part of the Palestinian Authority,
with the security forces available to them, to go after these
perpetrators in a systemic, definitive way.
I put the blame squarely on Chairman Arafat for his
unwillingness to speak out, use the moral authority as a leader
that everybody says he has, not just to occasionally give a
statement condemning this, not only to condemn this kind of
activity, but take action against those organizations that he
knows are committing these acts. If he would show that kind of
effort and that kind of commitment, then we could stand the
occasional attack that takes place because we know that the
Palestinians have become a partner in going after the
perpetrators of these attacks.
We have not seen that yet and that is what is frustrating
this effort.
Senator Chafee. If I could just take one more second, Mr.
Chairman?
The Chairman. Just one more.
Senator Chafee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
From the other side, they would certainly say: How about
the route, not the existence of the barrier, the route of the
barrier, the holding of prisoners without charges, and of
course the existence of the settlements? Those are the big
issues----
Secretary Powell. They are the big issues.
Senator Chafee [continuing]. That they would say we are not
addressing.
Secretary Powell. Those are issues that have to be dealt
with. Settlements, detentions, the fence, all of these are
problems. We know how to talk about and deal with these
problems with the Israeli side and we know the frustration it
causes for the Palestinian people. But we cannot allow these
problems to serve as an excuse for suicide attacks or the use
of terror to try to find a solution.
Senator Chafee. I agree with that.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Chafee.
A rollcall vote is proceeding on the Senate floor. Senator
Feingold has been patient and if it is your preference,
Senator, we will proceed with your questioning. Members may
feel free to go to the floor while Senator Feingold is
questioning. We will try to return to hear his questions.
But the committee will recess at the end of your period if
we are not back. I hope the members will come back because we
still have the Law of the Sea ahead of us in addition to
Secretary Powell.
Please proceed, Senator Feingold.
Senator Feingold. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you very
much, Mr. Chairman, Secretary Powell.
Let me first commend the administration and the Government
of Great Britain for the careful diplomatic efforts that have
resulted in a significantly less threatening Libya than we have
known in recent times. The Libyan Government's abandonment of
weapons of mass destruction programs and their willingness to
submit to verification are obviously tremendously positive
developments.
But as we reconsider the nature of our relationship with
Libya, I am concerned that we not overlook Libya and its
history of destabilizing activities, particularly in sub-
Saharan Africa. Do you believe that the era in which these
activities were the norm has come to an end and what evidence
supports such a conclusion?
Secretary Powell. It has not yet come to an end. Libya over
the years has shifted its attention and focus to different
parts of Africa. When it sort of fails in one part of Africa,
it sort of pops up somewhere else fomenting difficulty.
As part of our political approach to Libya, we have made
sure that one of the agenda items to be discussed is their
activities in Africa, which must cease to be destabilizing,
cease to fund despotic regimes, and cease to cause trouble. We
have had a real breakthrough with Libya over this weapons of
mass destruction issue, but we are not unmindful of the nature
of that regime still and we are not unmindful of some of the
unhelpful activities they have participated in over the years,
to include unhelpful activities in all parts of Africa.
Senator Feingold. I appreciate that answer, especially
since I have watched some of this with regard to Zimbabwe and
Sierra Leone and Liberia and the like.
Secretary Powell. Yes.
Senator Feingold. Mr. Secretary, we have all been told to
prepare for another supplemental request relating to Iraq some
time after the election. I have made my views very clear on the
wisdom of financing foreseeable expenses through off-the-books
emergency supplementals that treat these needs as if they come
as some sort of surprise.
But I want to ask you if we should also anticipate a
supplemental request for Sudan if the administration's laudable
peace initiative comes to fruition. I see that this budget
request includes significant increases for Sudan, but I wonder
if this will be sufficient if a peace agreement is achieved.
What about the potential peacekeeping effort in Sudan that we
have heard about? How will that be paid for? I certainly hope
that the answer is not that other existing African accounts
will be squeezed to find those resources.
Secretary Powell. I hope I am faced with the problem of
finding money for peacekeeping activities in the Sudan and in
Cote d'Ivoire and other places all at the same time, because we
need peace in those regions of the world. But there was just so
much we were able to budget for with the knowledge that we have
now about the demands that are going to be placed on us.
Liberia, $200 million in the last supplemental, $245 million
for U.N. peacekeeping activities.
If Sudan goes the way I hope it goes and we do find a
comprehensive peace agreement before us, this might require 8
to 10,000 United Nations monitors, and not all of that is
programmed for and we would have to consider how to generate
additional resources for it. I do not know when we would need
those resources. But I would not want to find those resources
in other parts of my African accounts, because they all are
needed. We need more overall.
Whether this will result in an 2005 supplemental, there are
no plans right now for a second supplemental for 2004 or how it
will be dealt with, I cannot answer at the moment. I do not
have the requirement at the moment, either.
Senator Feingold. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I will ask one
more before we recess.
What can you tell me about the administration's plans to
engage the people of Somalia in the year ahead? I see that the
child survival request includes nothing for Somalia this year
and the development assistance request represents roughly a 65
percent decrease from the requested fiscal year 2003 level.
I do of course applaud the administration's East African
counterterrorism initiative, but that initiative recognizes
that there are real threats in Somalia, and we know that some
of the most troubling actors on the international scene are the
only ones involved in providing basic services to some people
in parts of Somalia, such that parents can send children to an
extremist school or to no school at all.
Should not our strategy include a Somalia component, rather
than just focusing on states around Somalia?
Secretary Powell. Senator, I would have to go into the
accounts to see what the change has been over time. I do not
have that immediately at hand.
Somalia has been a political basket case for many years. We
have seen a little progress recently and hopefully we are now
starting to put in place a government that we can work with and
an ability to deliver assistance in a comprehensive way, with
certain knowledge that it will be used properly. But I would
prefer to give you an answer for the record as to what the
trend has been.
[The following response was subsequently received:]
U.S. Department of State,
Washington, DC, March 1, 2004.
The Honorable Russell Feingold,
United States Senate.
Dear Senator Feingold:
I am writing in response to your question to Secretary Powell on
February 12, 2004 regarding funding levels and political engagement in
Somalia.
United States policy objectives in Somalia are reducing the threat
of Somalia-based terrorism and establishing stable, representative
governance acceptable to the Somali people. United States assistance to
Somalia, including Somaliland, has largely consisted of humanitarian
aid, including food. In 2003, the United States provided: approximately
$4 million in child survival and health (CSH), development assistance
(DA) and demining funding; $1.25 million in Economic Support Funds
(ESF) for education and democracy and governance programs; and $19.2
million in P.L.-480, Title II food aid. FY 2004 estimates include about
$1 million in CSH and DA and $10 million in P.L.-480 Title II
assistance. The FY 2005 request includes about $1 million in DA, and no
funding for CSH or demining funding. P.L.-480 Title II emergency food
aid is not planned or budgeted by country in advance of the current
Fiscal Year. Food for Peace (FFP) figures are based upon the assessment
of the severity of food insecurity and the corresponding levels of
need, and as a result, P.L.-480 Title II assistance for Somalia is
expected to continue at present levels.
Our capacity to engage Somalia has been limited since 1991 as a
result of the lack of stability and accepted governance institutions in
Somalia, including Somaliland. To advance the goal of increased
stability and governance in Somalia, the United States provided
$250,000 in financial support to the Somalia reconciliation conference
that began in Kenya in October 2002. The conference involves Somali
entities in southern Somalia, but not Somaliland in the northwest,
which has chosen not to participate in the reconciliation process.
Although the reconciliation conference has often been delayed by
factional feuds, semi-breakdowns and administrative problems,
participants in the conference recently reached an agreement regarding
the structure of a future central Somali government. We continue to
support the Somali reconciliation process and encourage participants to
continue their efforts towards resolving their remaining differences.
The Department of State continues to evaluate appropriate means for
further engagement with Somalia, including Somaliland, recognizing that
our ability to engage is limited by security concerns and the absence
of internationally accepted governance. The Department of State
believes that funding levels for FY 2004 and requested amounts for FY
2005 are adequate to support country programs at the present engagement
level, which we are carrying out through non-governmental organizations
throughout the country. At current levels, assistance programs for
Somalia are alleviating suffering and promoting stability while helping
Somalis develop a more self-sufficient population as they address
peace, transition and development problems.
We hope to continue working closely with Somali participants,
regional actors and our international partners to resolve remaining
issues and towards a peaceful solution to the Somali conflict.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can be of further
assistance.
Sincerely,
Paul V. Kelly,
Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs.
Senator Feingold. Mr. Secretary, I look forward to
following up with you on that.
The committee will stand in recess.
[Recess.]
[The prepared statement of Senator Feingold follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Russell D. Feingold
I want to thank Chairman Lugar and Senator Biden for their
continuing active and energized leadership on this committee. And of
course I want to thank Secretary Powell for being here today. It is
always a pleasure to have the Secretary before the committee. My
constituents and I have great respect and admiration for his long
record of service to this country.
I hold listening sessions in each of Wisconsin's 72 counties every
year. These meetings give me an opportunity to hear from my
constituents about what is on their minds, about their priorities and
their ideas. More than ever before, I am hearing from my constituents
about international affairs. The people of Wisconsin are concerned
about our national security, as am I. They are committed, as am I, to
our first national security priority, the fight against terrorism. They
are concerned, as am I, about the situation in which we find ourselves
in Iraq. And the people of Wisconsin are concerned about what some have
called our soft power--our nation's stature and our power to persuade
and inspire--which is a source of tremendous pride for many Americans.
It is a part of our identity. And when they believe that this element
of our national power is diminished, my constituents are dismayed, as
am I.
And so in the year ahead, we must remain clearly focused on
combating the forces that attacked this country on September 11, 2001.
This means nurturing relationships around the world to ensure that
critical intelligence-sharing and coordination are sustained and
strengthened. It means cutting off terrorists' access to financing and
helping to bring order to weak and chaotic states where international
criminals thrive. And it means resisting the temptation to conflate
this issue with others for the sake of political convenience. And we
must resist deluding ourselves into believing that even the best
possible outcome in Iraq will somehow magically transform the Middle
East or the entire Muslim world.
At the same time, I believe that we must ensure that our country is
not associated--mistakenly, but unfortunately widely--with intolerance
or bullying or hypocrisy around the world. We must continue to support
those working to enhance respect for human rights and the rule of law,
we must empower those working to combat corruption, we must assist
those responsibly working to address the crushing poverty and
devastating health crises that cloud the future of far too many around
the world.
I look forward to hearing more from the Secretary today, and to
working with my colleagues and the administration on these issues in
the year ahead.
The Chairman. The meeting is called to order again and the
Chair recognizes Senator Voinovich for his questions of
Secretary Powell.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I want to say thank you very much for your
service to our country. I am very happy that you are continuing
to, with all the other things on your plate, pay attention to
the management of the State Department. From what I am getting
back from the people in the Department, you are doing an
outstanding job. They have never been happier because you have
been paying attention to your internal customers so they can
take care of their external customers.
Now, the issue of Iraq. I would hope that as often as
possible you can get on national media and explain what we are
doing over there. I really think that we are not underscoring
enough to the American people the importance of democratizing
Iraq and the greater Middle East to the national security of
the United States and peace in the world. I like to put it that
we want those millions of Muslims chanting ``freedom and
democracy'' and not ``jihad'' against the United States and
against the world.
That being said, as you know, I am very interested in
southeast Europe. I am interested in terror, and in organized
crime and corruption, which I think in that part of the world
is a greater threat than terrorism, and last but not least, I
am spending a lot of time on trying to do what we can to give a
higher profile to the issue of anti-Semitism that is growing in
the world today, which is of grave concern to me and I know to
you.
In terms of southeast Europe, we put a lot of money there.
It is very fragile yet. We still do not know, for example, if
we are going to have a government in Serbia-Montenegro. Things
are a little bit unstable in Macedonia. And Kosovo--and this is
kind of important because UNMIK, a U.N. operation, has been
there for 5 years and from the information that I have gotten
back from the OSCE and from the U.N. High Commission on Human
Rights, the resolution has not been implemented.
I met with Michael Steiner, 2 years ago and said: You set
these benchmark goals, but how are you going to implement those
goals? It is 2 years later and now they are starting to put
some specificity to them. I would really like to know what the
State Department is doing to see if we cannot get some action
there, because I think if we do not get on it we could have a
destabilized southeast Europe, with Kosovo perhaps being the
match that will ignite it.
Also, the USAID over there has been cut back some $211
million in the SEED account since FY 2002 and I think we still
need to put some more money into that area if we expect to be
successful.
Could you respond?
Secretary Powell. Thank you very much, Senator Voinovich.
We follow events in southeast Europe very closely. I met with
Prime Minister Rexhepi of Kosovo recently and discussed with
him the importance of sticking to the plan that has been put
forward on meeting the standards by early 2005 before trying to
go any faster than the traffic will bear.
I will have to look at the specific dollar amounts that
have been allocated to USAID. It is always a matter, as you
know, Senator, of trying to balance across a large number of
countries with finite resources.
With respect to anti-Semitism----
Senator Voinovich. Pardon me. It is not $21 million. It is
$211 million.
Secretary Powell. I am sorry. It is a difference.
And with respect to anti-Semitism, it is an issue that I
have discussed with my European Union colleagues quite a bit.
As you know, we have been participating actively in the anti-
Semitism conferences that the OSCE has been sponsoring. Mayor
Rudy Giuliani represented us last year and we are putting
together another strong, high-power delegation to represent our
interests at the conference this coming spring, the end of
March.
We pledged, with respect to our efforts in Kosovo and other
parts of the Balkans, that we would go in together and out
together with our allies. That remains our policy. When we took
office we had some 10,000 U.S. troops in the region. We are now
moving down to about 3,300. In Kosovo the success is that Serb
forces no longer threaten the ethnic populace, institutions of
limited self-government are functioning.
More work remains to be done. We and our allies, as you
know, together with the U.N. have launched a process to help
Kosovo achieve the eight international standards in democratic
governance and inter-ethnic reconciliation that are needed to
benefit the people, and hopefully they will do that----
Senator Voinovich. Mr. Secretary, I would like to say that
the benchmark standards were set 2 years ago and since that
time we are now talking about having groups that are going to
look at how do you specifically achieve those eight goals. I
know you told Rexhepi, the Prime Minister, that our policy now
is standards and not status.
Secretary Powell. Right.
Senator Voinovich. But there is no way, no way, when you
look at the report from the U.N. High Commission on Refugees,
that they are going to ever have a chance of being at a place
where you look at granting status next July, because they are
so far behind in terms of achieving the goals that have been
set.
I am really concerned that it is not getting the attention
it needs. I tried to get somebody from the U.S. to head up that
operation because I figured that was the only way that we could
maybe get something happening there. But it is not getting
done. Every time it gets to a point where there is a little
tension, we back off from them.
I think that some of them feel that it is inevitable and
they are going to do what they can. I mean, there are less
people coming back into the country than are leaving. There is
an attempt to just cleanse the whole place from anybody else
but the Kosovar. They continue to destroy churches and
monasteries. People have no freedom of movement.
It is very, very bad, and I think somebody in your shop
should really get on that and really ride it, get in the saddle
and ride it hard, or it may just get out from under us.
Secretary Powell. Thank you, Senator. I think we have been
following it and riding it hard. But let me go back and review
the whole policy. We believe that the way we have come together
on the standards before status solution was the way to move
forward. But in light of what you have just said, I need to
review that again to see whether or not we are right or wrong
on this and whether or not there is not time enough to achieve
the standards by next year.
You say there is not and they will not be achieved, and if
that is the case then we have to be looking at other
alternatives. So I need the time to go review that.
Senator Voinovich. I really would appreciate your doing
that. So often, it is the revolving door. For example, the KFOR
over there, every 6 months they change command. It is like
dotting the i's and crossing the t's and just staying with it
and staying with it to get something done, and I do not think
we have made that kind of commitment there.
I would like to get a response from you about what it is
that you see and maybe how you can improve the situation.
I would be interested also in the issue of USAID in terms
of the money that is being spent there and why has it been
reallocated to someplace else when I think we continue to need
the money in that area.
Secretary Powell. The data my staff has just given me says
that in FY 2005 it is $72 million and in FY 2004 it was $72.5
million. But let me get the exact figures and provide them to
you for the record, Senator.
[The following response was subsequently received:]
U.S. Department of State,
Washington, DC, March 3, 2004.
The Honorable George V. Voinovich,
United States Senate.
Dear Senator Voinovich:
During Secretary Powell's February 12 testimony before the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee, you raised concerns about assistance
funding levels for Southeast Europe, particularly Kosovo.
The United States provides assistance to Southeast Europe primarily
under the Support for East European Democracy (SEED) Act. For Kosovo,
our assistance focuses on democratization, rights for and integration
of minorities, and market economic reforms and law enforcement
assistance to help establish a secure environment--all of which are
embodied in the ``Standards for Kosovo'' document that the United
Nations Security Council endorsed last December.
Overall SEED assistance totaled $621 million in FY 2002 and, as you
noted, our FY 2005 budget request is $410 million, a decline of $211
million. As you also noted during the hearing, the FY 2005 request for
Kosovo is $72 million, compared to nearly $79 million in the current
year. As the region has progressed in building stability and advanced
in Euro-Atlantic integration, we have been able to reduce our
appropriation requests accordingly. In Kosovo, the decline is primarily
due to the reduction in the numbers of police that we provide to the
UNMIK International Police force. As UNMIK gradually transfers more
police responsibilities to the local Kosovo Police Service (KPS), we
have been asked to contribute fewer U.S. police officers. The
proportion and levels of development assistance, implemented by USAID,
have remained relatively stable.
Thank you for your support for the Administration's commitment to
peace and stability in Kosovo and the wider region. U.S. assistance and
leadership are key to establishing and maintaining security, promoting
inter-ethnic dialogue, addressing humanitarian needs and strengthening
democratic forces both in Kosovo and the wider region. Please let us
know if we may be of further assistance in any way.
Sincerely,
Paul V. Kelly,
Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs.
Senator Voinovich. The last thing is in terms of the anti-
Semitism. I applaud what you have done. I applaud what Marc
Grossman has done. But we are going to have this meeting in
Berlin this year and I would hope that we get into some
specificity of what the OSCE is going to be doing, that we are
going to really monitor what those countries are doing, and
that we hold their feet to the fire, so that this issue just is
not talked about and that we get some action, because I am
afraid that if we do not stay on top of this it is going to get
away from us, and God help us if that happens.
Secretary Powell. We will stay on top of it, Senator. It is
a major issue, and I am pleased that more and more of my
European colleagues, rather than just saying it is not a
problem, realize it is a problem and do participate rather
fully and extensively in the OSCE process of conferences. But
the conference in and of itself is not enough; it has to have
an action plan coming out of the conference.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Voinovich.
Senator Boxer.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, welcome. It is good to see you back so
strongly and your same feisty self. I am happy to see that.
I want to say that I also thank you for conveying the
spirit to your employees that public service matters and that
it is an honor really to serve in public life, whether you are
appointed in the Cabinet or working as a Federal employee
making lives better for our people or being elected as we are.
What a great honor it is for all of us.
But I want to say that our credibility is so important in
public service, because when we lose our credibility we really
take a hit. So I do worry about our credibility in a number of
areas, and I am going to run through that with you.
Mr. Secretary, we all make mistakes. We are all human. Not
to make mistakes is not to be human. So this has nothing to do
with the fact that we have made mistakes, and I have made
mistakes and you have and we all will. But the question is how
do we respond when those mistakes are learned. That is what I
really want to talk about.
In your testimony you say the top priority is winning the
war against terrorism. I am glad because I think that should
have been the top priority for a long time since 9-11. Some of
us believe, and others disagree, that we got a bit diverted
from that. But one of the things that worries me about our
credibility is that--the first thing you said after in your
oral testimony was the top priority is the war on terror, that
is why winning in Iraq is so important, it is about the war on
terror, and the President says that Iraq is the heart and soul
of the war on terror.
But here is the point. There is no question in my mind--and
I have been briefed privately as part of this committee and
also there is no secret here--that terrorists are moving into
Iraq. What is wrong with, I think, some of the statements I
believe that you have made even here today is that the
impression is that the terrorists were already in Iraq before
we went in.
I want to say for the record, I want to put in--I ask
unanimous consent--a page from a publication that is actually
signed by George Bush right after 9-11, a month after, a list
of the countries where al-Qaeda operated. This is, mind you,
right after 9-11, and it lists 45 countries and Iraq is not in
here.
[The information referred to follows:]
Albania, Algeria, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Australia, Austria,
Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bosnia, Egypt, Eritrea, France, Germany,
India, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jordan, Kenya, Kosovo, Lebanon, Libya,
Malaysia, Mauritania, Netherlands, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar,
Russia, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Switzerland,
Tajikistan, Tanzania, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates,
United Kingdom, United States, Uzbekistan, and Yemen.
Senator Boxer. So we all know now that it is the Baathists
who want back in power, it is the fundamentalists who want in
power, and it is the terrorists who have moved in to fill a
void. I just would hope that, instead of trying to rewrite
history, we remember what history was in the words of our own
President in this document, and in clear language al-Qaeda was
not there.
Now they are moving into a void. We got rid of a heinous
terrorist, which we are all happy he is gone or at least he is
not in power, glad. And we now have what the terrorists hope to
be a haven and because of the bravery of so many people is
turning into a fight.
But I think it is just important not to be loose with the
facts. I think it hurts us worldwide, if you read some of the
comments being made about us worldwide from our friends who
love us just saying that they do not know what they can trust
and who they can believe.
For me, as someone who believed there were WMD there, which
is why I voted for the Levin resolution to keep up the
inspections, I never believed it was an imminent threat, I
believed it was a long-term threat. I got the same briefings as
everyone else. Some of us felt it was a long-term threat and we
voted to continue inspections and keep our eye on Saddam and
hopefully grab him and bring him before a tribunal for war
crimes.
But the point is, that is past history. I think now what we
hopefully have learned is that, since he was not an imminent
threat, we would have had more time to build a coalition. At
this point my understanding is we have picked up more than 90
percent of the costs of the war itself. That is a huge burden
on our people, and the deaths keep on flowing. So I think being
very cautious with the facts are important.
I want to ask you a question. When you were here the last
time you and I got into a give and take, as we normally do, and
I asked you at that time--it was right after Iraq--if you felt
we were going to find the WMD and you said absolutely we were
going to find them. To give you your words back, you said on
this date, and the date was April 29, 2003: ``Thank you very
much, Senator Boxer. Thank you. On the first question of WMD,
they will be found. The presentation I made before the U.N. on
the 5th of February was at the end of 4 straight days of living
with the entire intelligence community, in going over every
single thing we knew. Every day, every night leading up to the
5th of February, I was closeted with our very best experts, and
what I presented on that day was information that was all-
sourced and that had other backup to it and not just what you
saw in the presentation. Everything we had there had backup and
double sourcing and triple sourcing.''
Well, I want to know today if you could please tell us--you
said you had three sources, your original source, your double,
and your triple--who were these sources that were giving you
this information which turned out to be incorrect?
Secretary Powell. It is not entirely clear that it is all
incorrect.
Senator Boxer. Well, OK. Who were the sources that gave you
the information?
Secretary Powell. The sources were the sources of the
Central Intelligence Agency and I cannot name all of their
sources, nor would I in an open session, Senator.
Senator Boxer. No, CIA is enough. That is one source.
Secretary Powell. That is the source. I mean, it is the
Director of Central Intelligence who has the responsibility----
Senator Boxer. So what did you mean by ``double sourcing''
and ``triple sourcing''?
Secretary Powell. I meant--well, let me give you one
example, without blowing anything. On one of the items I
presented to the U.N. on that day there were four different
sources, human and non-human sources, that verified that
particular item. And every item that I spoke of had one, two,
three, or more sources saying that was the case.
Senator Boxer. Now I understand. Now I understand. I am
sorry. What you said double source and triple source, when I
looked at it I thought maybe there were others outside of our
own CIA. So it was double and triple sourced within the Agency
itself?
Secretary Powell. No. Double, triple sources from outside
the agency that the agency relied upon to make the judgment.
Senator Boxer. Right, but all done through the CIA, rubric
of the CIA?
Secretary Powell. Not just the CIA. Through all the
intelligence agencies of government that play in this--CIA, my
own INR Bureau----
Senator Boxer. I understand.
Secretary Powell [continuing]. DIA and all the others. And
there is not always total agreement, and when there were
differences of opinion we thrashed out those differences of
opinion. And the Director of Central Intelligence, who is also
the Director of the CIA, has to make a call as to what the
preponderance of the evidence is.
Senator Boxer. Thank you. I am interrupting only because of
time and now you answered my question, that the sources came in
through the door.
Well, the New York Times recently quoted an Asian Foreign
Minister, a friend of ours, as saying, quote: ``The whole world
was operating on the theory that Iraq had these weapons. One
would not want to conclude that the U.S. was wrong in every
respect, but clearly the U.S. now has to face the fact that as
long as its actions are unilateral it will have a credibility
problem around the world.'' And this is a friend, and this is a
gentle criticism in my opinion.
But I think it is really important when we talk now,
because now we know, at least--I guess you are not agreeing
with this, but most of us believe there will not be anything
like the amounts of weapons that you predicted. Maybe they will
find something, but not anything like, and I will not go
through, that is in the record, what you predicted in front of
the United Nations.
So I think we have to be careful then not to talk about al-
Qaeda as if they were there before the war, because your own
words said they were not.
I also was very interested on the trade promotion authority
and I am a little troubled by this and I want to talk to you
about it: ``President Bush recognizes that the fastest, surest
way to move from poverty to prosperity is through expanded and
freer trade.'' Now, I am assuming he means for other nations,
because it is not working here. ``America and the world benefit
from free trade. For this reason, one of the first actions upon
taking office in 2001 was to seek trade promotion authority
allowing the President to negotiate market opening agreements
with other countries. The President aims to continue vigorously
the pursuit of his free trade agenda in order to lift
developing countries out of poverty.''
I just hope you will take a message back and I just give it
to you, that a free trade agenda without a fair trade agenda,
without an agenda that talks about wage and labor standards,
environmental standards, is working to push our wages down
here, and it is hurting our people. So I hope while we pursue
our foreign policy we will not forget what we do impacts our
own people.
I think that the wording in your testimony here is very
strong and is not particularly mindful of the fact that even
today we had an increase in jobless claims. We have seen more
jobs lost in the last 3 years than we have seen under any
Presidency since Herbert Hoover. When I read this blatant free
trade talk here, although I believe and I voted for half the
trade agreements in front of me and voted against the other
half, I think we need to be mindful of what we are doing for
foreign policy reasons, how it impacts on working people in our
own country, and I hope you could take that message back just
from one Senator. I only speak for myself.
I thank you.
Secretary Powell. Thank you, Senator.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Boxer.
Following precedent, I would recognize now Senator
Sarbanes. I note Senator Nelson has been here for a while, but
this is a judgment call. I recognize Senator Sarbanes.
Senator Sarbanes. I will yield to Senator Nelson.
The Chairman. Senator Nelson.
Senator Nelson. For a senior Senator to yield to a junior
Senator, I am honored. I am forever in your debt.
Senator Biden. I am surprised.
Senator Sarbanes. I may bring it to your attention on some
future occasion.
Senator Nelson. I am sure you will.
Mr. Secretary, I would reflect the comments that Senator
Biden had said. I personally think that you and your Deputy are
two of the finest appointments in this administration.
The world is full of problems and there is a problem only a
few hundred miles from my State of Florida. Haiti is spiraling
out of control. When I met with Assistant Secretary Noriega I
got the distinct impression that the policy of this government
is regime change, but in the mean time there could be enormous
devastation of property and of life, of which the consequences
to us could be people getting on these rickety boats, having an
enormous economic impact on my State of Florida, not even to
speak of the immigration headache for the United States.
In responding to my concern the Assistant Secretary
indicated, well, we are going to work with the Bahamas and
Jamaica to stop the exodus. You can see I am troubled. Can you
bring some clarity on the policy of the administration?
Secretary Powell. The policy of the administration is not
regime change. President Aristide is the elected President of
Haiti. I have more than a passing interest in this matter since
I went down there 10 years ago in 1994 with former President
Carter and your former colleague Senator Sam Nunn and talked
the generals out of power so that our troops could come in and
peacefully allow President Aristide to reassume control of the
office of President.
I must say I have been disappointed in his efforts over the
subsequent 10 years in building a functioning, stable
democracy. But nevertheless he is the President. We have made
it clear to the opposition, and Assistant Secretary Noriega had
a long conversation with one of the opposition leaders
yesterday, that we are standing behind the CARICOM proposal,
which both sides are now examining and finding ways to move
forward on, to find a political solution to this current
crisis, and not a political solution that says President
Aristide is illegal and he has to go or he has to go, there is
no political solution.
He is the President. We are only interested in a democratic
solution, a constitutional solution, and we will continue to
work to that end. Tomorrow we will be participating in a
meeting here in Washington with my Canadian colleague, Foreign
Minister Bill Graham, and with others who are coming in from
CARICOM. The President met with CARICOM leaders in Monterey
last year, with me in attendance, with CARICOM leaders and with
President Aristide, and we told President Aristide that we had
to find a democratic political solution to move forward.
The legislature on that very day had gone out of existence
because of this impasse. We have been following very carefully
the disturbances that have been taking place on the island. We
are concerned about the demonstrations that will be taking
place today. It is a difficult situation and I have spent a bit
of time over the last 24 to 48 hours with my staff, as well as
with intelligence officials, watching what may be going on on
the north coast, because what we do not want to see is an
exodus of Haitians heading anywhere. At the moment we do not
see that.
We are hoping that the demonstrations will resolve
themselves in a peaceful way today. I hope that is the case,
and we hope that the CARICOM proposal will form the basis of a
political solution moving forward. We will be discussing with
the Canadians and with the CARICOM nations whether or not they
are in a position to provide police support to the government
in order to bring these disturbing situations under control.
Senator Nelson. Well, I would just offer as a Senator from
the State with the greatest number of Haitian Americans, who
are quite concerned about this, from the standpoint of our
committee being concerned about the violence and the tumult
that is spiraling out of control, I think it is almost akin to
the Middle East. Unless the United States actually is a
convener, a leader in trying to stop the violence and start
bringing some kind of negotiated resolution, the place is going
to be chaos.
That happened to us in the Middle East until you started
getting more active over there, I might say at your urging, and
it is going to happen here in Haiti if we keep a hands-off
policy. So what I would urge is that you get in with all force
trying to bring about, No. 1, stopping of the violence, and
then No. 2 a reworking toward peaceful democracy.
Mr. Chairman, just in closing I would say what I have been
saying as a broken record. I have spoken directly to Deputy
Secretary Armitage. I have spoken to every Ambassador in the
region of Syria about my recent meeting with President Assad.
The one thing, despite all of the contentiousness of a
disagreement that we had in the conversation about specifics,
such as him harboring terrorists and so forth, the one little
cause of note was after I asked him, why do you not seal the
border to stop the jihadists going in and killing our American
men and women in Iraq, and his response was: I cannot control
the border; you cannot control your borders. Then he talked
about a long history of smuggling across the border.
But then he said, and this is what is worth noting, that:
``I want to talk to the American government about cooperating
in closing that border.''
Now, when I reported this to Secretary Rumsfeld originally
he was dismissive of that idea. Your Ambassadors in the region
were not dismissive. Whether or not Assad is in fact sincere or
not, in the judgment of this Senator it is worth exploring if
it is in any way to help our men and women to be better
protected by stopping jihadists coming across that Syrian
border. I offer that to you.
Secretary Powell. Thank you. I will convey it to both our
military authorities in the region as well as to our new
Ambassador who has just arrived.
Senator Nelson. I have spoken to General Abizaid as well as
General Jones, who debriefed me immediately after I came back
from Syria. So they are well aware of this.
Secretary Powell. It is a very difficult piece of terrain,
as you know, with thousands of years of experience of
smuggling, all kinds of things going back and forth.
On Haiti, just back for a moment, sir, we are not
indifferent or not engaged. The President met with President
Aristide and with the CARICOM leaders in Monterey and gave
encouragement and launched the latest CARICOM effort building
on the bishops' effort. The Ambassador down there is deeply
engaged, Roger Noriega is engaged on a daily basis, I have been
engaged on a daily basis, working with CARICOM leaders and with
our Canadian colleagues.
We will see where we are tomorrow, and hopefully we might
have some additional ideas that we can put into the mix after
our meeting tomorrow.
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,
Senator Sarbanes.
[The following letter was submitted for the record by
Senator Nelson:]
United States Senate,
Washington, DC, February 10, 2004.
President George W. Bush,
The White House,
1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President:
The deteriorating conditions in Hispaniola are of great concern to
the people of the state of Florida and must be immediately addressed by
the U.S. government. The worsening violence, subversion of
constitutional processes and absence of rule of law threaten the
stability of the Caribbean region, and democracy itself. Urgent and
sustained attention must be given by the administration.
Of utmost concern is the situation in Haiti, a country for which
the United States has no discernible plan because our bilateral
relations are adrift. Since the disputed parliamentary elections of May
2000, there has been a political stalemate which has ground the
government to a halt, and has deprived the Haitian people of critical
services. I had the privilege to join a Congressional delegation led by
Sen. Mike DeWine in January 2003, and carry with me the images of the
suffering population.
The Organization of American States (OAS), with U.S. facilitation,
passed Resolutions 822 and 1959 calling for support from the
international community, ``to maintain its support for the OAS Special
Mission and provide urgent additional funds,'' for assistance. However,
the United States has taken only meager steps to assist the people of
Haiti. I appreciate the efforts of the administration to provide some
assistance through nongovernment organizations and to advance economic
ties between Haiti and the international financial institutions. But
this is simply not enough.
First, we must stop the killings, gang activity and subversions of
law in Haiti. The United States should rally the OAS Special Mission
and OAS member nations to provide resources for a contingent of
international civilian police to be deployed throughout the country.
The U.S. should work specifically with France and Canada in an effort
to stabilize the situation and, over the medium term, reorganize and
restructure the Haitian National Police. When the Haitian people may
live and assemble in peace, we may reasonably consider moving ahead
with the necessary democratic election process, perhaps with the
assistance of former President Jimmy Carter and the Carter Center.
President Carter has had a positive impact previously intervening in
Haiti.
Long-range planning should include increased U.S. assistance to
Haiti from USAID, specifically to assist small business and industry
development, microenterprises, and democracy building efforts. These
efforts should also include action on S. 489, the Haiti Recovery and
Opportunity Act, which would create tens of thousands of new jobs in
Haiti. Your administration has not taken a position on this
legislation.
This situation in the Dominican Republic also is of great concern.
Protests, demonstrations, and general strikes threaten law and order.
The OAS is well-suited to assist with such problems there, and U.S.
assistance should be commensurately bolstered for such efforts. Taking
these steps now is far preferable than reaping the possible
consequences we may face later, as elections approach in that country
in May of this year.
Mr. President, we can, neither ill-afford to fail in our efforts to
build democracy and the rule of law in our own hemisphere. I applauded,
and agreed with, your Jan. 12, 2004 statement at the Summit of the
Americas when you said, ``The essential foundations of prosperity and
progress remain democracy and the rule of law . . . At past summits, we
resolved that democracy is the only legitimate form of government in
this hemisphere, and that the peoples of the Americas have an
obligation to promote it and defend it. Those governments in our
hemisphere that have responded by supporting democracy can be proud.
Our unity and support of democratic institutions, constitutional
processes and basic liberties gives hope and strength to those
struggling to preserve their God-given rights, whether in Venezuela, or
Haiti, or Bolivia.''
It is now time to act, and I look forward to working with you.
Sincerely,
Bill Nelson.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Nelson.
Let me do one housekeeping chore. The Chair wants to
recognize the request of Senator Boxer that the chart that she
introduced earlier be made a part of the record. It will be
made a part of the record as a part of her testimony.
The Chair wants to acknowledge that Senator Nelson has
brought to the attention of the committee in our oversight
capacity that we should be very much interested in the
questions on Haiti which he has raised. His colleague Senator
Graham of Florida has also approached the committee. It was not
possible for us, given the schedule of the committee's
hearings, to have an immediate hearing on Haiti. So I very much
appreciate Senator Nelson's raising these issues now. I
appreciate your responses, and likewise I would hope that as
you receive further news through the activities of our
diplomacy, that you would convey that to our committee, because
all of our members are deeply interested, as you can gather.
Secretary Powell. I will, Mr. Chairman, and we have been in
touch with both Senator Nelson and with Senator Graham on this
matter. I have been through a boat situation in the past,
Senator, and I can assure you we will do everything we can to
not put ourselves in that situation again.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Sarbanes.
Senator Sarbanes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I join my colleagues in welcoming you before
the committee. Last night I attended a concert at the Peabody
Institute of the Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. That is
of course one of our Nation's leading music conservatories. And
they had the world premier of a symphony by David Gaines, who
is a contemporary composer, entitled ``The Lion of Panjshir.''
It was in memory of Ahmed Shah Massoud.
It was a very moving performance, involving narration as
well as the playing of the music and recounting the life of
Massoud, who as we know, two terrorists came in disguised as
journalists and blew themselves and him up. And of course, he
had a very illustrious record in Afghanistan of both resisting
the Soviets and then the Taliban.
I only mention that because it, of course, puts in front of
us again and brings to mind the situation in Afghanistan. This
committee actually, I think, and its leadership have
consistently, and its members, have consistently tried to keep
a focus on Afghanistan to make sure that we did not lose sight
of its importance as a priority item. I think it is extremely
important.
So I am concerned about these press reports that--well,
just let me read one from the Knight-Ridder newspaper: ``While
attention is focused on Iraq, the United States and its
international partners are struggling to overcome worsening
violence, voter registration problems, and other difficulties
that threaten to delay Afghanistan's first election since the
U.S.-backed overthrow of the Taliban.''
A hearing actually was held, in which of course NATO--the
problem is they cannot get security out across the countryside
in order to do the registration to ensure the validity of the
elections, which are scheduled to take place I think in less
than 4 months from now.
NATO, of course, has authorized an expansion--I am quoting
from the article--``of its force to the interior areas and is
racing to accomplish the deployments in time to boost security
for the June elections. But the alliance has been seriously
hamstrung by a lack of contributions of troops and equipment,
failing to obtain even enough helicopters for its operations in
Kabul. Testifying with Taylor, Marine General James Jones,
NATO's top commander, conceded that coming up with enough
troops and equipment for the expanded mission will test NATO's
ability to stage operations beyond its traditional
boundaries.''
Now, some have raised the question about postponing the
elections or delaying the elections. But apparently President
Karzai and his allies are pressing still to have the early
elections. His Finance Minister was quoted as saying: ``We need
elections in order to have legitimacy and a mandate for changes
the country needs.''
How do you see this problem and what can we do, we being
the United States in this particular instance, to help keep us
on track and ensure the validity and the integrity of these
elections? I guess, do we have some helicopters we can give
General Jones, and all the other questions that flow out of
these quotes that I have read from this article.
Secretary Powell. With respect to fleshing out the force,
principally the NATO force that has gone in, there have been
deficiencies. My new Dutch colleague was in town last week and
confirmed that the Dutch would be providing Apache helicopters
to assist in this effort. The new Secretary General of NATO was
also in town and said that Afghanistan would be his first
priority with respect to making sure that NATO can support this
mission in the manner that it needs to be supported and fill
any equipment deficiencies that are there and also see if we
can get more of the Provisional Reconstruction Teams in country
and out into the field to start to bring the kind of security
that we need.
Registration continues. It is our goal, as well as the goal
of the U.N. and the goal of President Karzai, to have elections
in June. An open question is whether or not they will be ready
to have elections both for the President and for legislature or
they will only be able to handle the Presidential election.
There is a security problem, particularly in the southeast
portion of the country. We are working on the United States
task force there. It is trying to restore security, and we are
also trying to encourage and get our Pakistani friends on the
other side of the border to do more, and the Pakistanis have
started to do more, to try to bring a sense of security that
will permit the registration to continue and the elections to
be held in June.
Senator Sarbanes. This article says the problem is
especially, on the security question as an obstacle to the
elections, ``the problem is especially serious in southern and
eastern regions bordering Pakistan, where the Taliban and their
al-Qaeda allies are staging a comeback.'' Do you think they are
staging a comeback? What is your view of that?
Secretary Powell. I think they are trying to stage a
comeback. They have been active, and our forces are targeting
them and going after them and our military commanders are
confident that it will be an unsuccessful comeback. But it has
created a higher level of instability in that part of the
country than in other parts of the country.
Senator Sarbanes. Well, let me stay with Afghanistan for
the moment, because I think it is--I am very worried that we
are sort of shifting our attention away from it. I mean, there
is virtual unanimity in the country about the necessity to go
into Afghanistan. I think that was clearly seen as a war of
necessity. I think it was handled well by the administration
and certainly in the early stages.
But I think some of us have a concern that attention has
shifted away from us and that a situation that appeared to be
on its way toward resolution is becoming difficult again. I
think we are very fortunate there to have a leadership, a
national leadership, selected through the loya jirga, which
gives a legitimacy, at least for a period, although the
elections are needed now to cement that, and which is also
trying to move the nation on a good course in terms of the
constitution now that they have evolved and so forth and so on.
Last year we provided just under $1.6 billion U.S.
assistance to Afghanistan. Well, for the fiscal year 2004. The
budget request for fiscal 2005 actually drops the figure to
$1.2 billion. There is a line of thinking that I subscribe to
that, first of all, this reconstruction is important to
solidifying stability in the regime; and second, as you obtain
some stability in the short to medium run you probably need,
you need more resources rather than less, because then they are
in a position to move ahead with the reconstruction which
previously they were being thwarted from doing because of the
unstable situation.
So in a way, at least for a time, it seems to me, even if
we achieve stability, it really calls for more resources and
not less. Therefore I am very concerned that the budget request
that has come to us has about a 25 percent drop in the
resources being committed for this purpose.
Would you respond to that.
Secretary Powell. I will verify all of the numbers. We have
a total of $3.7 billion that we put in and now the $1.2 billion
that is part of the FY 2005 budget request. It is a question of
balance, Senator, with all the demands that we have on the
assets that are made available to the Department for foreign
operations.
[The following response was subsequently received:]
U.S. Department of State,
Washington, DC, March 3, 2004.
The Honorable Paul Sarbanes,
United States Senate.
Dear Senator Sarbanes:
On behalf of Secretary Powell, I would like to respond to your
question about the FY 2005 budget request for Afghanistan that was
raised during the February 12, 2004 congressional hearing.
In Afghanistan, we are committed to a successful end state, not an
end date. For this reason, in FY 2004 we are providing approximately
$2.2 billion in reconstruction assistance to Afghanistan. This includes
over $400 million in regular foreign operations appropriations, plus
supplemental funding, DOD drawdown assistance, and other reprogrammings
totaling almost $1.8 billion. This level of funding responds to the
need to jump-start reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan, particularly
in advance of the 2004 elections and in the face of flagging donor
interest. The enhanced assistance program represents the first step in
a multi-year plan to accelerate reconstruction efforts, reduce long-
term costs, and consolidate gains made to-date.
We are confident, therefore, that our FY 2005 funding request for
roughly $1.2 billion in assistance to Afghanistan--over $600 million
above the budget request made in FY 2004--will be adequate to sustain
the momentum that has already been achieved. Our plan is to continue to
request funding at these levels for the next several years, with the
goal of helping Afghanistan move more quickly down the road to
stability, economic recovery, and self-sufficiency.
The bipartisan support shown by Congress for Afghan Reconstruction
has been tremendous, and has engendered much goodwill among Afghans who
see the U.S. commitment to their country as more than just rhetoric.
Such continued support will ensure that Afghanistan never again plays
host to the forces of violence, intolerance, and instability.
I hope that this information has been helpful to you. Please do not
hesitate to contact us if we can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Paul V. Kelly,
Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs.
Secretary Powell. We have done a heck of a lot with the
money that we have put in there. We finished the road. We have
gotten a lot of hospitals built and schools built, a lot of
things under way. So the reconstruction effort is going
forward.
The needs of the country are so great, though, that it
could take two, three, four, five times the amount that the
international community has provided. But there is just a
finite amount of money available from the international
community.
I think everybody recognizes the need to do more. We are
not in any way ignoring Afghanistan. The very fact that you
heard from General Jones and others about the needs, the fact
that the Secretary General of NATO when he was here last week
listed that as his No. 1 priority to get done and get done
well, the fact that NATO is there I think shows that we have
worked hard to get the international community more involved.
The fact that we were able to pull off a successful loya jirga
blessing the constitution is evidence of what we are trying to
do. We have a plan now to expand out 1,000 miles of additional
secondary roads off the main road in order to connect the
country in part of our next year effort.
So we are fully engaged, but there are limits in the amount
of financial resources available to us to deal with the needs
of the Afghan people.
Senator Sarbanes. Well, I understand that and I think you
are right to bring to our attention a number of positive
accomplishments that have happened. But one of the problems, of
course, is trying to get the other donor countries to come
through with their pledges, and it seems to me it does not send
a very good message if the U.S. is allowing its commitment to
drop by 25 percent from this year to next year. I would hope
the administration would be willing, working with the Congress,
to find a way to up that commitment so there is no question
about how important this priority is to us.
This is where al-Qaeda had taken over a state, in effect,
in conjunction with the Taliban and had a safe haven, their
training camps and everything else. They are not completely out
of there yet, as we well know, and I think it behooves us to
keep this first and foremost in our attention.
It is a matter on which you have developed unity, not only
within the country but across the world, I think, for this
effort and I would hope that the U.S. does not send some
countersignal that impedes what needs to be done in
Afghanistan.
Secretary Powell. We also benefited previously from
supplemental funding in FY 2003 and FY 2004, and as we get into
FY 2005 it may be something that would compete for supplemental
funding in FY 2005.
Senator Sarbanes. I see my time is up. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Sarbanes.
The chair would observe that we had one round, 8 minutes.
On average members took about 11 minutes, which was fine
because additional questions were asked. But let me now just
suggest maybe a shorter second round, in case members have
supplemental questions, of 5 minutes each. If the Secretary can
stay with us during that period we would appreciate it.
Let me begin by saying that the President in his speech at
the National Defense University called for the IAEA Special
Protocol very specifically, and he asked the Congress to pass
this immediately. He looked in my direction, and I acknowledged
that I heard him loud and clear. We have discussed this
privately, but the President hopefully is advised that this
committee is desperately attempting to fulfill his will. There
have been--from some source in the administration that will
remain nameless--questions and objections raised. I ask that
you inform the President that we are eager. Perhaps he can
inform the rest of his administration to work with us, because
we really would like to move on with this rapidly.
Second, the umbrella agreement or, to state it another way,
the liability provisions that the United States needs, that
other countries need in the so-called 10 plus 10 over 10
program with Russia, has run into snags in the Duma. I know
that Secretary Abraham and his shop in the Department of Energy
are working very hard on this.
Specifically, it has delayed destruction--within the scope
of a program to destroy 34 tons of plutonium on the part of the
Russians and 34 tons of plutonium on our part. This is a great
breakthrough for your diplomacy, to move the Russians on to the
thought of destruction of plutonium as opposed to infinite
storage or various other problematic options. These huge stores
out there are at the heart of the proliferation difficulty.
Clearly, the world has to see that this is a place that we
and the Russians ought to be moving. But we are not moving. In
large part this is because these negotiations have not been
successful. I do not want to cast judgment about this, but I
would just say it is so important this not be dead in the
water, and that we get on with these programs and as swiftly as
possible.
Likewise, although we theoretically have the idea of the G-
8 and their billion dollars a year supplementing Nunn-Lugar and
so forth, in fact this is not moving very swiftly, given the
lack of liability assurances they have.
All of this is important, because the public has the
general impression, and the President certainly gave impetus to
this yesterday, that a good number of these programs are
moving. I have an impression they are not. So diligently we
want to bird dog this.
Likewise, David Sanger--this is his view in the New York
Times today--said, and I quote him: ``One of the vaguer
proposals the President called for boosting is the Nunn-Lugar
program.'' My colleague Sam Nunn, when asked for a quote by
another paper, indicated that he saw no new resources. Indeed
cooperative threat reduction specifically has less money
requested in the budget than last year.
One reason given for this is that the Russians have not
been as forthcoming as perhaps they could be with projects.
Maybe so, maybe not. In any event, obviously Sam and I are
interested in this. During his recent speech, the President
nodded in my direction with that also, and I applauded the
thought. I appreciate his mention of the program. Nevertheless
I ask you, just as a part of this hearing, to take this back.
Finally, let me just say that I appreciate specifically
your mention of the State Department and its budget. We have
noted that additional jobs are going to go into the Afghanistan
and into the Iraq situations, because the State Department will
be assuming vastly new responsibilities, which you have
recognized and which hopefully the Congress will recognize as
well. I just want to highlight that this was not just a
gratuitous addition, that you have specified the missions that
have been preoccupying our committee today and trying to find
able persons who are ready for those tasks. That is why we have
some urgency, I would hope, in this committee, and in the other
committees, to deal with the request favorably.
I thank you again for coming today.
Secretary Powell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I know that
this committee is committed to the additional protocol, and I
thank you for your support of that.
Nunn-Lugar, a tremendous program and I would like to
enhance it with additional funds and have the flexibility to
use it in other countries as well as in Russia. With respect to
the additional people we have requested, in previous years it
was to fill out vacancies and to give it a little more
flexibility. Now I have got to have those people. The mission
in Iraq is going to be the largest mission we have in the
world. It is going to be an unaccompanied mission, which means
we not only have to get the people for it now, we have got to
get the next tranche of people to go in when the first tranche
goes out after 6 months or a year. So I share your
encouragement that Congress act to give me those additional
personnel resources.
The Chairman. Thank you for that testimony. I thank the
President for the speech yesterday. It really was remarkable. I
had the privilege of having former Secretary Schultz and
Charlotte Schultz with me. The President was delighted that
they could likewise imbibe in that experience, which we all
enjoyed.
In my own conversations, as Senator Biden has been
mentioning his, the President is very supportive of these
programs. My point in raising the situation today is that down
in the weeds sometimes the President's enthusiasm is not
followed through. So that is our job in this committee, and
yours with others, that you can work to make certain that they
are, and that the general themes are fleshed out.
Senator Sarbanes. That is not to suggest that you are the
weeds. The weeds are down below you, I think, as well, Mr.
Secretary.
The Chairman. Way down below.
Senator Biden. I think there is one weed above you, a big
weed. His name is Cheney.
I am not nearly the diplomat that my colleague is. I do not
think--and I mean this without any reservation. The single most
important nonproliferation tool available to us is here now. It
is Nunn-Lugar, Nunn-Lugar. It has not been funded fully. When
it has been funded there have been roadblocks thrown up. My
friend is being very diplomatic. I agree with him, the
President's enthusiasm--I have only been at one extensive
meeting with the Senator and the President on this issue--his
enthusiasm was real. But the enthusiasm of others in the room
was not only not real, it was in opposition, in opposition.
This notion of fungible money is bizarre. You do not agree
with that notion, but it is a bizarre concept, that if we go
ahead and, assuming the roadblocks are out of the way, and
provide moneys to buy U.S. contractors, to send U.S.
contractors over to Russia to destroy stockpiles of weapons
which are vulnerable to theft, vulnerable to sale, vulnerable
to terror now, that somehow if we do that the argument is still
made with some in the administration, including one person in
the State Department, not you, that the Russians will not
therefore spend the money they would have spent to destroy
these weapons and they will go do something bad.
It is bizarre, but it is real, it exists. There are people
in this administration--you are not one, I know that. I do not
think you can solve this problem, quite frankly. I think the
only way we can solve this problem is to keep harping on it. In
my case, I am prepared to, unlike my friend, name names who
have told me that, no, no, we cannot go forward this way
because of these particular obstacles.
But I cannot imagine, I cannot imagine how we do not
understand that there are facilities throughout just Russia
that are so unguarded. I mean, everybody talks about Russia. I
know you know this. I apologize for doing this with you here
because you are the last person who has to hear this from me.
But the entire Russian military budget is somewhere around $10
billion, military budget, the entire budget. And we are talking
about if we spend $200 million to build a facility near
Shchuchye to take out a couple--how many are there, 19,000?
The Chairman. It is 1.9 million.
Senator Biden. OK, the 1.9 million missiles that are
chemical-tipped, that somehow those dirty old Russians, man,
they are going to take $200 million they would have spent and
do something really bad with it to us. This is mindless. It is
ideological idiocy.
You can tell I do not feel strongly about this. But it
really is frustrating, and I believe, as Dick does, that the
President supports this. But some of the questions the
President asks startle me.
Senator Sarbanes. He supports----
Senator Biden. He supports Nunn-Lugar. He support Nunn-
Lugar.
Senator Sarbanes [continuing]. Nunn-Lugar, not the
ideological idiocy.
Senator Biden. No, he supports Nunn-Lugar, but he is
whipsawed by the ideological idiocy, in my view. But at any
rate, I am getting myself in trouble here. But that is not
unusual. That is not unusual.
But I cannot tell you how strongly I feel about this, and I
do not think we fund this nearly enough. I would rather the
President have said we are going to make the single priority in
the next few months on nonproliferation dealing with liability,
dealing with my own administration, and tripling the amount of
money for Nunn-Lugar and expanding it, which they have resisted
to do, expanding it beyond Russia, and that is a priority. We
will get more done in that than this speech and 20 more like
it. But at any rate, the speech is a good speech.
I hope you will continue to weigh in, which leads me to
this next question. The President wants to stop new countries
from accessing fissile material. There is a fissile material
cutoff treaty that would help us do that. Now, for 8 years the
United States has pursued the objective of the fissile material
cutoff ban at the Conference on Disarmament. Such a treaty
would establish a global verification ban on the production of
highly enriched uranium and weapons grade plutonium. In my view
it is an essential supplement to the proposals the President
outlined yesterday.
It seems to me this is a win-win proposition for the United
States because we have more than enough fissile material
ourselves while countries of concern continue to seek it. For
over 2 years the administration has castigated, rightly, other
countries for preventing negotiations from starting. Now there
is a chance of success, however, the administration announced
that our policy is under review.
Why is the United States advocating so strongly for a
fissile material cutoff treaty, including during the initial
years of this administration, only now to step back that the
negotiations may finally start? Do you think this makes any
sense? Is there something that happened that they did not know,
that you did not know for the first couple years, that you now
have found out that requires us to step back?
Secretary Powell. We have supported the fissile material
cutoff treaty and some questions have been raised about it. A
review is under way and we will get the review dealt with
rather promptly, I hope.
Senator Biden. Tell Mr. Bolton that is a good idea for him
to go on vacation, because----
Secretary Powell. I beg your pardon?
Senator Biden. I know I should not do that. But this is
Bolton. Bolton is the guy who thinks this is a bad idea, along
with Mr. Feith and a few others.
Secretary Powell. Do not worry about Mr. Bolton. He works
for me and we will work it out with respect to our position.
Senator Biden. My mother would say: No purgatory for you,
straight to heaven. God bless you.
Can you provide us an update on the status of the review,
Mr. Secretary?
Secretary Powell. The review is ongoing. Some questions
have been raised. We have been supportive of the treaty and I
have to work out with the interagency process what the
differences of view are and we will be back to you as quickly
as I can.
[The following response was subsequently received:]
U.S. Department of State,
Washington, DC, February 27, 2004.
The Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Jr.,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
United States Senate.
Dear Senator Biden:
I am writing on behalf of Secretary Powell in response to a
question that you posed during his testimony before the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee on February 12. You asked the Secretary about the
status of the Administration's review of U.S. policy toward a Fissile
Material Cutoff Treaty.
Secretary Powell replied at that time that the review is proceeding
and that some questions had been raised about an FMCT. He also noted
that we have been supportive of the treaty, and that he has to work out
through the interagency process what the differences of view are.
Finally, he promised to be back to you as quickly as possible.
We cannot at this time predict exactly when the review will be
completed, or what the conclusions of the interagency review will be.
We shall, however, communicate the conclusions of the review to the
Committee at the earliest possible date.
I hope that you will find this information useful.
Sincerely,
Paul V. Kelly,
Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs.
Senator Biden. I really hope you will, because I hope we
can move forward with negotiations on the first part of the
2004 session. I think it would be--see, this is my problem, and
I will cease with this. Sometimes I feel like I am preaching to
the choir or talking to the wrong guy. But the President made a
very good speech and some of the things he suggested, the basic
premise that he laid down was absolutely accurate in my view.
But I do not know how you negotiate, which would be required,
this new regime the President is talking about at the same time
we are appropriating money for purposes of providing a new
nuclear weapon, while we are setting out a policy for the first
time I am aware of--that is not true--setting out, articulating
a policy that we contemplate the use of nuclear weapons against
states that are non-nuclear states, and while we have pulled
back from the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
I mean, the signals are so counterintuitive that we send to
the rest of the world, that I think it is going to be very
difficult to negotiate the regime the President has outlined in
a very thoughtful speech without some real change in our
overall policy. I welcome your comment on it. I am not asking
you to comment on that. I am expressing the degree of my
frustration here.
Secretary Powell. A few quick points to capture
observations made by you and Senator Lugar. Secretary Abraham
is working hard on the liability issue with the Russians. I
raised it also when I was in Moscow a few weeks ago.
Senator Biden. I believe that is true.
Secretary Powell. With respect to Nunn-Lugar, I speak for
my Department. We are fully supportive and we have increased
the amount of money we are requesting in FY 2005 for these
kinds of disarmament purposes.
CTBT, we will maintain our test prohibition. There will be
no testing on our side. CTBT was not approved some years ago.
We have no plans to resubmit it, however, as you well know.
With respect to the use of weapons against non-nuclear
states, whatever contemplation may be given to this, it is my
own personal judgment that this would not be a sensible policy.
Senator Biden. Well, I know you think it is not sensible.
Secretary Powell. And I will argue for that position, and
our position has not changed.
So I am a solid supporter of Nunn-Lugar and similar
efforts. Of course money is fungible, but in this case we have
ways of making sure that this fungible money is serving our
interests, not serving the interests of the Russians alone, it
is serving interests of ours and serving the interests of world
peace and stability by getting rid of these kinds of weapons.
Senator Biden. I agree, but that is not the argument. I
mean, when I sat with the President to discuss this there were
those--again I will not say who--who were making the argument
about fungibility. There are Senators right here in this body
who continue to make that argument, that this is fungible
money, therefore we should not be doing this. And there are
those--I believe the chairman has raised the possibility of
amending Nunn-Lugar to take out the language that was put in
there by Senator Helms that requires the President to--gives
the President a waiver, which other Presidents have exercised
in the past, relating to whether or not there can be a
certification as to the absolute verifiability that every
agreement we have with the Russians is being kept to the letter
of the law.
As my mother might say in other circumstances, we should
not bite our nose off to spite our face. How it could be not in
our interest to get rid of almost 2 million chemical-tipped
weapons is beyond my comprehension.
By the way, the reach, search and development money I was
referring to is for low-yield nuclear weapons, bunkerbuster
weapons. My only regret is that you are not Secretary of State
and Secretary of Defense.
But anyway, I will conclude by one other point that my
colleague and buddy Senator Boxer raised here, because I think
she is onto something important. I suspect you know better than
anyone in this administration how important, how our
credibility is the coin of the realm when you go and interface
with other Foreign Ministers and heads of state. I am sure you
have heard a number of times what I was introduced to a couple
of years ago by one of my staff members in a speech prepared
for me, of the exchange that took place between former
Secretary of State Acheson and Charles DeGaulle during the
Cuban missile crisis.
I might add that I have not met a single world leader who
does not hold you in personally high esteem. I mean that
sincerely.
The story goes that Kennedy sent former Secretary Acheson
to inform DeGaulle of the urgency and the danger of the pending
conflict over Cuba missile, the Cuban missile crisis with
Russia, to seek the support of the French and DeGaulle in
particular. At one point, after he made his case he said he was
authorized--and I am paraphrasing--authorized by President
Kennedy to show President DeGaulle the proof that we had of the
assertions made by Acheson on Kennedy's behalf, including
satellite photos, et cetera.
DeGaulle said, so history records: There is no need to show
me the proof. I know the President of the United States. I know
he would never ask this of me were it not true.
I may be mistaken, but I doubt whether there is a single
world leader who would say that today. Maybe they would not
have said it for a Democratic President, but we are not there
today.
It takes me to the point that my friend from California
raised about these investigations. The President has set up a
commission and the commission is to investigate the quality of
the intelligence that was gathered in the prelude and workup to
moving into Iraq, and that is worth doing and it is necessary
to do. But I am of the view, Mr. Secretary, that an equally
compelling issue that must be looked at is not only whether or
not there were attempts, which I have no idea whether there
were, attempts to intimidate the intelligence community to come
up with different answers--and I am inclined to think that
probably did not happen.
But I am inclined to believe that, not out of motives that
were anything other than totally patriotic and well intended,
that a number of people in the administration portrayed the
intelligence data in ways that did not contain any nuance and
implied by the way it was stated that there was no real
disagreement in the intelligence community.
I have had access to the intelligence data. I am no longer
on the committee, but I have served on the committee longer
than anyone in the U.S. Senate, over 10 years. And I did not
find the representations made which were put in the record by
administration officials to reflect much more than a judgment
that they have made that, since the world has changed, we must
lower the bar so much lower because the damage that could be
done to us is so grave that we can take fewer and fewer
chances.
So you have the Vice President of the United States saying
on Meet the Press: ``He reconstituted his nuclear capability.''
I never saw a shred of evidence to suggest that, not one shred
of evidence to suggest that. I saw shreds of evidence
suggesting he may be attempting to, he may have the capacity
to, but not one shred of evidence to sustain that he has
reconstituted his nuclear capability.
The judgment made about the nuclear--excuse me--about the
aluminum tubes, whether they were for gas centrifuge or they
were for artillery. The community was split on that. It was
split, and I suspect if we go back and look a majority thought
it was for artillery. But yet the way it was phrased by
leading--not you and not your deputy, who sat before me and my
colleagues when we asked about that--was to lead the American
public to believe that there was some sort of unanimity among
the intelligence community that this is what the purpose was.
It may be that is what the purpose was. The 40 percent or
50 percent of the community who thought it was for gas
centrifuge may have been right. But it was not phrased or put
forward to the Congress or the American people in terms of
there is a question.
So I think unless this commission looks at the use of the
intelligence, the use of the intelligence, as well as the
quality of the intelligence, we will never be able to
reestablish in the minds of other world leaders--there will not
be in the near future in a Democratic or a Republican
administration a Secretary of State who can go abroad and say:
The President has sent me because we believe North Korea has A,
B, C, D, and is about to do Y, or Iran is about to do. It is
going to be a cold day in hell until we have a real discussion
about this and a real investigation, before any of our friends
say: You need not show me the proof, Mr. Secretary; I know the
President would not say this were it not true.
So I hope there is a reconsideration of the scope of the
inquiry of the commission set up by the President, not because
I believe that any member of this administration deliberately
tried to lie about or manipulate, but because I believe they
believed that the threshold was so low, the chance that they
were willing to take was so de minimis, the bar so lowered,
that even if there was a 2 percent chance, a 5 percent chance,
a 10 percent chance that he might have this capacity or
distribute it, we could not take that chance.
I think that is totally consistent with the neoconservative
notion, and I have great respect for them, the neoconservative
notion about how this is a Hobbesian world and the rules have
changed. But I think we better look at it, because if we do not
I think our ability to reestablish our credibility will be
very, very difficult to do.
I apologize for going over. You know me too well, Mr.
Secretary. None, none, n-o-n-e, none of this is directed at
you. I have great faith in you and I think you were as
judicious as you possibly could be in your presentation. I do
not think that is the case throughout the administration in the
impression communicated to the American people.
So I have said my piece. I thank the chair and I appreciate
you listening. I welcome a comment.
Secretary Powell. I just have to respond on one point,
without belaboring the hearing. But the assertion that the
President of the United States would not be received with
credibility by a world leader, not one I think you said, and
that simply is not the case, Senator. I was sitting here
jotting. I do not want to go down a list of names because I
will probably leave somebody off who would like to be included.
But when I think of all the meetings I have sat in with the
President in recent months, before the war, after the war, and
when I think of the world leaders who have supported him, they
believe in the President, they believe in this country, they
believe in the rightness of our cause and what we have done,
and they have stepped forward to provide troops to support our
efforts, whether it is from Japan or South Korea, or have
provided other kinds of support in so many ways.
There are dozens of countries that have put their troops on
the line because they support the United States, they think we
have gone the right way, and they believe in the President of
the United States.
Senator Biden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Biden.
Senator Boxer.
Senator Boxer. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
In 5 minutes I am going to try to make a couple of
comments, ask you three quick questions, and hopefully this
will be it for you, you can have lunch and relax.
First of all, Nunn-Lugar, count me in. It is everything my
two esteemed colleagues said it is. I think we believe this
across the board on this committee, at least I hope so.
Also with Senator Biden count me in on expanding the role
of this commission to look at the use of the intelligence. It
is not just to answer our questions here, but I think the
American people's questions. So if you could pass that on for
what it is worth.
Mr. Secretary, I think you have been far too kind to the
intelligence community. I am just going to speak as a friend
here. I thought to myself, what if I was given the role to go
before the United Nations and be very specific about all kinds
of, actually specific about how many tons and how many pounds
and how many planes and how many mobile vans, et cetera, and
then I found out that basically almost all of it was not true.
I honestly think I would respond in a little bit of a different
way than the President has. But that is what makes life
interesting, because people are different.
And frankly, the way you have responded, I think you have
been very kind. For example, we have the New York Times:
``Agency alert about Iraqi not heeded, officials say.'' This is
February 6: ``An Iraqi military defector identified as
unreliable by the Defense Intelligence Agency provided some of
the information that went into U.S. intelligence estimates that
Iraq had stockpiles of biological weapons at the time of the
American invasion. Because the warning went unheeded, the
official said, the defector's claims that Iraq had built mobile
research labs to produce biological weapons''--and I remember
your showing those--``were mistakenly included in, among other
findings, the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002
that concluded that Iraq had significant biological
stockpiles.'' It says: ``Nevertheless, the defector was among
four sources cited by Secretary Powell in his presentation to
the U.N.''
So I ask unanimous consent to place this into the record.
The Chairman. It will be published in full.
[The New York Times article referred to follows:]
[The New York Times, Feb. 7, 2004, Saturday, Late Edition--Final]
The Struggle for Iraq: Intelligence; Agency Alert About Iraqi Not
Heeded, Officials Say
(By Douglas Jehl)
Washington, Feb. 6--An Iraqi military defector identified as
unreliable by the Defense Intelligence Agency provided some of the
information that went into United States intelligence estimates that
Iraq had stockpiles of biological weapons at the time of the American
invasion last March, senior government officials said Friday.
A classified ``fabrication notification'' about the defector, a
former Iraqi major, was issued by the D.I.A. to other American
intelligence agencies in May 2002, but it was then repeatedly
overlooked, three senior intelligence officials said. Intelligence
agencies use such notifications to alert other agencies to information
they consider unreliable because its source is suspected of making up
or embellishing information.
Because the warning went unheeded, the officials said, the
defector's claims that Iraq had built mobile research laboratories to
produce biological weapons were mistakenly included in, among other
findings, the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which
concluded that Iraq most likely had significant biological stockpiles.
Intelligence officers from the D.I.A. interviewed the defector
twice in early 2002 and circulated reports based on those debriefings.
They concluded he had no firsthand information and might have been
coached by the Iraqi National Congress, the officials said. That group,
headed by Ahmad Chalabi, who had close ties to the Pentagon and Vice
President Dick Cheney, had introduced the defector to American
intelligence, the officials said.
Nevertheless, because of what the officials described as a mistake,
the defector was among four sources cited by Secretary of State Colin
L. Powell in his presentation to the United Nations Security Council
last February as having provided ``eyewitness accounts'' about mobile
biological weapons facilities in Iraq, the officials said. The defector
had described mobile biological research laboratories, as distinct from
the mobile biological production factories mounted on trailers that
were described by other sources.
The intelligence about the mobile facilities was central to the
prewar conclusion that Iraq was producing biological arms, senior
intelligence officials have said. No such arms or production facilities
have been found in Iraq since the war, and David A. Kay, the former
chief weapons inspector, has said he believes that Iraq never produced
large stockpiles of the weapons during the 1990's.
Soon after the invasion, American troops in Iraq discovered
suspicious trailers that were initially described by the Central
Intelligence Agency as having been designed as factories for biological
weapons. But most analysts have since concluded that they were used to
make hydrogen for military weather balloons.
Dr. Kay reported in October that American inspectors had found ``a
network of laboratories and safe houses controlled by Iraqi
intelligence and security services'' that contained equipment for
chemical and biological research. But American officials have not
described any discovery of the mobile laboratories described by the
Iraqi major.
In his speech at Georgetown University on Thursday, George J.
Tenet, the director of central intelligence, provided the first hint
that the prewar intelligence on Iraq had been tainted by evidence
previously identified as unreliable.
Apparently alluding to the Iraqi military defector, Mr. Tenet said
intelligence agencies had ``recently discovered that relevant analysts
in the community missed a notice that identified a source we had cited
as providing information that, in some cases was unreliable, and in
other cases was fabricated.'' Mr. Tenet went to say, ``We have
acknowledged this mistake.''
In interviews on Friday, intelligence officials described the
episode as a significant embarrassment. They said the information
provided by the defector had contributed significantly not only to the
National Intelligence Estimate but to Mr. Powell's presentation to the
United Nations last Feb. 5.
``He was either making it up or he heard somebody else talking
about it,'' one intelligence official said of the information the
defector had provided, ``but he didn't know what he was talking
about.'' The official said the notification circulated by the D.I.A.
had advised other agencies ``that the information that this guy
provided was unreliable.''
In a related matter, the intelligence officials acknowledged that
the United States still had not been able to interview two other people
with access to senior Iraqi officials, and whose claims that Iraq
possessed chemical and biological stockpiles were relayed to American
officials in September 2002 by two foreign intelligence services.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
It just seems to me that--I mean, I am sure that you make
comments in private and I am encouraging you to get to the
bottom of this----
Secretary Powell. I am working on the bottom of that one.
Senator Boxer [continuing]. Because you are--because it is
important for our country and it is important for you and it is
important for all of us who believed that there were WMD there.
I have a couple of questions. They are interesting, I
think. Secretary Powell, there was a report in the Chicago
Tribune stating that the U.S. military is planning a spring
offensive designed to capture Osama bin Laden. ``A U.S.
military spokesman has been quoted as saying: `We have a
variety of intelligence and we are sure we are going to capture
Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar this year.' The American
commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan, Lieutenant
General David Barnow, told the BBC he expects bin Laden to be
brought to justice by year's end.''
This is good as far as I am concerned, if this comes true.
Senator Grassley predicted this would happen before the
election. So my question is--I do not know what briefings he
has had, but that was an interesting comment.
My first question, then I will ask the other two so we get
them out of the way: Do you share this optimism?
Secretary Powell. I do not know the basis for the general's
assessment. When I was a general I tended not to give such
assessments.
Senator Boxer. Then on Syria. Secretary Powell, you visited
Syria, raised the issue of its ongoing support for terrorism,
for which we are very grateful. As you know, with your changing
your views on our bill, the Boxer-Santorum bill--it is hard for
me to even put those two names together, given that we are
never in agreement, but we were on this. With the help of
Senators Lugar and Biden, we passed that bill and now you have
at your disposal the ability to increase sanctions on Syria.
Why is this important? It looks to us that, while some of
the terrorist offices were shut down for a few days, we believe
that there has not any action been taken to close the
headquarters of Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad,
the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. There are
also reports that Syrian aircraft that flew--this is very
serious--humanitarian cargo to Iran following the earthquake
returned to Damascus full of weapons for terrorist groups.
So my question to you is: Do you intend to begin
implementation of the Syria Accountability Act some time in the
near future?
Secretary Powell. Yes, we are examining now what sections
of the act we want to use.
Senator Boxer. Excellent.
Secretary Powell. I agree with your assessment that Syria
has not done what we demanded of it with respect to the closing
permanently of those offices and getting those individuals out
of Damascus. On the airplane story, I cannot confirm it or deny
it.
Senator Boxer. Well, thank you for that.
The last question. Secretary Powell, last month Senators
Landrieu, Mikulski and I sent a letter to Ambassador Bremer
about an Iraqi Governing Council ruling that essentially
eliminates the rights of women under Iraqi family law and
replaced it with sharia law. Now, Ambassador Bremer sent us a
very strong letter saying that he totally disagreed with this,
of course, and that he was going to do everything he could to
ensure that in the interim constitution the rights of women
will be protected.
I have been visited by women from Iraq who are just
absolutely terrified because even under Saddam, although their
life in many ways was hell on wheels, and although they are
very happy he is not there, they had more freedom than they may
have now. This is frightening to them.
So I do not know if you have taken a really hard look at
this or whether you have discussed this with Ambassador Bremer,
but are you confident that we will be able to use our influence
to protect the rights of women when Iraq gets to control its
own?
Secretary Powell. We are following this very carefully.
Under Secretary of State Dobriansky wrote me a memo on all of
these issues. We are conveying them to Ambassador Bremer to
reinforce his efforts. We would not have succeeded in our
mission if we found that after we set up a new government in
Iraq women in any way are not allowed to participate fully in
the society, with the same rights as anyone else in the
society.
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Boxer.
Senator Voinovich, do you have further questions?
Senator Voinovich. Any time you want to wrap it up. I just
have one short one.
The Chairman. As soon as you have concluded. We have a 5-
minute round.
Senator Voinovich. If you have answered it--when we
supported the President on his $87 billion request there was a
lot of debate in the Senate about whether it ought to be a loan
or a grant, and many of us thought it should be a grant because
we felt that it would be difficult for you to sit down with
other countries and talk about their waiving their loans, or
the Paris Club and so forth. Could you tell us, where are we in
terms of these other nations in terms of their debt with Iraq,
and are any of them--are we getting any real help from other
people in terms of rebuilding the infrastructure?
Secretary Powell. We are getting expressions of support.
Former Secretary Baker visited a number of these countries in
Europe and Asia and in the Middle East and Gulf region and came
back with expressions of support for substantial reduction,
words like that--not all countries used the same term--within
the Paris Club and also bilateral considerations.
Now that he has finished his first round of visits,
Secretary Snowe and I are working with Secretary Baker to put
meaning to these words and get exact amounts worked out so that
we can get the debt of the Iraqi people reduced as much as
possible this summer.
Senator Voinovich. So the point is that Baker's visit
stimulated conversations about it----
Secretary Powell. Yes.
Senator Voinovich [continuing]. But as yet none of them
have waived any of the loans?
Secretary Powell. Not converted into dollars yet, but that
is the next step in the process. We think we are on track with
the process.
Senator Voinovich. When do you think that will happen?
Secretary Powell. We are hoping to get as much done by
early summer as possible with respect to actual debt reduction.
Senator Voinovich. I hope they do better than their
contributions to the stability back in southeast Europe.
Secretary Powell. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Voinovich.
Thank you again, Secretary Powell, for being so forthcoming
in answering our questions, and for listening to our additional
concerns.
Secretary Powell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is always a
pleasure, and I will pass on the compliment that I heard
directed toward my Deputy Secretary Rich Armitage, which will
make him even more insufferable to live with than he is now.
The Chairman. Thank you, and the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:32 p.m., the committee adjourned, to
reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]
----------
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Responses of Hon. Colin L. Powell, Secretary of State, to Additional
Questions for the Record Submitted by Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
Question 1. The Government of Pakistan claims that Dr. A.Q. Khan's
nuclear proliferation activities were a rogue operation, conducted
without the knowledge, consent, or involvement of senior officials in
the government or military. Do you believe this to be the case?
Answer. As the White House has said, we value the assurances given
by President Musharraf that the Government of Pakistan is not involved.
Question 2. In the fall of 2002, General Musharraf made a solemn
promise to you: he vowed that Pakistan's nuclear facilities were
completely under his control, and that there would be absolutely no
proliferation in the future. Nearly one year later (according to public
reports), U.S. intelligence tracked Dr. A.Q. Khan's network
transporting five cargo containers of equipment for a nuclear
centrifuge to Libya.
a. What does this incident, and other incidents of
proliferation by Dr. A.Q. Khan subsequent to General Musharrafs
2002 pledge, indicate about the degree of control that
Musharraf has over Pakistan's nuclear assets?
b. Do you believe that General Musharrafs current pledges to
control nuclear proliferation are more credible than his 2002
pledge? If so, why?
Answer. As the President said in his February 11 speech at NDU,
American and British intelligence identified, and German and Italian
authorities intercepted, a shipment of advanced centrifuge parts
manufactured at a Malaysian facility en route from the manufacturer to
Libya via Dubai. The parts in question were neither produced in, nor
shipped from, Pakistan; and we have no reason to believe that the
Pakistani government was aware of this shipment.
President Musharraf has committed to work with the United States
and international efforts to roll up the A.Q. Khan network and has
pledged to take steps to ensure that Pakistan will not be a source for
proliferation in the future. We are pleased with the action that
President Musharraf has taken in response to his recognition of the
danger presented by this network. Actions taken by the Government of
Pakistan will be instrumental in rolling up the A.Q. Khan network.
President Musharraf has made clear his intention to protect
Pakistan's sensitive nuclear facilities. We value his assurances that
Pakistan's nuclear facilities and sensitive technologies will remain
under the tight control of the National Command Authority.
Question 3. What is the total number of troops currently deployed
in Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Afghanistan? How many of these
troops are U.S. soldiers?
Answer. There are 581 soldiers assigned to the 11 U.S. and
Coalition Provincial Reconstruction Teams. 405 of these soldiers are
U.S.; the remainder are British and New Zealanders. These numbers do
not include the German Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) in Kunduz,
which falls under the International Security Assistance Force, or any
U.S. or Coalition soldiers providing support to PRTs, but not actually
assigned and working as a member of a team. The number of military
personnel supporting PRTs in Bagram and Kabul is around 100. We
understand that there are 250 German military personnel on PRT Kunduz.
Question 4. The President's budget request for assessed
peacekeeping contributions falls from an anticipated $695 million to
$650 million. This amount assumes reductions in the scope of missions
in Kosovo, Ethiopia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, as well as
the completion of missions in Sierra Leone and Timor Leste. But we know
that these conflicts may not stabilize, and the requirements may not
decrease. In addition, we know that conflict and instability is growing
in several other areas--yet the request for peacekeeping does not
appear to include a reserve for new peacekeeping operations.
How likely is it that we will see Security Council mandates
for these new missions? How will we pay for them?
Answer. The Administration wants UN peacekeeping missions to end
when they have achieved their objectives and for those currently on the
ground to be as lean and effective as possible. In Sierra Leone and
Timor Leste, we are working with the UN and interested nations to
reduce the UN missions in those countries, and to end them as soon as
possible.
In other countries, UN missions offer the hope of solidifying peace
processes underway. We voted to establish a new UN peacekeeping mission
in Cote d'Ivoire on February 27. The Administration has announced its
intention to support authorization of a peacekeeping mission in Haiti
to replace the current multinational interim force, in which U.S.
troops participate. We expect the UN peacekeeping Haiti mission will be
created within the next two months. This month, the UN Secretary
General recommended establishment of a new UN peacekeeping mission in
Burundi. We are currently studying that recommendation. In addition, as
we have reported in the past, we continue to monitor the situation in
Sudan. If a comprehensive peace agreement is reached in Sudan, we
expect to support establishment of a UN peacekeeping mission there to
monitor the parties' compliance with their commitments.
The Administration does not request contingency funds in the CIPA
budget for possible new UN peacekeeping missions. Of necessity, the
budget request for each year is put together long in advance of world
events that may lead to a need for new UN peacekeeping missions. Events
may occur rapidly which lead to new peacekeeping missions not
anticipated in the President's Budget Request. Liberia is an example.
When Charles Taylor left Liberia (an event that was not predicted just
months before) it created conditions for the U.S. to support UN
peacekeeping in that country. We appreciate your appropriation of
supplemental funds to pay for both peacekeeping and development needs
in Liberia.
As to how we will pay for the new missions in Cote d'Ivoire and
Haiti and possible missions in Sudan and Burundi, we recognize the
problem. As the Secretary indicated in testimony before the House
Appropriations Committee, the CIPA account is under considerable
stress. But, it is too early to be definitive on the specific approach
we will take to address this problem and resolve it.
Question 5a. It's going to take a long time to replace or renovate
our facilities. In the meantime, what can we do to provide protection
at overseas facilities that still do not meet these minimum security
requirements?
Answer. During Secretary Powell's tenure, the Department's Bureau
of Overseas Buildings Operations (OBO), working with the Bureau of
Diplomatic Security (DS), has increased security through the following
measures:
Completing construction of 12 new secure facilities.
Since March 2001, OBO capital construction projects have
been completed or begun at 37 posts that will provide safer,
more secure facilities for almost 11% of U.S. personnel
overseas.
OBO and DS continue to provide both interim and permanent
security upgrades to the extent possible at existing
facilities. Since 2001, security enhancements have been made to
most U.S. diplomatic missions with $396 M (in OBO funds). These
upgrades include major perimeter upgrade projects at 70 posts,
construction of reinforced perimeter walls and compound
screening facilities, emergency egress upgrades, installation
of forced-entry/ballistic resistant doors and windows, and
other security upgrades at the majority of overseas posts.
Shatter-resistant window film (SRWF) has been installed at all
our overseas posts. Other funding has been used to acquire
property that will increase setback at facilities.
DS is upgrading technical security systems (such as closed
circuit TV systems and intrusion detection systems) at 156
facilities. DS has installed 700 explosives detectors, added
200 new metal detectors and 490 x-ray machines at our posts. An
aggressive surveillance detection program and well-trained
local guards give us early warning of possible terrorist
activity directed at our posts. Every post has an active
Emergency Action Committee addressing near and long-term
security issues. Our Regional Security Officers (RSOs) work
closely with senior host country law enforcement and security
officials to make sure threat information is shared quickly and
thoroughly and to ensure the host country provides appropriate
security for our posts and personnel. A Weapons of Mass
Destruction First Responders program was developed and is
operational at our posts overseas.
The FY 05 budget request includes $100 million for OBO to continue
providing interim protection to our facilities until security-deficient
office buildings can be replaced with New Embassy Compounds. This
includes compound security upgrades, installation of forced entry/
ballistic resistant doors and windows, maintenance of SRWF, minor
security upgrades, and environmental security protection.
Question 5b. You stated that the total cost of constructing 150 new
embassies is $17.5 billion over the next fourteen years. What
proportion of this total will be funded through the cost-sharing
program? Without cost-sharing, how much longer would it take to get the
embassies built?
Answer. The Capital Security Cost Sharing (CSCS) Program will
generate $17.5 billion over 14 years (FY 05 through FY 18;
contributions by State and other agencies will be phased in over 5
years beginning in FY 05). After the 5-year phase-in period, annual
funding will be $1.4 billion, all from the CSCS Program.
The CSCS Program will ensure that all agencies with an overseas
presence pay their fair share of urgent, security-driven capital
projects. State has identified 150 embassies and consulates that do not
meet minimum security standards and need to be replaced. Even assuming
moderate growth in State's construction budget, without CSCS, it would
take until 2030 (26 years) to fund the construction of these new
embassies and consulates.
Question 5c. Have all relevant agencies, including the Department
of Defense, agreed to contribute to the cost-sharing plan?
Answer. The Office of Management and Budget convened two meetings
during the period that the Capital Security Cost Sharing (CSCS) Program
was being developed. These meetings provided opportunities for all
agencies with an overseas presence to offer suggestions for improvement
in the proposed methodology for sharing the costs of meeting the
objectives of secure, safe, and functional facilities overseas and to
address the President's Management Agenda of Rightsizing. In addition,
both OMB and the State Department conducted numerous briefings and
individual discussions with affected agencies. The CSCS Program was
revised in several respects to take account of the concerns of other
agencies.
Under the Administration's CSCS Program, agencies with an overseas
presence under the authority of the Chief of Mission (COM) will be
required to pay their fair share of the program. Contributing agencies
have participated and will continue to take part in the process for
allocating cost shares. State conducted a comprehensive survey to
identify the number and type of cost-sharing overseas positions at each
post in Spring 2003; after this, agencies were given the opportunity to
reduce their position count by abolishing unfilled positions, and
certain types of positions were exempted, e.g., those in host
government space. State will repeat the survey every 2 years, and in
the future, adjustments will be made between surveys if an agency
documents reductions in positions.
DOD participated in the process for allocating cost shares. DOD's
share is 11% of the total, whereas State's is 66%.
Only DOD positions under COM authority are counted for CSCS.
Marine Security Guard positions are not counted.
In a January 7, 2004, letter to the Secretary from Deputy Secretary
of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, DOD expressed support for the Department's
efforts to improve embassy security, but noted its inability to
contribute to the CSCS Program because of the FY 04 legislative
prohibitions and lack of support from DOD oversight committees. The
letter concluded that DOD would fully comply with the Administration's
position.
The Administration's FY 05 budget includes a provision authorizing
the Department to charge and collect CSCS costs, without offsets. It
also includes a provision to repeal the DOD exclusions from cost
sharing in the FY 04 Defense Authorization bill (Sec. 1007) and the FY
04 Defense Appropriations bill (Sec. 8137).
Section 1007 of the FY 04 Defense Authorization Act provided
that DOD's appropriated funds may be transferred to State for
the maintenance or construction of U.S. diplomatic facilities
only if the amount charged by State is greater than the
unreimbursed costs incurred by DOD during that year providing
goods and services to State.
Section 8137 of the FY 04 DOD Appropriations Act prohibits
DOD from paying any fee charged by the State Department to
construct new diplomatic facilities.
Question 6. As you may be aware, last November I introduced a
resolution in support of the establishment of a Democracy Caucus at the
United Nations. This is an idea that has gained a good deal of support
over the past few years from a broad-based coalition, as well as
endorsement from Secretary Albright and Ambassador Kirkpatrick. I also
note that Assistant Secretary Holmes recently called the creation of a
UN Democracy Caucus ``an idea whose time has arrived''.
What is your view on the establishment of such a caucus? What
efforts have we been making on this front? Are we encouraging
other nations to take a leading role, as well?
Answer. The United States has strongly supported the Community of
Democracies, which brings together over one hundred democratic nations
to strengthen democratic principles around the world. And now we are
building on the Community of Democracies to form a democracy caucus
within the United Nations system. The caucus would be based on the
Warsaw Declaration of the Community of Democracies, signed in June
2000, which calls for democracies to ``collaborate on democracy-related
issues in existing international and regional institutions.'' The
Community of Democracies reiterated this pledge in Seoul, Korea in 2002
when it charged the Convening Group with ``encouraging the formation of
coalitions and caucuses to support democracy.''
Such a grouping, united by its members' shared ideals and
democratic practices, will help the entire UN system live up to its
founding principles. We envision a coalition of democratic countries
consulting and cooperating in how they will vote in the UN, and uniting
our voices to promote democratic ideals worldwide.
We do not envision a democracy caucus supplanting regional groups
or coalitions such as the NAM or G-77; instead, it would provide
democratic nations an alternate network with which to align its voting
practices and support. Ultimately a democracy caucus would become an
accepted UN bloc like other blocs. We want all countries to be able to
freely associate themselves with the ideals of freedom that will carry
their peoples to security, prosperity and peace in the 21st century.
Efforts
In June 2000, the United States, in cooperation with Poland, Chile,
Mali and other democratic states, convened the first meeting of the
Community of Democracies to ``collaborate on democratic-related issues
in existing international and regional institutions . . . aimed at the
promotion of democratic government.'' More than one hundred countries
participated, since some nations were included that at Seoul two years
later would be moved to ``observer'' level, like Egypt.
A second such meeting took place in Seoul in November 2002, where
participants reaffirmed the need to create a U.N. Caucus of Democratic
States (or, Democracy Caucus). A third meeting of the CD is scheduled
for Chile in 2005.
We are extremely excited about the emergence of the Democracy
Caucus at the Sixtieth Commission on Human Rights (CHR) in Geneva,
Switzerland, March 15--April 23, 2004. At the high-level segment of
this year's CHR, Under Secretary Dobriansky spoke about the Democracy
Caucus and the relevance of the Community of Democracies to the
credibility and effectiveness of the CHR. Of the 53 member states of
the current UN Commission on Human Rights, 32 are members of the
Community of Democracies. This means that countries with shared
democratic practices represent a clear majority of states on the
Commission. Members of the Democracy Caucus are coordinating on a
resolution proposed by Romania, Peru, and the United States on
Consolidating Democracy. This is a wonderful first step toward
reclaiming the only global body charged specifically with human rights
from tyrannies seeking to hide behind its credibility.
The State Department has been hosting lunches in Washington and New
York leading up to this year's elections for CHR membership to urge
democracies to recruit--and vote for--good candidates.
Furthermore, Ambassador Moley has hosted lunches in Geneva for the
Permanent Representatives of regional groups on the relevance of the
Community of Democracies to the Commission on Human Rights.
Under Secretary for Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky and Assistant
Secretary for International Organization Affairs Kim Holmes have
recently hosted four lunches in Washington, DC, with fifty-two
democracies to discuss UN issues and reforms, hear attendees' views,
and promote dialogue among countries with shared democratic values.
The Department of State has also been engaging in public diplomacy
efforts. Secretary Powell discussed the Community of Democracies in his
Freedom House speech on March 11, 2003. Assistant Secretary Holmes
addressed the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, and Under
Secretary Dobriansky and others have held briefings in Washington, DC,
in order to keep the NGO community informed on this issue.
Encouraging Other Nations
The United States has also been encouraging other nations to take
the lead on this initiative.
Chile has played a leading role as the host of the next Community
of Democracies ministerial conference.
In New York since 2003, the Convening Group of the Community of
Democracies, as well as individual missions, have held meetings and
brainstorming sessions in support of the democracy caucus.
In April 2003, the Republic of Korea hosted a reception for Seoul
participants of the Community of Democracies, which featured a strong
speech by the Polish Permanent Representative.
The Polish Ambassador hosted lunches last September, in conjunction
with the Permanent Representatives from the United States, the Republic
of Korea, Chile, and Italy, to discuss the democracy caucus.
These steps by others give us hope that this will be much more than
an American effort--it will be the joint effort of countries around the
globe that share democratic principles, working together to bring the
UN into ever closer alignment with its noble founding principles.
______
Response of Hon. Colin L. Powell, Secretary of State, to an Additional
Question for the Record Submitted by Senator George V. Voinovich
Question 1. The President's budget request includes a significant
increase--nearly 30 percent--in funding for the Peace Corps. This is
consistent with the goal of doubling the number of Peace Corps
Volunteers by 2007. While the Peace Corps is a significant part of our
presence aboard, it is essential that we do all that we can to provide
for the safety of our Peace Corps Volunteers. As we work to increase
the number of Peace Corps Volunteers, what is being done to ensure
their highest possible level of safety while serving abroad? What
recommendations would you make to enhance the security of Peace Corps
Volunteers? How will this additional, funding be used to improve
security for Peace Corps Volunteers? For instance, will, any of these
funds be spent on initiative to enhance the safety of housing for
volunteers, or to improve means for volunteers to communicate with
country directors or security officers in time of emergency?
Answer. The Department of State has no greater responsibility than
the protection of Americans overseas. The Department's ``no double
standard'' requires the Department to share any threat information to
both the official and non-official Americans community overseas.
Peace Corps Volunteers are not considered U.S. Government employees
and are not under Chief of Mission authority while serving overseas.
According to Department of State regulations ``for all relevant
purposes, volunteers are not considered U.S. Government employees. They
are not official members of the mission and do not have diplomatic
immunity.'' The Peace Corps country directors and staff are considered
official government employees. The Peace Corps has its own Safety and
Security Officers who are assigned overseas with regional
responsibility for different PC missions.
In country, Regional Security Officers provide in-country briefings
to PCVS and coordinate with Regional Peace Corps Safety and Security
Officers. In Washington, the first ever ``Peace Corps Security Officer
Course'' was offered by the Department of State's Bureau of Diplomatic
Security (DS) Training Division in 2003. In addition, DS personnel
liaisons with Peace Corps at a headquarters level, ensuring cables and
investigative findings from RSOs are shared on all incidents involving
Peace Corps Volunteers.
______
Responses of Hon. Colin L. Powell, Secretary of State, to Additional
Questions for the Record Submitted by Senator Russell D. Feingold
Question 1. Is it your view that the Indonesian military has made
significant progress in its reform efforts over the past two years? On
what do you base your assessment? Will the Department link military
assistance to our demand for cooperation and accountability in the
investigation of the murder of American citizens in West Papua as
required by the omnibus appropriations bill passed earlier this year?
Answer. The Indonesian military has made only limited progress in
its reform efforts over the past two years. One visible sign of
consolidated civilian control over the military will be the
elimination, after the coming April 5 legislative elections, of
positions in the House of Representatives (DPR) and the People's
Consultative Assembly (MPR) that were previously reserved for the
military. This will accomplish a key measure sought by the civil
society groups that led Indonesia's reform movement after the fall of
President Suharto in 1998.
There has been little progress on pursuing accountability for past
human rights abuses, however. There also have been reports of human
rights abuses occurring during the current state of emergency in Aceh.
To the best of our knowledge, the scale of these abuses in the current
state of emergency appears to be less than in past conflicts in both
Aceh and East Timor. Reliable information from Aceh, however, has been
sparse because the Indonesian Government has severely restricted access
to the province.
The FBI team investigating the Papua attack reported after its last
visit to Indonesia, in December, 2003, that cooperation by the
Indonesian military had improved from an initially low level. The
investigation remains ongoing--the FBI team will return to Indonesia on
February 25 for a follow-on visit. The State Department continues to
emphasize to senior Indonesian leaders that failure to resolve this
matter will seriously affect our overall bilateral relationship. The
State Department will of course fully comply with language in the
omnibus appropriations bill that links military assistance to full
cooperation and accountability from the Indonesian military in this
investigation.
Question 2. One of Africa's serious crises continues in Zimbabwe,
and you, Secretary Powell, have spoken out admirably and honestly about
that situation, in which a repressive regime appears to be willing to
destroy the entire country, from judicial institutions to civil society
to the economy, in what amounts to a fit of pique. When I think about
budget priorities in Africa, I am always aware that eventually, we will
need to provide meaningful reconstruction and recovery assistance to
Zimbabwe, and I was proud to be one of the original sponsors of the
Zimbabwe Democracy Act, which formalizes that commitment in law. But I
continue to wonder, when will we get to that recovery stage? Can you
talk a bit about the kind of engagement that you envision with South
Africa, which of course has tremendous influence in Zimbabwe, aimed at
moving this crisis toward resolution?
Answer. We fully share your concerns regarding Zimbabwe's
devastation at the hands of President Mugabe, and greatly value your
engagement and contributions on this urgent problem. Our ultimate goal
is a democratic, economically sound, stable, and peaceful Zimbabwe. Our
immediate objective is commencement of constructive dialogue between
the ruling ZANU-PF and opposition MDC parties that focuses on restoring
the rule of law, leveling the political playing field, and laying the
groundwork for free and internationally monitored elections that would
yield a democratically legitimate government.
Though Zimbabweans themselves will decide the details leading to
this outcome, the international community has an important role to play
in helping to bring about conditions that will allow the Zimbabwean
people to pursue their own solutions. U.S. sanctions and isolation of
the Zimbabwean regime have brought useful but insufficient pressure to
bear. African nations, and South Africa in particular, have the
greatest capacity to press the Zimbabwean Government to reverse course.
Last July President Bush discussed the Zimbabwe crisis with
President Mbeki in Pretoria and asked him to be the ``point man'' on
Zimbabwe. This was a realistic acknowledgement that South Africa not
only is best positioned to influence developments in Zimbabwe but is
directly affected by a neighbor in political, economic and social
crisis. In the months since, the United States has maintained its
pressure and sanctions on the Zimbabwean Government while giving
President Mbeki an opportunity to pursue his strategies for addressing
the crisis. President Mbeki has recently voiced his hope that dialogue
between Mr. Mugabe's regime and the opposition would commence soon.
Unfortunately, we see no signs that serious and constructive
negotiations are in sight. The crisis persists and President Mugabe's
abuse of his country for narrow political ends remains unchecked.
We are conferring very actively with South Africa, as well as with
other African leaders and elements of civil society, on additional
steps we might take to build consensus for greater African engagement
and appropriate responses to continued intransigence on the part of Mr.
Mugabe's regime. Should the Zimbabwean Government continue to resist
forthright pursuit of political solutions, we are prepared in the near
future to broaden the range of individuals within the ruling elite, its
supporters, and beneficiaries subject to our targeted financial and
visa sanctions.
Although a political solution does not appear imminent, we share
your views on the importance of planning for meaningful reconstruction
and recovery assistance when conditions allow. In line with the
Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act, we are developing
strategies and identifying priorities to help support Zimbabwe's
eventual recovery.
Question 3. I noted with interest that the Department is proposing
a new $7.5 million activity within the NADR account to combat terrorist
financing. Will some of these resources be directed toward helping
countries dependent on hawala networks to regulate those networks and
make those systems more accountable and transparent?
Answer. Yes, our FY 2005 request for $7.5 million in NADR funds
includes training and technical assistance programs to combat the abuse
of alternative remittance systems (ARS) by terrorist financiers. Such
programs will heighten awareness of possible abuse of ARS to launder
funds or fund terrorism and encourage the formal regulation and
supervision of alternative remittance systems in counterterrorism
frontline states.
Question 4. What kind of diplomatic fall-out do you anticipate in
the months ahead if indeed David Kay is correct and we are not going to
find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? What does this do to U.S.
credibility around the world? Doesn't damaged credibility on
intelligence matters have the potential to undermine crucial
cooperation in fighting terrorism?
Answer. Saddam's regime clearly had the intent and the capacity to
produce WMD, and Saddam had used WMD in the past, against other
countries and against his own people. Iraq continued to have the
technical infrastructure, labs, and dual-use facilities that lent
themselves to the production of weapons of mass destruction. The
assumption to make, based on what the intelligence community gave to us
was that there were stockpiles present. To know that Saddam had the
intent and capacity to produce WMD and not to act was no longer
acceptable after September 11, 2001. Pre-war intelligence assessments
reflected the best judgments of all of the intelligence agencies. There
is absolutely no doubt in my mind that if Iraq had gotten free of
sanctions and the focus of the international community had dimmed with
regard to its WMD programs, Iraq would have gone to the next level and
produced stockpiles of these weapons. David Kay has even said that ``at
the end of the inspection process, we'll paint a picture of Iraq that
was far more dangerous than even we thought it was before the war.''
______
Responses of Hon. Colin L. Powell, Secretary of State, to Additional
Questions for the Record Submitted by Senator Norm Coleman
Question 1. A big concern I consistently hear from my constituents
involves the dire humanitarian needs of the Hmong who remain in Laos.
Amnesty International has alleged that the Lao Government is using
starvation as a weapon of war against these individuals. Can you tell
me what specifically the U.S. and the international community are doing
to bring humanitarian aid to the Hmong people in Laos?.
Answer. We remain concerned about Laos' poor human rights record,
including the treatment of ethnic minorities. Our Embassy in Vientiane
actively monitors the situation, investigating reports of abuses and
pressing the Lao Government to adhere to international standards for
the protection of human rights. We are aware of continued fighting
between insurgent groups and government forces but are not aware of
large-scale attacks against the Hmong people or any coordinated
government policy of starvation. We have approached the Lao Government
on numerous occasions to urge that it resolve the humanitarian problem
facing the Forest Hmong quickly and peacefully, preferably with the
involvement of credible international organizations. We understand that
the Lao Government has an amnesty program for groups to peacefully come
out of the forest and resettle, but we lack details about this program
and have requested additional information from the government. The GoL
has been unresponsive to our requests thus far.
The USG does not provide specifically targeted assistance to Hmong
in Laos, but does provide assistance through NGOs for humanitarian
demining, developing economic alternatives to opium cultivation, and
preventing HIV/AIDs and trafficking in persons. Overall, bilateral aid
to Laos is minimal. In FY05, the State Department and AID plan to
provide one million dollars in child survival and health funds
(primarily HIV/AIDS related), to carry over one million dollars to
continue funding an economic assistance/alternative development silk
production and weaving program, and approximately 2.5 million dollars
to support humanitarian demining. Through NGOs and UN agencies we will
provide more than three million dollars in counternarcotics assistance
(including alternative development, demand reduction and law
enforcement training). Additional program funds may be used for
regional programs designed to prevent trafficking in persons and other
health-related assistance. The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and
Labor plans to fund an IRI democracy-building project related to
village elections this year.
Question 2. Like others, I have been watching with great concern
the changing situation in Haiti. What specific actions is the U.S.
doing to prevent loss of life in Haiti during this difficult time? Are
there any good ways out of Haiti's political crisis?
Answer. The best way out of Haiti's political crisis is for all
parties to agree to the settlement plan proposed by the Caribbean
Community. Under the plan, President Aristide remains in office until
his term expires but agrees to the formation of a new government under
a new Prime Minister. This government would serve until elections were
held in 2005. I am meeting on February 13 with Caribbean Community
leaders, Canadian Foreign Minister William Graham, and OAS Secretary
General Gaviria to discuss how we can best put the Caribbean Community
plan into effect. President Aristide agreed to the plan on January 31
in Kingston; now our diplomatic efforts must concentrate on obtaining
agreement of opposition and civil society elements.
The Administration is also very concerned about the attacks in the
northern part of Haiti, and about the loss of life those attacks have
caused.
President Aristide is deploying units of the Haitian National
Police to restore order. Our assistance to the Haitian National Police
is limited because of corruption and credible allegations of
involvement in narcotics trafficking, but part of the Caribbean
Community plan addresses police reform by requiring new leadership, a
professionalization plan, and deployment of international police
officers to assist in reform efforts. Agreement of all sides to the
Caribbean Community plan, on which our efforts are now concentrated,
depends in part on immediate Haitian Government implementation of some
of these measures to build confidence in other political actors.
Question 3. The change of government that occurred in Bolivia last
year was a source of great concern and sadness for the loss of life. I
believe the stakes in Bolivia are very high. We must do what we can to
support the current government, to help prevent Bolivia from becoming
an undemocratic narco-state. I am concerned that our lack of support
for Sanchez de Lozada, while not the cause of his downfall,
nevertheless added to his woes. Can you please tell me what the U.S. is
doing to support the Mesa government, specifically budget support?
Answer. We are working closely with President Mesa and his
government to help them address Bolivia's daunting fiscal, socio-
economic, and political challenges.
In November, we allocated $8 million in ESF funds to provide the
Bolivian Government with direct budget support. USAID dropped $16
million in counterpart funding requirements for FY 2004, freeing funds
for the GOB to use elsewhere.
We are also working multilaterally to help the GOB meet is fiscal
needs. On January 16 we co-hosted with Mexico the Bolivia Support Group
meeting, which succeeded in increasing diplomatic support for the GOB.
In mid-March, we will co-host a meeting of the Bolivia Support Group
Steering Committee to follow up financial commitments made at the
Support Group meeting and to identify new sources of direct budget
support from bilateral donors and international financial institutions.
In December 2003, we worked closely with Treasury to secure $96 million
from IFIs to close the 2003 fiscal gap.
In addition to helping Bolivia meet its immediate budget needs, we
are also working with President Mesa to support social, security and
counter-narcotics programs. USAID has redirected $12 million in aid to
Bolivia from long-term projects to fast-disbursing aid in conflict-
prone areas. In December, State provided, approximately $4 million in
FY 2004 Foreign Military Financing (FMF) to the Bolivian government.
INL has notified Congress of its intent to reprogram from Ecuador to
Bolivia $1.5 million in ACL funds to bolster counter-narcotics efforts.
Question 4. One of our biggest challenges in Latin America is the
current negative impression they tend to have of us. A poll last fall
by the University of Miami and Zogby International found that only 12
percent of those questioned rated President Bush's performance on Latin
America as positive. Ninety-eight percent of Brazilians gave the
President negative marks. While the intensity of our image problem in
Latin America pales in comparison to the situation in the Middle East,
I am concerned that negative Latin perceptions of the United States
could impede hemispheric cooperation. I believe this Administration is
sincere in its goodwill toward Latin America, but somehow that message
is being lost. Can you please tell me what activities we have done, and
which we might consider, to improve U.S. public diplomacy in Latin
America?
Answer. The Senator's concerns about public diplomacy and the image
of the United States in Latin America are well taken, and we share
them. It does appear, however, that the public view of the U.S. may not
be as dire as the University of Miami/Zogby International polling
reported.
Overall, we have seen a decline in favorable attitudes toward the
U.S. in Latin America as a result of the opposition voiced by various
publics to U.S. military action in Iraq, and more generally since late
2001, because of a dislike for the perceived ``heavy-handedness'' of
U.S. policy. Nonetheless, opinion of the U.S. remained positive through
last summer (on average, 60% were favorable--majorities in 11 of 17
countries polled in the 2003 Latinobarometer--Argentina, Uruguay and
Bolivia were the exceptions). Some have pointed to divergent values as
a cause for anti-Americanism around the world, but this is most
certainly not the case in the Western Hemisphere. Latin Americans
believe people in the U.S. share many values with them--especially the
premium both place on individual freedom and living under a democracy.
Within that context, however, we are determined to do more and to
do what we are already doing better. Our missions in Latin America are
increasing their innovative efforts to help our neighbors understand
our policies. We are pumping almost $15 million each year into the
Fulbright Program, with over 1000 scholars participating. About 450 of
our posts' key interlocutors participated in the International Visitors
program last year. Our ambassadors have been particularly active in
speaking to their respective media. Positive stories about Iraq, for
instance, are fed to the Public Affairs Sections of our embassies on a
more than daily frequency. Under the direction of the Department's new
Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, the embassies
are looking to engage broader, younger audiences, to reach out beyond
the elites with whom we've most often worked in the recent past.
I would be happy to provide the Senator with more details of our
enormous Public Diplomacy efforts in the hemisphere (for instance, we
have collated data regarding outreach by senior Administration
officials to the hemisphere) or to have my senior staff in the Under
Secretary's office and in the office of Western Hemisphere Affairs
brief the Senator's staff.
Question 5. A recent article in the Wall Street Journal discusses
the manipulation of human rights statistics by NGOs in Colombia. This
information was based on a report from the U.S. Embassy in Bogota. Does
this information suggest that congressionally-mandated human rights
requirements for Colombia as part of our assistance program should be
revisited?
Answer. The U.S. Embassy report mentioned in the Wall Street
Journal article does not suggest that congressionally-mandated human
rights requirements for Colombia should be revisited, but rather
discusses the variance in human rights statistics produced by the
Government of Colombia and Colombian NGOs. This report explains that
many of these discrepancies can be attributed to differences in
terminology and methodology used by different organizations, and do not
reflect major differences concerning the underlying facts. While the
aforementioned report and the 2003 Country Report on Human Rights for
Colombia note that human rights indicators (i.e. numbers of murders,
kidnappings, displaced, and other major human rights violations) showed
significant improvements in 2003, both reports acknowledge that more
remains to be done.
The Secretary takes the Colombia human rights certification process
very seriously and will continue to review all evidence pertaining to
the human rights conditions when deciding whether conditions found in
Section 563(a) of P.L. 108-199 of the Consolidated Appropriation for
the Fiscal Year 2004 have been met. As in the past, the Department will
solicit input from available sources, including the Government of
Colombia and NGOs. Further, the Secretary will continue to insist on
full compliance with all human rights conditions prior to making his
determination and certification.
Question 6. Is now the time for engagement with the Iranian regime?
What sort of aid are we providing to independent Iranian-American media
outlets that, with satellite technology, have the means and the desire
to broadcast free media inside Iran?
Answer. The U.S. continues to have serious concerns regarding
several aspects of Iranian behavior, including its support for
terrorist groups opposed to the peace process; its repression of its
citizens at home; its potential for negative interference in Iraq; and
its continuing pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. We continue to
encourage the international community to recognize the threat posed by
Iran's state sponsorship of terror and its continuing pursuit of WMD.
We have worked extensively to build support in the international
community for tough inspections and investigations by the International
Atomic Energy Agency. We continue to press our allies to recognize the
consistent efforts of the Iranian government to undermine peace in the
Middle East. We have taken all appropriate opportunities to highlight
Iranian human rights abuses. We maintain a rigorous sanctions regime in
our efforts to encourage more cooperative behavior.
However, we distinguish between the Iranian Government and the
people of Iran, who consistently have demonstrated their desire for a
government based on democratic values and a fundamental respect for
human rights. The 2003 Foreign Operations bill gave us special
congressional approval to fund projects to support democracy in Iran
through our already-existing Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI)
as well as to use funds assigned to the Bureau of Democracy, Rights,
and Labor to promote Human Rights in Iran.
As Deputy Secretary of State Armitage said before the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee on October 29, 2003 we may consider
specific MEPI projects on a case-to-case basis.
Currently, the Broadcasting Board of Governors run the Persian
language VOA radio and TV programs, as well as Radio Farda. The State
Department has also launched a Persian language Web site where we post
key policy statements on Iran.
Question 7. As I stated in a letter to the President on March 27,
2003, I have great concerns about the lack of funds for broadcasting in
Iraq and the State Department's reluctance to release funds to the
Iraqi National Congress for that purpose, as stipulated in P.L. 105-
174. One consequence was a lack of understanding among Iraqis about the
nature of the U.S. invasion. Today the vacuum left after the fall of
Saddam Hussein's regime has been filled by foreign media supported by
Iran and other entities hostile to freedom and secularism. I am told
that Iraq continues to lack a credible media sector, and that the Iraqi
Media Network (IMN) has serious credibility problems. What does the
Administration plan to do to correct the lack of credibility of the
IMN? What role do we anticipate the media will play in Iraq's political
future?
Answer. The State Department has supported the broadcasting
operations of the Iraqi National Congress and Liberty TV. For the
period from November 2002 to July 2003, for example, funding in excess
of $4 million was authorized to the INC for broadcasting. Following the
war, the Iraq Media Network faced daunting challenges in rebuilding
Iraq's TV and radio networks, training new media professionals and
developing credible local programming. While security issues slowed
initial progress, CPA has been successful in creating a new countrywide
television network, Al-Iraqiyya, which is now providing high quality
programming and news to Iraqis. In February, Harris Corporation took
over as the new DAN contractor as part of a long-term commitment to
increase the level of professionalism and expertise of the operation.
CPA has drafted plans to turn IMN into a public broadcasting operation
by establishing the Iraqi Public Broadcasting Corporation (IPBC), which
would be an institution independent of government or political
influence.
Iraqis have access to other U.S. media outlets. Radio Sawa has been
broadcasting into Iraq since well before the war, and is the number one
radio station across Iraq. In April, pan-Arab al-Hurra satellite TV
plans to open an Iraqi affiliate to broadcast international and local
news and views to Iraqis.
Polling shows that Iraqis want to have a free and open media. This
has translated into an explosion of local media with over two hundred
local newspapers and periodicals published and avidly read. Local radio
and television stations are flourishing in northern Iraq and are
starting up in other regions of the country. To encourage the growth of
independent and objective media, CPA, USAID and State have been
carrying out training programs for Iraqi journalists and media
professionals.
Question 8a. It has been my experience that faith based groups are
one of our best assets in combating AIDS world wide. The Global AIDS
bill was very explicit about the need to involve faith-based
organizations. But I have been hearing quite a bit from faith-based
organizations about their difficulties in accessing funding for AIDS
work. Could you tell me how much of this assistance is currently being
administered through faith based groups?
Answer. In launching the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, President
Bush made clear that a wide array of partners will help us implement
the Plan, including non-governmental organizations such as faith- and
community-based groups, private corporations, and, in some
circumstances, international organizations. Faith-based organizations
have often been the first responders to the global AIDS pandemic and
have a wealth of expertise and experience to offer in implementing the
Emergency Plan.
The U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator, Ambassador Randall L. Tobias, has
met with a number of faith-based organizations as he and his office
have begun to implement the Emergency Plan.
As of last December 2003, the Administration had announced several
initial central funding mechanisms to implement key topical areas of
the Emergency Plan, pending the availability of funds. These areas
included activities for orphans and vulnerable children, behavior
change through abstinence and faithfulness, care and anti-retroviral
therapy for HIV-infected persons, prevention through safe blood
programs, and twinning and volunteer activities to build capacity and
human resources. Additional proposal solicitation announcements are
expected to be made throughout the year.
On February 23, 2004, the first $350 million in awards will be
announced under the program areas noted above. Examples of faith-based
partners that will receive awards in this first round of funding are
Catholic Relief Services, World Relief, the Salvation Army, Habitat for
Humanity, and Opportunity International.
The Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator will endeavor to
ensure that all groups, including faith-based organizations, interested
in competing for funding under the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS
Relief are made aware of opportunities as they arise. Faith-based
organizations have large networks on the ground that are already
responding to the HIV/AIDS crisis, a good number of which will be
included in the unified U.S. Government plans submitted by the U.S.
Ambassador in the 14 focus countries of the President's Emergency Plan
for review by Ambassador Tobias' office in the spring.
Question 8b. The Global AIDS bill listed 14 countries to receive
intense funding. While I fully support a targeted effort, AIDS is
obviously not limited by geography. Can you tell me whether this
targeting has led to decreases in AIDS funding for other countries
coping with the AIDS crisis?
Answer. President Bush's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief is a 5-
year, $15 billion initiative that virtually triples the U.S. commitment
to international HIV/AIDS assistance.
The $9 billion under the Emergency Plan intended to boost
prevention, treatment and care activities in 14 (soon to be 15) of the
most affected countries in the world is additional to the base budgets
of U.S. Government agencies, totaling $5 billion over five years, that
will continue bilateral U.S. HIV/AIDS programs currently active in more
than 100 countries around the world. The remaining $1 billion is an
additional pledge by the United States to the Global Fund to Fight
AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.
Question 8c. In November I had the opportunity to meet with the
President of Congo, Joseph Kabila. Here's a man who has made some
really historic choices, who has put his country on the path to
reconciliation, whose country has so many needs its difficult to even
begin to list them. President Kabila's one request of me was for more
assistance for Congo in our Global AIDS efforts. Congo had a stable
AIDS infection rate for many years, at 5 percent. But there are
disturbing signs that this rate has increased, particularly in the
eastern part of that country, where AIDS rates may be as high as 22
percent, with 36 percent of pregnant women HIV-positive. Following that
meeting, I wrote to the State Department, making the case for Congo. In
the response I received, I was told that Congo was to receive $6.2
million in FY2003. Can you tell me how much we expect to spend in Congo
this year or in 2005? Is $6 million enough to make a dent in a country
as large as Congo?
Answer. Specific HIV/AIDS allocations for non-focus countries have
not yet been determined for Fiscal Year 2004, although they are
expected to remain similar to Fiscal Year 2003 allocations. Fiscal Year
2005 allocations will be dependent on the final Fiscal Year 2005
appropriations, the process for which has only recently begun; however,
request levels for non-focus countries will be reviewed in 2005.
As you note, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) has been
undergoing a war since 1996, which has had significant implications for
efforts to address the HIV/AIDS epidemic. For example, the eastern part
of the country is under the rule of rebels, making it difficult if not
impossible for the National HIV/AIDS Control Program to operate there.
However, a national consultation for reconciliation is underway which
may improve the situation.
The DRC conducted a review of the national HIV/AIDS plan that
resulted in an improved, integrated HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria
plan. The United Nations has prepared its HIV/AIDS work plan, which it
estimated at $19 million, of which it has $16 million available. The
Board of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria has
approved a five-year, nearly $114 million grant for combating HIV/AIDS
in the DRC, with the first two years of funding estimated at
approximately $35 million.
Question 8d. I've also been considering the AIDS problem for India.
Infection rates do not yet reach those we find in sub-Saharan Africa,
but the sheer size of India means that there are already 4.5 million
people who are living with HIV/AIDS in India. If HIV continues to
spread at its current rate, an estimated 20 to 25 million Indians or
more are likely to be infected by 2010. According to a Center for
Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) Task Force, India faces a
strategic opportunity in the next 6-12 months to reverse the trend.
Given India's strategic location, and the values of democracy our two
countries share, I believe it is in our interest to begin thinking
about how to tackle AIDS in India before the disease undermines India's
progress of the past 50 years. Can you shed some light on the State
Department's thinking regarding AIDS in India?
Answer. The Administration shares your concern about the growing
HIV/AIDS epidemic in ``next wave'' countries such as India. As such, as
noted above, the President's Emergency Plan includes nearly $5 billion
to support ongoing bilateral HIV/AIDS programs in approximately 100
countries worldwide--including in India.
India is a participating country in the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services' (HHS) Global AIDS Program; HHS allocated $2.3
million for HIV/AIDS programs in India in Fiscal Year 2002, and was
expected to spend $3.6 million in Fiscal Year 2003. Also within HHS,
the National Institutes of Health (NIH) provided $9.4 million on HIV/
AIDS biomedical and behavioral research projects in India in Fiscal
Year 2002 through collaborations with both U.S.-based and Indian
institutions. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
allocated $12.2 million to HIV/AIDS prevention and care activities in
India in Fiscal Year 2002, and an estimated $13.5 million in Fiscal
Year 2003. Additionally, both the U.S. Departments of Defense and Labor
have HIV/AIDS programs underway in India. Numerous other donors,
including the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria;
governments; the private sector; multilateral organizations; and
foundations also fund HIV/AIDS programs in India. For example, the Bill
and Melinda Gates Foundation has committed $200 million to fight HIV/
AIDS in India.
MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE ACCOUNT
Question 9. I read with interest of the recent launching of the
Millennium Challenge Corporation. This is an issue that many of my
constituents have taken a great deal of interest in. My question deals
with eligibility. The MCC board of directors released a list of some 63
countries that are technically eligible to compete for MCA funding, a
list of the world's poorest countries that are not prohibited by
Congress from receiving assistance. Most of these countries, I
understand, are not likely to be eligible for aid under the MCA because
they will fall short of eligibility criteria related to governance,
investing in people, and economic freedom.
I understand that USAID plans to develop a program specifically
designed to help those countries that just miss MCA eligibility
requirements. Has this program been initiated? Where will funding for
these activities come from?
Answer. The Millennium Challenge Act (MCA) requires that the
Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) Board wait a minimum of 90 days
after announcing candidates before selecting eligible MCA countries.
Selection can thus occur no sooner than May 6, 2004. The Board plans to
meet as near as possible to that date so that selection can take place
at the earliest date possible. Only after selection can countries that
fall just short of qualifying for the MCA be identified and a program
initiated to assist them.
In addition to its ongoing assistance programs in a broad range of
developing countries, USAID will provide targeted assistance to
countries that just miss qualifying for the MCA and demonstrate a
commitment to policy reform. In those countries, USAID will support
development through programs under the MCA rubric of ruling justly,
investing in people and encouraging economic freedom, with particular
attention to areas of weakness in qualifying for the MCA. The aim will
be to promote economic growth and development and encourage policy
improvements that will eventually enable the country to qualify for the
MCA.
Funding for such programs could come from USAID and/or the
Millennium Challenge Corporation. The Millennium Challenge Act
authorizes the Board of the MCC to provide not more than 10% of
appropriated assistance to countries for the purposes of assisting them
to qualify for the MCA, but the Board has not yet addressed this issue.
Both the MCC and USAID will encourage countries to take the needed
steps to qualify for MCA funding and to create the conditions for
lasting development progress.
Question 10a. I have a general concern regarding U.S. citizen
services at our embassies. My staff tells me of general problems in
having phone calls and faxes returned promptly. I know our consular
officers are extremely busy, and I expect they would return more phone
calls from my staff if they were not. My question, then, is whether we
have enough consular staff to respond to the needs of U.S. citizens.
Answer. The State Department has sufficient consular staff to
respond to the needs of U.S. citizens overseas. Since consular staff
usually interacts with the public in the morning, most posts accept
only emergency calls during this time, and generally establish hours
for phone calls in the afternoon. Posts make every effort to respond to
congressional inquiries within 72 hours as prescribed by Department of
State regulation. Our experience has shown that email is the most
efficient and reliable form of communication and encourage
congressional staff to use this medium rather than fax. If your staff
is experiencing difficulty with any particular posts, they should
contact the Consular Officer assigned to the Department of State's
Congressional Liaison Office for assistance.
Question 10b. I would follow up with specific concerns about
adoption cases. My office works with hundreds of families in the
process of completing international adoptions. The parents tend to come
to my office because they do not feel adequately helped by Embassy
staff; they feel an undue emphasis has been placed on preventing
illegal adoptions--which is a goal we all share--without adequate
attention to facilitating legal adoptions. (A big exception to this
issue, I might add, has been our very positive experience with the U.S.
Embassy in Guatemala.) I am wondering if there are ways we can do more
to help prospective parents, rather than simply focusing on stopping
improper adoptions?
Answer. The Department of State's highest priority is the welfare
and protection of American citizens, including Americans adopting
children internationally. In FY 2003, Americans adopted over 21,000
children from overseas. We believe intercountry adoption is an
excellent means of providing a loving, permanent family placement for
children who would otherwise not have one. To support this goal we
provide a number of services for American prospective adoptive parents.
The Office of Children's Issues in the Bureau of Consular Affairs
was created in 1994 in recognition of the growing prominence of
children's issues in foreign policy. The Adoption Unit in that office
is devoted to working with parents seeking to adopt children from
overseas:
Adoption officers are available to respond to general and
specific inquiries from prospective adoptive parents;
We maintain a Web site with over 100 information flyers on
the adoption process in individual countries, as well as
general information on the immigrant visa process, citizenship
for adopted children, and safeguards for children and adoptive
parents;
While we cannot direct that a visa be issued, we can and do
inquire of the U.S. consular section abroad regarding the
status of a particular case.
We take every opportunity to discuss adoptions with foreign
interlocutors, both overseas and in the U.S. In these discussions, we
express our strong support for transparent, consistently applied
adoption procedures that place the interests of children first. In this
vein, while we are not equipped to locate children for parents to
adopt, act as an agent for an adoptive family, or order that a foreign
authority grant an adoption, we can and do monitor the procedures of
foreign governments to ensure that they do not discriminate against
U.S. citizens in the adoption process.
We provide training for our staff in the importance of facilitating
intercountry adoptions for American adoptive parents as a reflection of
U.S. Government policy. We include training on intercountry adoptions
in the initial instruction provided to every consular officer before
his or her first tour overseas. We include adoption visa service issues
in the continuing training seminars provided to officers and Foreign
Service National staff working in American Citizens Services and
Immigrant Visa sections in embassies and consulates around the world.
We discuss adoption policy and customer service values at regional
conferences for post leadership and management. For example, in 2002,
the Office of Children's Issues organized a Consular Conference on
International Adoptions for consular officers serving at U.S. embassies
with significant adoption workloads or adoption related concerns
highlighting the importance of managing the orphan visa system to
assist American citizen adoptive parents to receive orphan visas as
quickly as possible. We continue to seek opportunities for training.
Adoptive parents often seek assistance with the visa application
process. The Department recognizes the special needs and considerations
of adoptive parents and their children. As stated in the Foreign
Affairs Manual (9 FAM 42.21 N11), it is the general policy of the
Department that consular sections should provide expeditious assistance
in handling orphan visa cases, and that orphan visa appointments should
be given priority over other cases. As a result, most posts will give
orphan visa applications the first available opening, often within a
few days of the parents declaring themselves documentarily qualified.
Unfortunately, not all orphan visa cases can be expeditiously
processed if there are constraints that preclude setting an
appointment. The Department of Homeland Security's Bureau of
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) regulations, for example,
prohibit a consular officer from issuing an orphan immigrant visa
unless the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has already approved
the I-600A advanced processing application. U.S. immigration law
requires an immigrant visa applicant to collect certain required
documents, and under standard Department practice, an immigrant visa
interview is not scheduled unless the applicant has gathered all the
necessary documents. There may be other factors that preclude prompt
appointment scheduling, including the necessity to resolve certain
legal, procedural, or factual issues before holding an interview would
be fruitful. Whenever possible in such cases, consular officers work
with the adoptive parents or their agents to try and resolve the
problems in a timely and transparent fashion.
The Department of State is committed to the twin goals of rapid
processing of international adoptions and the safeguarding of an
adoption system free of fraud and baby selling. We believe that
international adoption practices and procedures will be ameliorated as
countries accede to and implement the Hague Adoption Convention. In
addition to legitimizing the principle that intercountry adoption is
superior to institutionalization for orphans, the aim of the Convention
is to ensure that such adoptions take place when they are in the
child's best interests and that the abduction of and trafficking in
children and other abuses are prevented. The Department is committed to
the Convention's principles and is working diligently to implement it
for the United States. Once implemented, the Convention will be a
valuable tool to help American citizens who seek to build their
families through intercountry adoption.
Question 10c. Much has been written about the drop-off in student
visas issued--as well as the drop in student visa applications. While I
believe it is entirely appropriate to exercise vigilance in the student
visa process to prevent the entry of those who wish to harm Americans,
I am concerned that we are being a bit too strict in our procedures.
There is also a timeliness issue here--some students are not receiving
their visas until after classes have begun. Is this a staffing
question? Do you need more resources from the Congress in order to
fulfill these duties in a timely manner?
Answer. While there has been a decline in the number of student
visa applications over the last two years, the refusal rate for this
class of visa has increased only slightly during this period of time.
Proportionally, the decline in student visa applications is less than
the overall decline in applications for nonimmigrant visas generally.
Levels of student visa applications are affected by a number of
factors, including worldwide economic trends and general reluctance to
travel after 9/11. There was also a general belief that it was more
difficult to obtain a visa to the United States. The standards under
which consular officers adjudicate visas based on immigration law and
regulations have not changed, however. Consular officers continue to
grant visas to persons who can demonstrate that they are bona fide
nonimmigrants coming to the United States to study.
The elimination of the personal appearance waiver for students and
the need to collect biometric information from visa applicants has
obliged students from a number of countries who previously did not need
to come to an Embassy or Consulate to apply for their visas in person.
Embassies and Consulates have been encouraged to set up special
expedited appointments for students and exchange visitors in order to
facilitate their visa applications in a timely manner.
Most student visa cases are adjudicated by consular officers the
same day as the visa interview and biometric collection. Only a small
number, are submitted to Washington for interagency review. The
clearing agencies generally give priority to student visa applications.
Most of these cases are concluded in less than 30 calendar days. The
Visa Office identifies cases that remain pending for the other clearing
agencies to ensure that cases do not get overlooked.
Question 10d. Moreover, in some large countries such as Sweden, I
am told of students having to travel long distances to the U.S. Embassy
in the capital city to engage in a three-minute interview for a visa.
Are these types of procedures really necessary for countries like
Sweden where we have a visa waiver program in place?
Answer. Our focus is on the statutory requirement to issue visas
with biometric identifiers. In order to collect biometrics at the time
of the visa application, the applicants must appear in person. The visa
interview requirement is designed to complement the biometric
requirement.
Students of all nationalities require a visa. The Congress has
authorized the visa waiver program only for tourists and business
visitors coming to the United States for short periods of stay. We
recognize that some individuals travel long distances to reach our
consular offices overseas. Most of those offices have appointment
systems in part to permit those who do need to travel the assurance
that a consular officer will be available to provide the appropriate
services.
______
Response of Hon. Colin L. Powell, Secretary of State, to an Additional
Question for the Record Submitted by Senator Bill Nelson
Question 1. Recently, the State Department publicly denounced the
human rights record of the Government of Uzbekistan. It has come to my
attention that several relatives of Americans have been wrongly
imprisoned in Uzbekistan for personal political motives and been denied
any visitation due process. In addition, Uzbekistan has arbitrarily put
individuals on the Interpol red notice list based on what Assistant
Secretary Elizabeth Jones has publicly characterized as political
motives. What is the State Department doing to remedy these matters? At
what point will the U.S. Government back up its expressed concern about
human rights in Uzbekistan and other parts of central Asia with
concrete steps?
Answer. The United States has been proactive in addressing human
rights issues in Uzbekistan and Central Asia. We have a hard-hitting
public and private dialogue with the Government of Uzbekistan which
focuses on a wide range of issues, among those the need to respect
human rights, institute democratic reforms, and safeguard religious
freedoms.
In December, the State Department took the step of denying
Uzbekistan certification for Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction
(CTR) money on human rights grounds. Secretary Powell did recommend to
the President, and he agreed, to approve a national security waiver
because the reduction of weapons of mass destruction is in our
interests. Further, FY04 assistance to the central government of
Uzbekistan is dependent on our certification that Uzbekistan is making
progress on our Strategic Partnership Framework signed in 2002. This
Framework commits Uzbekistan to take steps in developing civil society
and respecting human rights, among others.
As part of our commitment to support the Government of Uzbekistan
in making these reforms, we also engage in direct government-to-
government human rights training and legal reform assistance, support
to local human rights NGOs, and active collaboration with Uzbek human
rights activists.
Nonetheless, the United States has made it clear to Uzbekistan that
the continued development of our bilateral relationship is dependent on
progress on all these fronts.
With regards to Red Notices, the fact that a Red Notice for an
individual has been issued by Interpol at the request of a member
country does not obligate the United States to arrest that person.
Indeed, under U.S. law, a Red Notice alone is insufficient to arrest a
person for purposes of extradition.
Though not specified in the question, the reference to arrested
relatives of American citizens is related to three relatives of the
Maqsudi family, former owners of the ROZ Trading company. We have
actively urged Uzbekistan to release the three. The Government of
Uzbekistan has assured us that they are conducting the dispute against
ROZ Trading in accordance with Uzbek law. They have also confirmed that
they have provided the Maqsudi relatives with access to their lawyers.