U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

85–019 PDF 2003

DEPARTMENT OF STATE BUDGET PRIORITIES

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, FEBRUARY 13, 2003

Serial No. 108–4

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Budget

(

Available on the Internet: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house/house04.html 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET 

JIM NUSSLE, Iowa, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut, 

Vice Chairman 

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota 

MAC THORNBERRY, Texas 

JIM RYUN, Kansas 

PAT TOOMEY, Pennsylvania 

DOC HASTINGS, Washington 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

EDWARD SCHROCK, Virginia 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida 

ADAM PUTNAM, Florida 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

KENNY HULSHOF, Missouri 

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JO BONNER, Alabama 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey 

GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

THADDEUS MCCOTTER, Michigan 

MARIO DIAZ–BALART, Florida 

JEB HENSARLING, Texas 

GINNY BROWN–WAITE, Florida 

JOHN M. SPRATT, JR., South Carolina, 

Ranking Minority Member 

JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia 

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas 

JOHN LEWIS, Georgia 

RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts 

ROSA DELAURO, Connecticut 

CHET EDWARDS, Texas 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

HAROLD FORD, Tennessee 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MIKE THOMPSON, California 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

RAHM EMANUEL, Illinois 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

DENISE L. MAJETTE, Georgia 

[Vacant] 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

RICH MEADE, Chief of Staff 

THOMAS S. KAHN, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page 

Hearing held in Washington, DC, February 13, 2003 .......................................... 1

Statement of: 

Hon. Colin L. Powell, Secretary, U.S. Department of State ......................... 11

Prepared statement and additional submissions of: 

Hon. Adam H. Putnam, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Florida ....................................................................................................... 4

Hon. Denise L. Majette, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Georgia ...................................................................................................... 5

Hon. Rosa L. DeLauro, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Connecticut ................................................................................................ 7

Hon. David Vitter, a Representative in Congress from the State of Louisiana .............................................................................................................. 9

Hon. Roger F. Wicker, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Mississippi ................................................................................................. 10

Secretary Powell: 

Prepared statement ................................................................................... 18

Letter in response to Mr. Edwards’ question regarding the administration’s veto on the U.N. Family Planning Funds ............................. 43

Letter in response to Mr. Emanuel’s question regarding the United 

States’ efforts to secure nuclear material ............................................ 55

(1)

DEPARTMENT OF STATE BUDGET PRIORITIES 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2003

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:07 a.m. in room 210, 

Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Jim Nussle (chairman of the 

committee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Nussle, Shays, Gutknecht, 

Thornberry, Hastings, Portman, Brown, Putnam, Wicker, Hulshof, 

Vitter, Bonner, Barrett, McCotter, Diaz-Balart, Hensarling, BrownWaite, Spratt, Moran, Hooley, Baldwin, Moore, Lewis, Neal, 

DeLauro, Edwards, Scott, Ford, Capps, Thompson, Baird, Davis, 

Emanuel, and Majette. 

Chairman NUSSLE. The committee will come to order. 

This is the House Budget Committee hearing on the Department 

of State budget for fiscal year 2004. 

Before we begin, I would like to welcome Chris Shays to the committee. He has been appointed by the Speaker of the House to be 

the Speaker’s representative on the Budget Committee. He is appointed as the vice chairman. We welcome Chris Shays from Connecticut and other members who have been appointed in the interim period. 

Today we are very pleased to have before us again the very distinguished Secretary of State, Colin Powell. 

Mr. Secretary, we look forward to hearing your testimony on the 

President’s international affairs budget request for 2004. But before I begin I would like to thank you on behalf of all of us for you 

taking time to come to the Congress during what must be an amazing period of time, not only for our country, but for the Department 

of State, and we want to thank you. America is eternally grateful 

that you are where you are at this moment in our history, and we 

appreciate that. 

It goes without saying that you have a team behind you as well, 

and everyone at the Department of State is working overtime these 

days on Middle East peace, on the ongoing war on terrorism, the 

developing situation in Iraq, as well as a number of other functions 

carried out by the Department of State that don’t make the headlines every day of the week. We thank you and appreciate all of the 

efforts of the fine people who work for the Department of State. 

Today we will look specifically at how the budget addresses the 

global war on terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass deVerDate Feb 1 2002 10:10 Jun 09, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\DOCS\HEARINGS\108TH\108-4\HBU044.000 HBUDGET1 PsN: DICK
2

struction, HIV/AIDS pandemic and other key initiatives of the Department of State. 

Mr. Secretary, as the global war on terrorism continues to unfold, the Department of State faces an increasingly complex task of 

maintaining and expanding support of the international coalition 

on the global war on terrorism and providing safe, secure, and 

functional facilities for the employees at diplomatic missions worldwide. Mr. Secretary, these are very challenging times, but there is 

no question that our Nation is being well served by the diplomatic 

team that the President has put together. 

Today we will also examine how the President’s budget supports 

international assistance programs, including the increased economic and security assistance for our coalition partners and frontline states on the war against terrorism; expanding the Andean 

Counterdrug Initiative to stem the flow of cocaine and heroin from 

Colombia and its Andean neighbors; countering the spread of weapons of mass destruction through a new 10-year, $20-billion initiative and the G–8 Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction. 

The President’s budget also includes the first installments to- ward an emergency plan for AIDS relief, a 5-year, $15-billion initiative to turn the tide in the global effort to combat HIV/AIDS. 

This initiative virtually triples the United States’ funding to fight 

the international AIDS pandemic. 

Mr. Secretary, I was just in Africa 3 weeks ago, had the opportunity to help lead a trade delegation to the AGOA Conference, the 

African Growth and Opportunity Act Conference. 

Let me just report to you, Mr. Secretary, first of all, I support 

the President’s goals and initiatives with regards to AIDS and HIV. 

I was in Namibia in South Africa, visited AIDS clinics. There are 

8 million—8 million orphan children in Africa, as the Secretary 

knows, but for my colleagues’ benefit, 8 million children that are 

orphans, no parents. One-fourth in some countries, one-third in 

many, and even one-half in some countries of the population has 

HIV. 

The human toll is obvious. In some areas, the goal is keeping 

mothers alive long enough to get their kids into school, if you can 

imagine that as the only goal they think being reasonable. Just 

keeping the kids—keeping the mothers alive long enough to get 

their kids to the school door. 

One of the, I think, lost arguments in favor of this program that 

I would just like to highlight for the Secretary and for my colleagues is that those 8 million children will grow up to be 8 million 

young adults in the not-too-distant future, and it will be a recruiting ground of unbelievable proportions for terrorism. That is why 

I believe we need to support what the President is doing. 

I would also like to add that food is an important issue here as 

well, as the Secretary knows; and I would just like to report to you, 

Mr. Secretary, that I am shocked at the level of scare tactics that 

are being used against foods enhanced through biotechnology on 

the African continent with absolutely no scientific data to back it 

up. There are 40 colonies of European nations that are using the 

scare tactics and the non-tariff barrier scare tactics of the Europeans to actually prevent free food through nongovernment organiVerDate Feb 1 2002 10:10 Jun 09, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\DOCS\HEARINGS\108TH\108-4\HBU044.000 HBUDGET1 PsN: DICK
3

zations from reaching starving people. They are dying as a result 

of the scare tactics that some in Europe are providing. It is an outrage, and I believe that this country should step forward. 

These are scare tactics without any scientific basis, and I support 

what the administration is doing to promote food getting to hungry 

people in the African continent. As the Secretary knows, the 

United States is first in the world—before this budget was introduced, we are first in the world in our efforts to assist with regard 

to AIDS, HIV/AIDS, as well as food assistance to the African continent. 

So I just want to support what the Secretary has put forward. 

You testified about this last year, you put your words into deeds, 

and this budget is proof of that. And we appreciate the support 

that you are providing. We obviously have to find ways to pay for 

it. We have a budget that has needs in a number of other areas 

with deficits and challenges with regard to our economy, but that 

is the job of the Budget Committee, to make sure that that fits. 

Mr. Secretary, we face a possible war. Terrorist strikes are still 

very possible. We face challenges around the globe, as I was just 

talking about and you have talked about much more eloquently 

than I have with regard to Africa. With all of that facing us, we 

appreciate the time that you are spending with us today; and I look 

forward to your testimony. 

With that, I would turn to my friend and colleague, Mr. Moran, 

for any opening comments he would like to make at this time. 

Mr. MORAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Spratt will join us 

later. He is in a leadership meeting. 

Secretary Powell, you know that both sides of the aisle are members of your fan club, and we appreciate your leadership. This function in the budget is not generally the most politically popular, but 

it is a critical one, increasingly so. We are all united in this Nation’s battle against terrorism. We know that we have to provide 

for our Nation’s security foremost, and this budget and the activity 

that it supports are fundamental in that effort. Support for the 

international affairs budget starts right here in this committee, 

and you can be assured you will have our support in providing 

whatever is necessary to meet our Nation’s goals. 

For appropriated international affairs programs, your request is 

about $29 billion, about $3 billion more than the administration’s 

request for last year. I wish I could say more than was actually appropriated last year, but we don’t have an appropriations bill. In 

fact, it is going to come to the floor today, the omnibus conference 

bill. You might tell us how you feel about that, if there are any particular problems in the State Department area. But it is an 11-percent increase over last year’s request. 

We want to make sure two things, one, that the resources are 

adequate to support this Nation’s foreign policy goals; and second, 

does it adequately represent the anticipated costs of our policies. I 

think many of us are concerned that it may not adequately reflect 

costs that we know are going to be incurred. For example, the 

budget doesn’t include the humanitarian and reconstruction costs 

that would arise from a war with Iraq. So we are interested to 

know what your estimates are that—the cost that might be incurred, how long those costs might be expected to last, and what 

4

percentage of those costs is the United States likely to have to 

bear. 

Additionally, we know that there are discussions going on with 

a number of our allies about the possibility of additional foreign assistance in connection with the possible war with Iraq. Press reports—and it is not just press reports. Many of us have had meetings with people from Jordan, Turkey, and Israel. That seems absolutely clear that this budget does not reflect any additional assistance for that purpose. 

For example, the funding for Israel in the key accounts of foreign 

military financing and the economic support fund simply reflects 

the glide path that was established back in 1998, almost 5 years 

ago. For Jordan, the request includes no increase in the economic 

support fund relative to the 2003 request and only an $8-million 

increase in foreign military financing. For Turkey, there is $50 million in foreign military financing and $200 million for the economic 

support fund, but we know, you know, we know, that there is going 

to be a much larger assistance package for Turkey. So we would 

like to know how much of that is anticipated in this budget, whether it be in a 2003 supplemental or in 2004. 

We had a defense appropriations meeting with Secretary Rumsfeld yesterday, and the thing that was most noticeable by its absence in his testimony was any money for Iraq. There is nothing 

in the defense budget for Iraq, and yet we hear reports that we are 

going to go to war within weeks, not months. We need to be prepared to know and particularly this budget committee needs to get 

some sense of what it is going to be required to provide in the way 

of financial resources. 

Now there are any number of other questions that I, and I know 

my colleagues on both sides of the aisle want to ask you, so at this 

point we ought to get into the testimony, but we would appreciate 

ensuring that this is as complete and candid an assessment of what 

resources Function 150 may need now and in the near future. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Chairman NUSSLE. All members at this point in the record will 

have the opportunity to put in a statement. 

[The information referred to follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT HON. ADAM H. PUTNAM, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that we have convened today to receive the fiscal 

year 2004 budget priorities for the U.S. Department of State from Secretary Colin 

Powell. I am humbled and honored to be here with you, Ranking Member Spratt, 

and the rest of the committee, to exchange views on the State Department budget 

for the coming year. Thank you, Secretary Powell, for appearing today to discuss 

the needs of your Department in this era when it occupies the front lines in the 

war on terrorism. I want to commend you on your work and the work of all those 

at the Department that is so crucial in protecting American citizens from future acts 

of terrorism. 

The September 11 attacks shook this Nation’s innocence about foreign threats, 

and your efforts have translated this renewed awareness into more resources for diplomacy. The painstaking work of foreign policy and the indispensable role that diplomacy plays in our strategic effort to win the war on terrorism unfortunately is 

still lacking from the general American awareness. 

Mr. Secretary, even as we convene here to discuss numbers and dollars, there is 

not a person in this room who is not aware that you are on the eve of a crucial 

deadline at the United Nations. While we discuss Iraq, North Korea, and the war 

against terrorism, I urge all of us to keep in mind the connection between the immeVerDate Feb 1 2002 10:10 Jun 09, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\HEARINGS\108TH\108-4\HBU044.000 HBUDGET1 PsN: DICK
5

diate crises and the broader question of our foreign policy capabilities. The ability 

of our military to defeat Iraq is without question. My concerns are related to our 

diplomatic position and our reputation with the world at large. 

Can we limit anti-American reactions to war in the Arab world? Can we secure 

allied participation in the work of reconstructing Iraq after a war? Successful answers to these questions depend largely on the diplomatic work done by your Department. They depend upon the work funded by the very budget that we discuss 

today. 

Mr. Secretary, we will do all that is necessary to win the war on terrorism. Our 

soldiers around the world are fighting—bravely, selflessly, and successfully. However, to continue to win the war against terrorism, the United States must use its 

economic and diplomatic capabilities to the same extent as its military capabilities. 

The investments made in recruiting, embassy security, foreign assistance, and 

other tools of foreign policy are very important. If we can commit greater resources, 

prevent the bombing of our embassies, secure peacekeeping efforts, and improve detection of terrorists seeking visas, then we are on the right track. Simultaneously, 

we need to ensure that weapons of mass destruction are not transferred to terrorists 

from nation-states, and that we continue to reinvigorate the world’s commitment to 

freedom. 

We will win this war when the people of every nation unite and rally against the 

darkness of terrorism. When the terrorists’ message of hate and intolerance no 

longer strikes a responsive chord in the world and states that harbor emerging 

threats no longer exist, we will have victory. Military force, no matter how well conceived and dedicated, cannot succeed alone. Military strength coupled with a strong 

and effective foreign policy will win this war on terrorism. 

Finally, Mr. Secretary, on a side note, I must express my utter disgust with the 

manner in which our European allies have treated their former African colonies 

with regard to food aid. The pressure they have exerted to prevent American food 

from reaching starving children because of a baseless concern over biotechnology is 

sinful. Words cannot adequately express my anger over this matter. 

Mr. Secretary, I look forward to your testimony and I am sure you will provide 

all of us with a clear picture of the State Department’s will, capacity, and resources 

necessary to win the war on terrorism and advance the cause of freedom.

PREPARED STATEMENT AND QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD OFFERED BY HON. DENISE

L. MAJETTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA

Mr. Secretary, I would like to personally thank you for taking the time out of your 

schedule to come before this committee, particularly given the current state of foreign affairs. I applaud your current service and history of service to our Nation—

and I do have my passport. 

Let me say for the record that I believe our foreign policy must have two components. First, there is a moral component. As the world’s most prosperous and powerful nation, we have a moral obligation to use that wealth and power to promote high 

ideals. We must champion human rights, democracy and economic and social freedom. All those things that have made America great. 

Unfortunately, our record in this area is mixed. On the one hand, I am pleased 

to note that we are the world’s leading provider of development assistance and the 

leading aggregate contributor to international institutions such as the U.N. and the 

International Atomic Energy Agency. We have done the hardest work in establishing peace around the world, often at the cost of American lives. Yet we have also 

failed to champion democracy and human rights at times when we should have. 

This is perhaps because of the second component of our foreign policy. 

The second component to our foreign policy is the national interest component. We 

most promote our national and economic security to preserve our way of life. The 

moral and national interest components to our foreign policy often conflict, or at 

least there is sometimes tension between the two. We see this most clearly in our 

relations with states like China or Saudi Arabia. The natural tension between these 

elements of our foreign policy has hurt us in our relations around the world. The 

promotion of our national interest over our moral obligations might explain why 

many in the Moslem world have failed to appreciate that American soldiers have 

shed blood in the defense of Moslems in places like Kosovo or Somalia. It might also 

explain why some of our traditional allies like France and Germany have forgotten 

that Americans died so that they could be free. It certainly must explain why the 

Pew Research Center reports that global criticism of the United States is on the 

rise. 

Mr. Secretary, I am convinced that there is a way we can balance the moral and 

national interest components of our foreign policy in a way that will reaffirm our 

6

status as the world’s beacon of democracy. Yet I am concerned that we may not be 

doing enough in the budget you have presented today to achieve this balance. 

IRAQ

Question—This Nation is preparing to spend billions in an effort to bring about 

regime change in Iraq, but is it also prepared to spend the billions necessary to restore Iraq in its aftermath? 

Answer—The United States is committed to assist the Iraqi people in the reconstruction and development of their nation once Saddam Hussein is no longer in 

power. Iraq’s liberation would be the beginning, not the end of our commitment to 

its people. We will supply humanitarian relief, bring economic sanctions to a swift 

close, and work for the long-term recovery of Iraq’s economy. The United States will 

ensure that Iraq’s natural resources are used for the benefit of their owners, the 

Iraqi people. 

A fundamental advantage that Iraq has is its natural resources that are capable 

of providing a significant revenue stream to assist the Iraqi people in financing the 

reconstruction of their country. Once the situation stabilizes, Iraq should be able to 

restore revenues from oil sales. 

Prior to the liberation of Iraq, it is very difficult to estimate what the cost of reconstruction will be and how much the United States will be asked to contribute. 

Though the coalition military campaign is designed to minimize the impact on Iraqi 

civilians and the country’s economic infrastructure, we cannot predict what Saddam 

Hussein will do to his own people or national resources. He has proven before that 

he has no regard for the welfare or wellbeing of the Iraqi people. 

The United States is committed to sharing costs with a broad coalition of partners 

and much work has been done to lay the foundations necessary to move quickly. 

The Department will quickly seek new Security Council Resolutions to encourage 

broad participation in the process of helping the liberated Iraqi people build a free 

and prosperous Iraq. 

We will continue to consult fully with the Congress as further information develops in the coming months. 

MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE ACCOUNT

Question—More importantly, is it possible to spend more on aid or on programs 

like the Millennium Challenge Account in a fiscally responsible manner to prevent 

the types of problems in other regions of the world that we see in Iraq and North 

Korea today? Is it not cheaper to prevent war than to wage war? 

Answer—Economic assistance programs will always be an important part of our 

country’s multifaceted defense strategy. Unfortunately, there are some situations, 

and I believe that Iraq and North Korea are examples, where problems cannot be 

solved through economic means, including assistance. Diplomacy is America’s preferred means to ensure peace and advance our foreign policy objectives. However, 

even exhaustive diplomatic efforts cannot always resolve problems and we must resort to other means to defend ourselves and protect our interests. Our Armed Forces 

are an instrument of national power, but they must be the last resort when nations 

disagree. 

However, in many cases economic assistance has been a very effective tool, and 

we will continue to use it appropriately throughout the world. 

For example, the Freedom Support Act has been a significant factor in promoting 

stability in the Former Soviet Union. We expect to see similar success in the Near 

East as we implement the Middle East partnership initiative. We have requested 

$145 million for the Partnership Initiative in fiscal year 2004. This money will be 

used to help develop democracies and pluralism, promote educational reform opportunity, and encourage economic reform and liberalization. While we cannot realistically expect this initiative to prevent every problem in the region, we do expect it 

to be a significant force for peace and stability in the Middle East. 

FUTURE THREATS

Question—What is the potential Iraq of tomorrow, and what are we doing today 

to address that potential problem? 

Answer—The President has said, ‘‘The gravest danger to freedom lies at the crossroads of radicalism and technology’’ (West Point, June 1, 2001). The states that are 

most likely to threaten us in the future are the rogue states described in the President’s National Security Strategy. He identified these as states that brutalize their 

own people, disregard international law, threaten their neighbors, violate treaties, 

are determined to acquire weapons of mass destruction, sponsor terrorism, and reject basic human values and reject the values which form the foundation for this 

7

Nation. Confronting the threat of rogue states is a top priority for this administration. Each situation is unique, and we must work carefully to find the course of action in each instance that will promote peace and stability and prevent these states 

from threatening our security. 

In addition, there is an increasing threat from terrorist groups that operate independently of any state. We are working hard on the diplomatic, intelligence, law enforcement, economic and military fronts to deter, disrupt and defeat these terrorist 

groups. For example, the U.N. 1267 Sanctions Committee has now included over 325 

names on its list of individuals and entities whose assets U.N. member states are 

obligated to freeze because of links to al Qaida and the Taliban. We and our allies 

have frozen their assets and we continue to work together to halt their operations. 

This is one of the many ways in which the international community, led by the 

United States, has acted to stop terrorists and those who support them.

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD OFFERED BY HON. ROSA DELAURO, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

UNITED STATES’ RELATIONSHIP WITH ITS ALLIES

Question—We are currently facing a serious rift with our transatlantic alliance 

that may or may not be reparable. In view of this, and perhaps prematurely assuming that nations such as France, Germany, and Russia do not join the fight against 

Saddam Hussein, how do you think the apparent schism with our allies will impact 

our efforts in the aftermath of the war in Iraq? 

Answer—While we are seriously concerned by differences between the United 

States and some European countries on the best way to achieve our agreed goal of 

Iraqi disarmament, it is important to point out that a much greater number of European countries support the U.S. position than oppose it. In addition, there are 

many areas in which the U.S.–European relationship is as strong as ever. These 

areas include the campaign against global terrorism, promotion of free trade and 

market economies, and support for democracy and human rights. Our economic relationship with Europe amounts to about $2 trillion in trade and investment. We work 

closely with our European friends and allies, including France, Germany, and Russia, on efforts to promote regional stability in the Balkans, the Caucasus, Afghanistan, and the Middle East through the quartet. 

The disagreement over Iraq is serious, but we have had disagreements with our 

European friends before, and we have consistently overcome these hurdles and 

moved on to continued cooperation. 

As far as a potential conflict with Iraq is concerned, beyond the very significant 

British contribution, a number of countries across Europe and Eurasia have pledged 

forces and specialized units to the coalition. We are talking privately with many European governments about possible coalition action. In a number of cases, acting on 

a bilateral basis, we requested and obtained base access and overflight and transit 

clearances. In fact, the French Foreign Ministry said that they would consider assistance in the event of an Iraqi chemical or biological attack. We also will look to 

our allies and friends in Europe for post-conflict support, including humanitarian 

assistance, and reconstruction. As in Afghanistan, we expect that the post-conflict 

phase in Iraq will be a cooperative effort. Fourteen members of NATO have deployed forces in support of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, and we 

have worked particularly closely with the member states of the European Union. We 

are exploring with our allies the possibility of a greater role for NATO in the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). 

In Iraq, we plan to work in close partnership with international institutions, including the United Nations, as well as our Allies, partners, and bilateral donors. If 

conflict occurs, we plan to seek the adoption of new United Nations Security Council 

resolutions that would affirm Iraq’s territorial integrity, ensure rapid delivery of humanitarian relief, and endorse an appropriate post-conflict administration for Iraq. 

We are also proposing that the Secretary General be given authority, on an interim 

basis, to ensure that the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people continue to be met 

through the Oil for Food Program. 

IRAQ

Question—Who is going to be there to help us shoulder the costs of rebuilding 

Iraq? Further, how will the corrosion of our relations with nations that have been 

our partners for the past 50 years, affect our global war on terrorism and future 

foreign policy decisions connected to our national security? What are the estimates 

of the cost of rebuilding Iraq, particularly if the United States has no support from 

the allies. 

8

Answer—The United States is committed to assist the Iraqi people in the reconstruction and development of their nation once Saddam Hussein is no longer in 

power. Iraq’s liberation would be the beginning, not the end of our commitment to 

its people. We will supply humanitarian relief, bring economic sanctions to a swift 

close, and work for the long-term recovery of Iraq’s economy. The United States will 

ensure that Iraq’s natural resources are used for the benefit of their owners, the 

Iraqi people. 

A fundamental advantage that Iraq has is its natural resources that are capable 

of providing a significant revenue stream to assist the Iraqi people in financing the 

reconstruction of their country. Once the situation stabilizes, Iraq should be able to 

restore revenues from oil sales. 

Prior to the liberation of Iraq, it is very difficult to estimate what the cost of reconstruction will be and how much the United States will be asked to contribute. 

Though the coalition military campaign is designed to minimize the impact on Iraqi 

civilians and the country’s economic infrastructure, we cannot predict what Saddam 

Hussein will do to his own people or national resources. He has proven before that 

he has no regard for the welfare or wellbeing of the Iraqi people. 

The United States is committed to sharing costs with a broad coalition of partners 

and much work has been done to lay the foundations necessary to move quickly. 

The Department will quickly seek new Security Council resolutions to encourage 

broad participation in the process of helping the liberated Iraqi people build a free 

and prosperous Iraq. 

We will continue to consult fully with the Congress as further information develops in the coming months. 

NORTH KOREA

Question—I am deeply concerned about the threat posed by North Korea, and I 

have trouble understanding how the administration is handling this crisis. If it is 

true, as CIA Director George Tenet said yesterday, that North Korea may have one 

or two nuclear weapons capable of reaching U.S. targets on the west coast, why are 

we dealing with this seemingly imminent threat with such tentative resolve? How 

do you justify our forceful case for war with Iraq, which most experts believe does 

not currently possess nuclear weapons, and our more passive approach and possible 

minimization of the threat that North Korea poses to our national security? 

Answer—North Korea and Iraq represent aspects of the extremely serious problem the President identified in last year’s State of the Union Address: the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems to states with a history of support for aggression and terrorism; there is however, no ‘‘one-size-fits-all’’ 

solution to the problem. 

We are not underestimating the danger inherent in a nuclear-armed North Korea. 

After discovering that North Korea was covertly pursuing nuclear arms through 

uranium enrichment technology, we faced the issue head on. We informed the North 

Koreans in October 2002 that we were aware of their secret program, and that it 

must be verifiably ended if North Korea wished to enjoy the benefits that accrue 

to responsible members of the international community. Instead, North Korea lifted 

the freeze on its nuclear facilities at Yongbon, which use reprocessing technology to 

produce plutonium for nuclear weapons. 

Given North Korea’s violations of existing agreements against nuclear arms programs, a new approach is needed that deals with the nuclear question on the Korean Peninsula once and for all. The solution must come with a consensus of those 

most directly affected by this kind of North Korean activity, incluidng the South Koreans, the Japanese, the Chinese, and the Russians. For that reason, we are actively 

pursuing a multilateral diplomatic end to the North Korean nuclear program, one 

that is verifiable and irreversible. 

While Iraq has defied the international community for 12 years, we are only at 

the beginning of a diplomatic process to end North Korea’s nuclear program since 

learning of its violation last year of existing agreements. We are giving diplomacy 

the opportunity to work, and have good reasons to believe that it will. 

HIV/AIDS

Question—I was very glad to hear the President’s announcement of a new global 

AIDS Initiative. The United Nations Joint Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) estimates that last year 2.4 million Africans died of AIDS-related illnesses, while 29.4 

million continue to live with the disease. Heavily affected countries in sub-Saharan 

Africa are struggling to provide care and treatment for over a third of their populations. In the Caribbean, an estimated 440,000 people are infected with HIV/AIDS, 

9

a number that is continuing to climb. I have several questions regarding the President’s announcement of this $15 billion ‘‘new’’ initiative: • How much of this is actually new money? • How is this money going to be spent? I know the funding will come through 

the State Department, which will have a coordinator who will coordinate funding 

with other agencies. How much will go through other agencies and how much will 

go through State? • I understand that in 2003 the United States is going to contribute about $250 

million to the Global Fund. Will this be enough to meet the needs of the Global 

Fund? Didn’t the Fund request $2.1 billion from the United States? • The President’s proposal covers 12 countries in Africa and 2 in the Caribbean. 

Are you providing any funding for countries like China, Russia and India, which 

have burgeoning epidemics, so that we can take action before the problem explodes 

as it has in Africa? 

Answer—The President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, announced by the 

President in his State of the Union Address, is a $15 billion, 5-year plan to prevent 

7 million new infections, treat 2 million HIV-infected people with anti-retroviral 

medications, and care for 10 million HIV-infected individuals and AIDS orphans. Of 

the $15 billion, $10 billion are new, additional resources. 

Regarding the role of the coordinator in disbursing funds, we envision that once 

funds are appropriated, the coordinator will be in a position to decide quickly how 

the resources will be allocated. The U.S. Agency for International Development 

(USAID) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will continue to play their key roles in helping confront this pandemic. 

The administration remains strongly committed to the Global Fund. The 5-year, 

$1-billion pledge that is part of the President’s emergency plan is the most sustained to date and sends the strong message that our commitment to the Fund is 

not short-lived. The United States’ contributions to the Fund thus far, even without 

the fiscal year 2003 appropriation, represents roughly a third of all money the Fund 

has on hand. Pledges by the United States represent 50 percent of all commitments 

made to date. The United States is the only country to have made three pledges 

thus far and only two other countries (Germany and Ireland) have even made a second pledge. The United States has shown its commitment; it is now for others to 

follow suit, especially in Europe, and we are actively encouraging others to do so. 

The election of Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson as chair 

of the Fund’s board is further proof that support for the Fund comes from the highest levels of the administration. The Fund has made no request to the United States 

to contribute $2.1 billion. 

The situation in Africa and the Caribbean is so severe that it qualifies as a crisis 

and requires special attention, which is the purpose of the Emergency Plan. The 

countries included in the plan represent 50 percent of the HIV/AIDS burden in the 

world. 

At the same time, Russia, China, and India are of concern and we will continue 

our normal bilateral efforts in those as well as in other countries. National leadership will be vital in ensuring that the problem does not explode; outside assistance 

does not work in the absence of leadership from within.

QUESTION FOR THE RECORD OFFERED BY HON. DAVID VITTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

U.N. CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT

Question—Is there anything in the administration’s budget request that addresses 

the need for real, fundamental reforms at the United Nations? 

Answer—The administration’s budget request includes funds for payment of our 

assessed contributions to the U.N., some of which are channeled to the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), which conducts and supervises objective audits, 

inspections, and investigations of U.N. programs and operations. We consider the 

successful implementation of OIOS as the greatest single U.N. reform of the past 

decade, and continue to press for sufficient resources for it to accomplish its important work. OIOS’s efforts have resulted in significant progress in creating a culture 

aimed at accountability, efficiency, and effectiveness—making the U.N. a much 

stronger organization. Implementation of OIOS’s recommendations has saved the 

U.N. and member states millions of dollars. 

Although much has already been accomplished in reforming the U.N.; more needs 

to be done. With our encouragement, the Secretary General (SYG) has committed 

to implementing better evaluations of programs, which will require staff to be more 

accountable for their work (with an eye to shrinking or eliminating some programs 

10

that have outlived their usefulness, in order to fund more important programs); establishing a more efficient budget process; and instituting management improvements in several key departments/offices. We will continue to press the SYG to implement these and a number of reforms that he announced last fall including a 

major review of the Department of Public Information (which the State Department 

has long considered bloated and inefficient), as well as other efforts to improve the 

flow of information and save money (e.g., by consolidating some offices). 

We also plan to expand our efforts to place more Americans in the U.N. system, 

which we believe is not only a matter of our fair share relative to our financial contributions to the U.N., but something which will increase its efficacy.

QUESTION FOR THE RECORD OFFERED BY ROGER F. WICKER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

THE GOALS OF THE WAR ON TERRORISM

Question—The events of September 11 have committed our Nation to fighting an 

enemy unlike any we have ever faced. This loose network of radical Islamic terrorists does not restrict its recruitment to the slums of the Middle East; its presence 

is alive throughout Europe, Southeast Asia, and even here in the United States. 

What are our goals in this conflict and with no real lines of demarcation, when 

will we know if we have achieved those goals? 

Answer—The goals of the war on terrorism are first, defeat terrorist organizations; second, deny sponsorship, support, and sanctuary to terrorists; third, diminish 

the underlying conditions that terrorists seek to exploit; and fourth defend the 

United States, our citizens, and our interests from terrorist attacks. No hard and 

fast timeline can be placed on this campaign. As the President has said on numerous occasions, this will be a long struggle, requiring the United States and its partners to bring all the tools of government to bear consistently over time to be successful. We will not rest until all terrorist groups that threaten our way of life have 

been found, disrupted, and defeated. 

THE COMMITMENT ON THE WAR ON TERRORISM

Background—The tools for the war on terror will not be limited to military armaments. We will have to continue to make significant commitments in humanitarian 

aid and foreign assistance. This year the President’s budget commits more than 

$25.6 billion or approximately .2 percent of the gross domestic product to international affairs. 

Question—Does this amount show a sufficient commitment to achieving our objectives in the war on terrorism and if not what percentage will be necessary to 

achieve our desired goals? 

Answer—The President’s budget request for fiscal year 2004 reflects my Department’s needs for the year. Fighting terrorism, however, is a fluid challenge. If other 

needs develop, the administration will work with Congress to ensure that the 

United States has the tools it needs to counter the threat of terrorism effectively. 

NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

Question—The instability of the world has increased the risk and, by that, the 

possible consequences of nuclear proliferation. Could you comment on our country’s 

efforts to reduce the risk of nuclear proliferation and do you believe that we have 

made a sufficient commitment to reducing these threats? 

Answer—We are vigorously pursuing strong policies and programs to reduce the 

risks of nuclear proliferation. We want to reduce the availability of dangerous nuclear materials and know-how, as well as reduce the demand for them. 

On the supply side, we are focusing on the still sizable residual stocks of dangerous materials from the massive nuclear weapons establishment of the former Soviet Union. The Departments of Energy, Defense, and State have collaborated under 

the Cooperative Threat Reduction and other authorities, to lock down threats that 

arose from the former Soviet arsenal. This administration has accelerated funding 

for a number of projects, although there remains much more still to do, and we must 

continue boldly down this path. The United States is spending nearly $1 billion a 

year to improve security at Russian storage facilities, to consolidate stored fissile 

materials, to stop new production and to purchase or down-blend former nuclear 

weapons material to reduce supply. My State Department team provides the diplomatic lead for several threat reduction programs of the Defense and Energy Departments. Early this month, Energy Secretary Abraham signed the Plutonium Production Reactor Agreement, which will lead to permanent closure of Russia’s three pluVerDate Feb 1 2002 10:10 Jun 09, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\HEARINGS\108TH\108-4\HBU044.000 HBUDGET1 PsN: DICK
11

tonium production facilities. Also, the State Department itself runs the International Science Centers in Russia and Ukraine, which employ former Soviet weapons scientists in peaceful, commercial projects—to reduce the temptation for those 

scientists to hire themselves out to proliferators. 

Beyond Russia and the other states of the former Soviet Union, we also run two 

important global programs. One is the Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund 

(NDF), which tackles tough, urgent problems, such as the removal of highly enriched uranium from Vinca, in Serbia to safe storage in Russia. The NDF has also 

created a computer system, ‘‘Tracker,’’ that already enables nine countries and 66 

ministries to inventory and account for weapons-sensitive exports, and is expanding. 

Second, our Export Control and Related Border Security Assistance Program 

(EXBS) runs programs in 35 countries, aiming to help our partners control the flow 

of dangerous technologies and materials in the most dangerous parts of the world. 

Another important area is our partnership with the International Atomic Energy 

Agency (IAEA), whose safeguards program aims to ensure that civilian nuclear facilities remain exactly that—civilian—and to enable the IAEA to ferret out covert 

weapons efforts. We are prepared to back tough safeguards with increased funding. 

We are constantly working to make the international nuclear nonproliferation regimes more effective. We are aggressively engaged in multinational efforts to 

strengthen export control partnerships such as the Nuclear Suppliers Group and the 

Zangger Committee. But that is not enough. We also are pressing the importance 

of other governments protecting their security interests as well as ours by exercising 

greater scrutiny over their exports and to use their diplomacy more actively to dissuade proliferators. But we have other tools as well, when appropriate: interdiction, 

sanctions and positive measures, such as the commitment of G–8 leaders last summer to a new Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of 

Mass Destruction. Under the Global Partnership, the leaders pledged to raise $20 

billion over the years for cooperation on nonproliferation, disarmament, nuclear 

safety, and counterterrorism projects, initially focused on Russia. We are working 

to encourage full implementation of that initiative. 

On the demand side, the bedrock of countering the nuclear threat remains adherence to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). The news has been grim from 

South Asia, Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, but most of the 188 nations inside the 

NPT (India and Pakistan are not signatories) have made irrevocable decisions to 

forgo the nuclear option. Several states have actually turned back from nuclear 

weapons programs, others have abandoned weapons inherited at the fall of the Soviet Union. We will stick, firmly, by the treaty, and the IAEA safeguards programs 

necessary to give confidence to it. Meanwhile, we are pursuing vigorous diplomacy 

to unite the international community to turn back the nuclear weapons ambitions 

of Iran and North Korea, even as we carefully monitor their actions. 

India and Pakistan are two very different countries with which we are pursuing 

boldly different relationships. Ongoing tensions between them make especially important their controls on sensitive technologies, and we are also mindful that nuclear weapons could be used, either intentionally or accidentally, in a crisis. We discuss these issues regularly with both governments, weighing our mutual interest in 

cooperation against our obligations under the NPT, U.S. law and our commitments 

to international regimes.

Chairman NUSSLE. Mr. Secretary, welcome back to the Budget 

Committee. We sincerely do appreciate the time you are spending 

with us today, and you are welcome to proceed with your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF SECRETARY OF STATE COLIN L. POWELL 

Secretary POWELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I thank 

you for your opening remarks and you, too, Mr. Moran. 

Let me begin by telling you what a pleasure it is for me to be 

back. I am not kidding. I am glad to be here; you are the IG. It 

is my responsibility to appear before the Congress to tell you why 

we need the funds that you are going to provide to us and how we 

are going to use them, how we are going to be good stewards of the 

people’s treasury, make sure we apply it in the right way, and that 

we are good managers of the funds that you provide us. 

12

Let me also express my sincere thanks for the support that this 

committee and, frankly, all Members of Congress have provided to 

the State Department over the last couple of years. We have seen 

some real improvements in the management of our people, in the 

way we are running our overseas building operations, what we are 

doing with information technology—I will talk about all of that in 

a moment—but we could not do any of this if we did not have the 

support of Congress. 

As was mentioned by Mr. Moran a minute ago, it is not always 

politically attractive to support our efforts. I am going to help you 

make it politically attractive. This function really does support the 

American people and their dreams and aspirations for a better, 

more peaceful world. 

Some of the issues that the chairman talked about with respect 

to HIV/AIDS and poverty and famine, all of which are interlinked, 

which I will get into, ultimately affect the American people. A stable world of people committed to democracy and economic freedom 

and our supporting those efforts through such programs as the Millennium Challenge Account, which I will also talk about, ultimately, this benefits the American people. We are no longer isolated. 

If I could figure out a way to get rid of the term ‘‘foreign aid,’’ 

I would do it. It is probably too embedded in literature and history, 

but it isn’t an accurate reflection of what these funds are really 

used for. 

What I would like to do, Mr. Chairman, is talk to the specific 

issues you mentioned in a moment. But I would like to offer my 

prepared testimony for the record and then do a summary of that 

testimony. Then we can get right into your questions and answers. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am pleased to 

appear before you to testify in support of the President’s international affairs budget for fiscal year 2004. Funding requested for 

2004 for the Department of State, USAID, and other foreign affairs 

agencies is $28.5 billion. 

The President’s budget will allow the United States to target security and economic assistance to sustain key countries supporting 

us in the war on terrorism and helping us to stem the proliferation 

of weapons of mass destruction. 

Funds will also allow us to launch the Millennium Challenge Account, a new partnership generating support to countries that rule 

justly, that invest in their people and encourage economic freedom. 

It will also allow us to strengthen the United States and our 

global commitment to fighting HIV/AIDS and alleviating humanitarian hardships. 

It will also allow us to combat illegal drugs in the Andean region 

of South America, as well as bolster democracy in one of that region’s most important countries, Colombia. It will reinforce America’s world-class diplomatic force, focusing on the people, places and 

tools needed to promote our foreign policies around the world. 

I am particularly proud of that last goal, and I am particularly 

committed to that last goal. Mr. Chairman, for the past 2 years I 

have concentrated on each of my jobs: primary foreign policy advisor, and chief executive officer—the boss—the leader of the State 

13

Department. And that last goal connects to my leadership responsibilities to make sure that we have a world-class diplomatic force. We are asking for $8.5 billion of the $28.5 billion overall request 

to run the Department of State. Let me give you some highlights 

of that and begin with our diplomatic readiness initiative, an initiative to bring more people into the Department. With your assistance, we will hire another 399 professionals this year, the same 

number as last year; and over a 3-year period it will result in the 

addition of 1,100 professionals, Foreign Service Officers, civil servants and others, to support the Department’s efforts around the 

world. 

I cannot tell you how important this single initiative is to the 

morale of the Department, but beyond the morale of the Department, the esprit de corps of the Department, it allows us get our 

job done. During the 1990s, there were years when no one was 

hired into the Foreign Service. This was a disaster. You can’t have 

a professional service that doesn’t have blood, fresh blood, fresh 

life, coming into it. 

Even when I was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and I was 

cutting 500,000 troops out of the force structure at the end of the 

cold war, we still were bringing in second lieutenants and privates. 

Why? Because if you want a battalion commander in 15 years, you 

have to bring in a second lieutenant today. If you want a squad 

leader in 9 years, you have to hire a private today. Yet in the State 

Department, even though we know we are going to need ambassadors in the future, we are going to need political counselors in 

the future, we are going to need all of those professionals in the 

future, we stopped hiring for years. 

We turned that around. Over the last 2 years we have given the 

Foreign Service written exam to 80,000 young Americans; 80,000 

young Americans have stood up and said, I want to be a part of 

this outfit. I want to be a part of America’s diplomatic force. I want 

to be part of our diplomatic offensive troops, out there taking our 

case to the world; 80,000 youngsters have signed up to take this 

test. Some of them are not such youngsters. Some of them are kind 

of old geezers like me, but they all wanted to serve the country. 

The last time we gave the test, 38 percent who passed were minorities. We are drawing from all parts of America’s great diversity 

so that the State Department, USAID increasingly and all of our 

other agencies increasingly look like America and, look like the rest 

of the world as well. 

Nothing would be more disastrous to my efforts than to have 

somebody say, sorry, we are going to line that item out. You can’t 

hire anybody. 

Don’t do that. I know you won’t. This committee wouldn’t ever 

think of doing such a thing, but it has been done in the past. 

Please support my Diplomatic Readiness Initiative with all the energy you can muster. 

It also gives me flexibility to deal with surges, problems that 

come along, and not constantly stealing from one office or embassy 

to take care of a new problem that just emerged in another office 

or embassy. It gives me some flexibility to train people so that I 

can take them out of their assignments, send them to school, get 

the qualifications they need, in an increasingly complex world, to 

14

get econ officers trained and information specialists trained and get 

language training. I need some flexibility in the force, and the Diplomatic Readiness Initiative does that for us. 

Second, I promised to you a couple years ago that I was going 

to make information technology available to every single member 

of the State Department. Everybody in the Department at every 

embassy, every mission, I don’t care where they are, they are going 

to have an Internet-capable computer, classified/unclassified, on 

their desk, so that they can be in this fast-moving world that we 

live in. 

It was illustrated to me again last week when I spoke at the 

U.N. within minutes after my speech, Ambassador Boucher, my 

press spokesman, and the whole international information program 

part of the Department of State, was translating it—immediately 

uploading it, downloading it, backloading it, sending it to every embassy in the world, and in every language we could think of. We 

had brochures coming out to get the message out and every ambassador being instructed to go talk to your counterparts about what 

the Secretary said. It is instantaneously done now, and that is the 

way the world is. 

Looking at the papers the day after my presentation, the picture 

of me holding a little vial, for example, but the picture that touched 

me the most was the picture that was either in the Post or Times. 

It was a picture of an aircraft carrier ready room. One of those 

ready rooms from the old war movies. All those pilots sitting there, 

getting their instructions on their little clipboards to go out and fly 

their mission. But in this instance, in this pilot ready room—they 

looked like F–18 pilots—and they were sitting there all looking at 

a screen in front of them that was of me the day before making 

my presentation at the U.N. 

A lot of people watched this presentation with interest. These 

guys had more than a passing interest because I was talking about 

their lives, and what they might be doing in the near future. They 

were not waiting to read it in tomorrow’s newspaper, or waiting for 

some brilliant talking head to tell them what they saw. They were 

watching it in real time, instantaneously in the Persian Gulf, 

aboard an aircraft carrier while I was saying those words. That is 

the nature of modern information technology and modern communications, and I have to make sure that every service person in the 

State Department has access to that kind of information technology 

so that they can do their job. It is for that reason we are making 

such an investment in modern information technology throughout 

the Department of State. 

Finally, with respect to my CEO role, I would touch on one other 

area. There are lots of things I could talk about and will in response to your questions, but I want to talk about something that 

the chairman talked about, and that was our overseas building operations. How we build our embassies and how we take care of our 

people, how we secure our facilities and thereby secure our people. 

Our people live and work in danger. I lost three members of my 

State Department family to terrorism last year. I have got to take 

care of our troops just like the military takes care of its troops with 

force protection. We spend $1.5 billion a year on our embassy programs. They are now under the control of Gen. Chuck Williams, an 

15

old friend of mine of many years’ duration, who is a Corps of Engineers officer in the Army and is a master of modern construction 

techniques and knows everything that is going on in the civilian 

side of construction. We are bringing the best practices from the civilian world into our overseas building operation. 

Our new embassies are now being completed on time, and significantly under cost. A program that I think was in some disarray—

and members of this committee pointed thats out to me when I 

took over—I think is now being run in a very efficient way, and we 

are looking for even better ways to make sure that we are spending 

that money properly. 

Mr. Chairman, as the principal foreign policy advisor to President Bush, I have budget priorities that are a little bit different, 

of course, than my CEO priorities. These have to do with our foreign policy issues. The 2004 budget proposes several initiatives in 

this regard that will serve to advance U.S. national security interests and preserve American leadership. The 2004 foreign ops budget that funds programs for State, USAID and other foreign affairs 

agencies is $18.8 billion. Today, our number one priority is to fight 

and win the global war on terrorism. This budget request furthers 

this goal by providing economic, military and democracy assistance 

to key foreign partners and allies, including $4.7 billion to countries that have joined us in the war on terrorism. Of this amount, the President’s budget provides $657 million for Afghanistan, $460 million for Jordan, $395 million for Pakistan, 

$255 million for Turkey, $136 million for Indonesia, and $87 million for the Philippines. 

As was noted by Mr. Moran, of course there are other programs 

being looked at. There are other needs we will have that are not 

in the President’s budget at the moment and will have to be dealt 

with by supplemental funding at some point in the future. 

In Afghanistan, the funding will be used to fulfill our commitment to rebuild Afghanistan’s road network. In addition, it will establish security through a national military and national police 

force, establish broad-based and accountable governance throughout democratic institutions and throughout an active civil society in 

Afghanistan, ensure a peace dividend for the Afghan people 

through economic reconstruction; and we will work closely in all 

these efforts with the United Nations and other international donors. 

That is kind of a bureaucratic statement, but the reality is we 

should be very proud of what we have done in Afghanistan over the 

past year and a half. The glass may be half full or half empty, depending on your point of view, and it is still a fragile situation. Al 

Qaeda and Taliban elements are still on the loose, and we are chasing them down. General Franks and his troops are still working 

that problem. 

But when you look at what we have accomplished, we have put 

in place a new government, responsive to the people. A Loya Jirga 

has been held. They are getting ready for full elections in the nottoo-distant future. We are constructing roads that connect this 

country together once again, economically and politically. We are 

training a national army that is now starting to send battalions out 

to other parts of the country to provide stability. A million people 

16

have returned to Afghanistan, who were refugees in camps in Pakistan and elsewhere. We have allowed women to participate in the 

life of Afghanistan. It is incredible. Schools are going up. Hospitals 

are going up. The international community is unified behind this 

effort. 

Even though there are still very difficult days ahead for Afghanistan, we should be proud about what we have done since we took 

out the Taliban and put al Qaeda on the run. 

Mr. Chairman, I also want to emphasize our efforts to decrease 

the threats posed by terrorist groups, rogue states and other 

nonstate actors, with regard to weapons of mass destruction and 

related technology. To achieve this goal we have to strengthen our 

partnerships with countries that share our views in dealing with 

the threat of terrorism and in resolving regional conflicts. 

The 2004 budget requests $35 million for the Nonproliferation 

and Disarmament Fund, more than double the 2003 request, increases funding for overseas export controls and border security to 

$40 million, and supports additional funding for science centers 

and bio-chem redirection programs. 

Funding increases requested for these programs will help us prevent weapons of mass destruction from falling into the hands of 

terrorist groups or states. It will do so by preventing the movement 

of these kinds of technologies across borders and by destroying or 

safeguarding known quantities of such weapons or source material 

in various states such as some of the former states of the former 

Soviet Union. 

The science centers and bio-chem redirection programs support 

the same goals by engaging former Soviet weapon scientists and 

engineers in peaceful scientific activities. To not allow the knowledge they have in their head to be used for the wrong purposes but 

to give them an opportunity to use that knowledge for good and to 

help their own society sbenefit from such knowledge and not use 

it for weaponry. 

The budget also promotes international peace and prosperity by 

launching the Millennium Challenge Account, funded at $1.3 billion. Frankly, this will be a brand-new kind of development aid; assistance to nations in need. It will go to developing nations, but the 

difference between it and previous foreign assistance, is that this 

will go to those nations that have made a commitment to democracy, that believe in the rule of law and are demonstrating that belief, that are rooting out corruption, that are committed to economic market activity and that will build the infrastructure of 

their society to teach children the skills they need for a 21st century economy. In other words, those countries that have said, we 

are now going to move down the right path. We need to help. 

The Millennium Challenge Account help will go to those countries greatest in need but also who have made this commitment to 

the right kind of governance and to the values that I have just described; and it will go to helping them build their infrastructure, 

education, clean water, health care systems, those things needed to 

improve the ability of their people to join in the 21st century world. 

This budget also offers hope and a helping hand to countries facing health catastrophes, poverty, despair and humanitarian disasVerDate Feb 1 2002 10:10 Jun 09, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\HEARINGS\108TH\108-4\HBU044.000 HBUDGET1 PsN: DICK
17

ters. The budget includes more than $1 billion to meet the needs 

of refugees and internally displaced peoples. The budget also provides more than $1.3 billion to combat the 

global HIV/AIDS epidemic. The President’s total budget for HIV/

AIDS is $2 billion, which includes the first year’s funding for the 

new emergency plan for HIV/AIDS relief that he announced in his 

State of the Union Address. Those funds will target 14 of the hardest hit countries in Africa and the Caribbean. 

We should be very proud about what we have been doing as a 

nation over the last 2 years. Participating with the global health 

fund, working with the Secretary General, Kofi Annan, the President’s program with respect to helping mothers with the antiviral 

drugs, mother-to-child transmission, and now with the President’s 

new global initiative directed at these 14 specific nations. 

The chairman talked about this in his opening remarks, and I 

couldn’t agree with him more that HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa, the Caribbean, and other parts of the world will become a serious problem, including India, China. That is the major challenge 

before the world today. Notwithstanding all of the other crises we 

are facing, nothing rises to the challenge that we are presented 

through this horrible disease and the related diseases that come 

along with it. 

When people start to be weakened by this virus and when they 

are also weakened by poverty, when they are weakened because 

they can’t grow food because there is drought or because there are 

bad political policies or stupid policies having to do with denying 

biotechnology to enhance food production, it all links together. Poverty, famine, HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases, these all 

come together to create a catastrophe that is facing the world. Its 

something that the United States recognizes, and we are doing a 

lot about, but it is something the whole world needs to recognize 

and do something about. 

I am pleased, Mr. Chairman, that you and members of this committee are committed to helping us do something about it. It is a 

challenge for the American people, a challenge we must not step 

aside from. 

Anybody who has traveled in sub-Saharan Africa knows exactly 

what you were talking about earlier, Mr. Chairman. Orphans—orphans who are sitting there without care providers, without education. Their teachers are dying at a faster rate than the parents 

are. A whole level of society being removed at the sexually active 

level, who are also those individuals at the peak of their capacity 

to contribute to society, 20 through 40. They are supposed to be 

getting skills, they are supposed to be working, they are supposed 

to be providing the economic activity within that society. They are 

being taken out, and you are left with orphans and grandparents. 

This is not only a health problem. It is societal problem, a political problem, a destabilizing problem. It leads to terrorism, as you 

noted, Mr. Chairman, and it leads to all other sorts of social 

pathologies that, if we don’t do something about, we are going to 

pay the consequences of at some point in the future. I certainly applaud your commitment and the commitment of all the members of 

this committee to help us attack this multifaceted problem in every 

way that we can. 

18

Mr. Chairman and colleagues, the budget also includes half a billion dollars for Colombia. This funding will support Colombian 

President Uribe’s unified campaign against terrorists and the drug 

trade. To accomplish his goals and to help him requires more than 

simply funding Colombia itself. We need to help him with the surrounding countries, and that is why our total Andean Counterdrug 

Initiative, to help Colombia and the other nations in the region, is 

$731 million. This will also include resumption of the air bridge denial program, to stop internal and cross-border aerial trafficking. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, to advance America’s 

interest around the world, we need the dollars in the President’s 

budget for fiscal year 2004. 

To Mr. Moran’s point, we need the omnibus bill badly, quickly, 

soon for 2003; and we hope that action will take place in the next 

day or two so that we can get on with our efforts and on with our 

programs. 

We have no specific additional needs that we would like to identify for you at this moment, Mr. Moran, but I will go back, check 

and see if there is any gap or any problem that we have that we 

should bring to your attention. 

Mr. Chairman, I think I will stop at this point. We all know that 

we are living in difficult times, but we are also living in times of 

enormous opportunity. While we worry about Iraq, the Middle 

East, North Korea, and the other issues that I am sure we will be 

discussing here today, I also lean back late at night and think 

about the opportunities presented by the end of the cold war and 

the defeat of communism, the defeat of fascism, and the fact that 

it is democracy and free economic market programs and philosophies that are moving countries in the right direction. We have got 

to be there to help them. We help them by providing a security 

shield with our wonderful military forces around the world, but we 

also help them by what your State Department and all of its related agencies do every single day. 

We also help them when Members of our Congress travel and 

learn about what is going on in these sometimes seeming faraway 

places. This Secretary of State will never criticize any Member of 

Congress for traveling and taking your staff with you and taking 

other Members of Congress with you. In my judgment, they are not 

junkets. They are an essential part of our foreign policy operation 

around the world. And anybody that doesn’t have a passport, I 

have passport applications with me and I am more than happy to 

provide them. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman NUSSLE. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Powell follows:]

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

STATE

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am pleased to appear before you to 

testify in support of the President’s International Affairs budget for fiscal year 2004. 

Funding requested for fiscal year 2004 for the Department of State, USAID, and 

other foreign affairs agencies is $28.5 billion. 

The President’s budget will allow the United States to: 

• Target security and economic assistance to sustain key countries supporting us 

in the war on terrorism and helping us to stem the proliferation of weapons of mass 

destruction; 

19

• Launch the Millennium Challenge Account—a new partnership generating support to countries that rule justly, invest in their people, and encourage economic 

freedom; 

• Strengthen the U.S. and global commitment to fighting HIV/AIDS and alleviating humanitarian hardships; 

• Combat illegal drugs in the Andean Region of South America, as well as bolster 

democracy in one of that region’s most important countries, Colombia; and 

• Reinforce America’s world-class diplomatic force, focusing on the people, places, 

and tools needed to promote our foreign policies around the world. 

I am particularly proud of the last bullet, Mr. Chairman, because for the past 2 

years I have concentrated on each of my jobs—primary foreign policy advisor to the 

President and Chief Executive Officer of the State Department. 

Under my CEO hat, we have been reinforcing our diplomatic force for 2 years and 

we will continue in fiscal year 2004. We will hire 399 more professionals to help 

the President carry out the Nation’s foreign policy. This hiring will bring us to the 

1,100-plus new foreign and civil service officers we set out to hire over the first 3 

years to bring the Department’s personnel back in line with its diplomatic workload. 

Moreover, completion of these hires will allow us the flexibility to train and educate 

all of our officers as they should be trained and educated. So I am proud of that 

accomplishment and want to thank you for helping me bring it about. 

In addition, I promised to bring state-of-the-art communications capability to the 

Department—because people who can’t communicate rapidly and effectively in today’s globalizing world can’t carry out our foreign policy. We are approaching our 

goal in that regard as well. 

In both unclassified and classified communications capability, including desktop 

access to the Internet for every man and woman at State, we are there by the end 

of 2003. The budget before you will sustain these gains and continue our information technology modernization effort. 

Finally, with respect to my CEO role, I wanted to sweep the slate clean and completely revamp the way we construct our embassies and other overseas buildings, 

as well as improve the way we secure our men and women who occupy them. As 

you well know, that last task is a long-term, almost never-ending one, particularly 

in this time of heightened terrorist activities. But we are well on the way to implementing both the construction and the security tasks in a better way, in a less expensive way, and in a way that subsequent CEOs can continue and improve on. 

Mr. Chairman, let me give you key details with respect to these three main CEO 

priorities, as well as tell you about other initiatives under my CEO hat: 

THE CEO RESPONSIBILITIES: STATE DEPARTMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES

The President’s fiscal year 2004 discretionary request for the Department of State 

and Related Agencies is $8.497 billion. The requested funding will allow us to: 

• Continue initiatives to recruit, hire, train, and deploy the right work force. The 

budget request includes $97 million to complete the Diplomatic Readiness Initiative 

by hiring 399 additional foreign affairs professionals. Foreign policy is carried out 

through our people, and rebuilding America’s diplomatic readiness in staffing wisll 

ensure that the Department can respond to crises and emerging foreign policy priorities. This is the third year of funding for this initiative, which will provide a total 

of 1,158 new staff for the Department of State. 

• Continue to put information technology in the service of diplomacy. The budget 

request includes $157 million to sustain the investments made over the last 2 years 

to provide classified connectivity to every post that requires it and to expand desktop access to the Internet for State Department employees. Combined with $114 

million in estimated expedited passport fees, a total of $271 million will be available 

for information technology investments, including beginning a major initiative—

SMART—that will overhaul the outdated systems for cables, messaging, information 

sharing, and document archiving. 

• Continue to upgrade and enhance our security worldwide. The budget request 

includes $646.7 million for programs to enhance the security of our diplomatic facilities and personnel serving abroad and for hiring 85 additional security and support 

professionals to sustain the Department’s Worldwide Security Upgrades program. 

• Continue to upgrade the security of our overseas facilities. The budget request 

includes $1.514 billion to fund major security-related construction projects and address the major physical security and rehabilitation needs of embassies and consulates around the world. The request includes $761.4 million for construction of secure embassy compounds in seven countries and $128.3 million for construction of 

a new embassy building in Germany. 

20

• The budget also supports management improvements to the overseas buildings 

program and the Overseas Building Operations (OBO) long-range plan. The budget 

proposes a Capital Security Cost Sharing Program that allocates the capital costs 

of new overseas facilities to all U.S. Government agencies on the basis of the number of their authorized overseas positions. This program will serve two vital purposes: first, to accelerate construction of new embassy compounds and second, to encourage Federal agencies to evaluate their overseas positions more carefully. In 

doing so, it will further the President’s Management Agenda initiative to rightsize 

the official American presence abroad. The modest surcharge to the cost of stationing an American employee overseas will not undermine vital overseas work, but 

it will encourage more efficient management of personnel and taxpayer funds. 

• Continue to enhance the Border Security Program. The budget request includes 

$736 million in Machine Readable Visa (MRV) fee revenues for continuous improvements in consular systems, processes, and programs in order to protect U.S. borders 

against the illegal entry of individuals who would do us harm. 

• Meet our obligations to international organizations. Fulfilling U.S. commitments is vital to building coalitions and gaining support for U.S. interests and policies in the war against terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. 

The budget request includes $1 billion to fund U.S. assessments to 44 international 

organizations, including $71.4 million to support renewed U.S. membership in the 

United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). 

• Support obligations to international peacekeeping activities. The budget request includes $550.2 million to pay projected U.N. peacekeeping assessments. 

These peacekeeping activities ensure continued American leadership in shaping the 

international community’s response to developments that threaten international 

peace and stability. 

• Continue to eliminate support for terrorists and thus deny them safe haven 

through our ongoing public diplomacy activities, our educational and cultural exchange programs, and international broadcasting. The budget request includes 

$296.9 million for public diplomacy, including information and cultural programs 

carried out by overseas missions and supported by public diplomacy personnel in 

our regional and functional bureaus. These resources are used to engage, inform, 

and influence foreign publics and broaden dialogue between American citizens and 

institutions and their counterparts abroad. 

The budget request also includes $345.3 million for educational and cultural exchange programs that build mutual understanding and develop friendly relations 

between America and the peoples of the world. These activities establish the trust, 

confidence, and international cooperation with other countries that sustain and advance the full range of American national interests. 

The budget request includes $100 million for education and cultural exchanges for 

states of the former Soviet Union and Central and Eastern Europe, which were previously funded under the FREEDOM Support Act and Support for East European 

Democracy (SEED) accounts. 

As a member of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, I want to take this opportunity to highlight to you the BBG’s pending budget request for $563.5 million. 

Funding will advance international broadcasting efforts to support the war on terrorism, including initiation of the Middle East Television Network. 

Mr. Chairman, I know that your committee staff will go over this statement with 

a fine-tooth comb and I know too that they prefer an account-by-account laydown. 

So here it is: 

DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR PROGRAMS (D&CP)

• The fiscal year 2004 request for D&CP, the State Department’s chief operating 

account, totals $4.164 billion. 

• D&CP supports the diplomatic activities and programs that constitute the first 

line of offense against threats to the security and prosperity of the American people. 

Together with Machine Readable Visa and other fees, the account funds the operating expenses and infrastructure necessary for carrying out U.S. foreign policy in 

more than 260 locations around the world. 

• The fiscal year 2004 D&CP request provides $3.517 billion for ongoing operations—a net increase of $132.7 million over the fiscal year 2003 level. Increased 

funding will enable the State Department to advance national interests effectively 

through improved diplomatic readiness, particularly in human resources. 

• The request completes the Secretary’s 3-year Diplomatic Readiness Initiative 

to put the right people with the right skills in the right place at the right time. New 

D&CP funding in fiscal year 2004 of $97 million will allow the addition of 399 proVerDate Feb 1 2002 10:10 Jun 09, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\HEARINGS\108TH\108-4\HBU044.000 HBUDGET1 PsN: DICK
21

fessionals, providing a total of 1,158 new staff from fiscal year 2002 through fiscal 

year 2004. 

• The fiscal year 2004 D&CP request also provides $646.7 million for Worldwide 

Security Upgrades—an increase of $93.7 million over last year. This total includes 

$504.6 million to continue worldwide security programs for guard protection, physical security equipment and technical support, information and system security, and 

security personnel and training. It also includes $43.4 million to expand the perimeter security enhancement program for 232 posts and $98.7 million for improvements in domestic and overseas protection programs, including 85 additional agents 

and other security professionals. 

CAPITAL INVESTMENT FUND (CIF)

• The fiscal year 2004 request provides $157 million for the CIF to assure that 

the investments made in fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003 keep pace with increased demand from users for functionality and speed. 

• Requested funding includes $15 million for the State Messaging and Archive 

Retrieval Toolset (SMART). The SMART initiative will replace outdated systems for 

cables and messages with a unified system that adds information sharing and document archiving. 

EMBASSY SECURITY, CONSTRUCTION, AND MAINTENANCE (ESCM)

• The fiscal year 2004 request for ESCM is $1.514 billion. This total—an increase of $209.4 million over the fiscal year 2003 level—reflects the administration’s 

continuing commitment to protect U.S. Government personnel serving abroad, improve the security posture of facilities overseas, and address serious deficiencies in 

the State Department’s overseas infrastructure. 

• For the ongoing ESCM budget, the administration is requesting $524.7 million. 

This budget includes maintenance and repairs at overseas posts, facility rehabilitation projects, construction security, renovation of the Harry S. Truman Building, all 

activities associated with leasing overseas properties, and management of the overseas buildings program. 

• For Worldwide Security Construction, the administration is requesting $761.4 

million for the next tranche of security-driven construction projects to replace highrisk facilities. Funding will support the construction of secure embassies in seven 

countries—Algeria, Burma, Ghana, Indonesia, Panama, Serbia, and Togo. In addition, the requested funding will provide new on-compound buildings for USAID in 

Ghana, Jamaica, and Nigeria. 

• The ESCM request includes $100 million to strengthen compound security at 

vulnerable posts. 

• The request also includes $128.3 million to construct the new U.S. embassy 

building in Berlin. 

EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL EXCHANGE PROGRAMS (ECE)

• The fiscal year 2004 request of $345.3 million for ECE maintains funding for 

exchanges at the fiscal year 2003 request level of $245 million and adds $100 million for projects for Eastern Europe and the States of the Former Soviet Union previously funded from Foreign Operations appropriations. 

• Authorized by the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 

(Fulbright-Hays Act), as amended, exchanges are strategic activities that build mutual understanding and develop friendly relations between the United States and 

other countries. They establish the trust, confidence, and international cooperation 

necessary to sustain and advance the full range of U.S. national interests. 

• The request provides $141 million for academic programs. These include the 

J. William Fulbright Educational Exchange Program for exchange of students, 

scholars, and teachers and the Hubert H. Humphrey Fellowship Program for academic study and internships in the United States for mid-career professionals from 

developing countries. 

• The request also provides $73 million for professional and cultural exchanges. 

These include the International Visitor Program, which supports travel to the 

United States by current and emerging leaders to obtain firsthand knowledge of 

American politics and values, and the Citizen Exchange Program, which partners 

with U.S. nonprofit organizations to support professional, cultural, and grassroots 

community exchanges. 

• This request provides $100 million for exchanges funded in the past from the 

FREEDOM Support Act (FSA) and Support for East European Democracy (SEED) 

accounts. 

22

• This request also provides $31 million for exchanges support. This funding is 

needed for built-in requirements to maintain current services. 

CONTRIBUTIONS TO INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS (CIO)

• The fiscal year 2004 request for CIO of $1.010 billion provides funding for U.S. 

assessed contributions, consistent with U.S. statutory restrictions, to 44 international organizations to further U.S. economic, political, social, and cultural interests. 

• The request recognizes U.S. international obligations and reflects the President’s commitment to maintain the financial stability of the United Nations and 

other international organizations that include the World Health Organization, the 

North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and 

the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. 

• The budget request provides $71.4 million to support renewed U.S. membership in the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization 

(UNESCO). UNESCO contributes to peace and security in the world by promoting 

collaboration among nations through education, science, culture and communication 

and by furthering intercultural understanding and universal respect for justice, rule 

of law, human rights, and fundamental freedoms, notably a free press. 

• Membership in international organizations benefits the United States by building coalitions and pursuing multilateral programs that advance U.S. interests. 

These include promoting economic growth through market economies; settling disputes peacefully; encouraging nonproliferation, nuclear safeguards, arms control, 

and disarmament; adopting international standards to facilitate international trade, 

telecommunications, transportation, environmental protection, and scientific exchange; and strengthening international cooperation in agriculture and health. 

CONTRIBUTIONS FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACEKEEPING ACTIVITIES (CIPA)

• The administration is requesting $550.2 million for CIPA in fiscal year 2004. 

This funding level will allow the United States to pay its share of assessed U.N. 

peacekeeping budgets, fulfilling U.S. commitments and avoiding increased U.N. arrears. 

• The U.N. peacekeeping appropriation serves U.S. interests in Europe, Africa 

and the Middle East, where U.N. peacekeeping missions assist in ending conflicts, 

restoring peace and strengthening regional stability. 

• U.N. peacekeeping missions leverage U.S. political, military and financial assets through the authority of the U.N. Security Council and the participation of 

other states that provide funds and peacekeepers for conflicts around the world. 

BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS (BBG)

• The fiscal year 2004 budget request for the BBG totals $563.5 million. 

• The overall request provides $525.2 million for U.S. Government nonmilitary 

international broadcasting operations through the International Broadcasting Operations (IBO) account. This account funds operations of the Voice of America (VOA), 

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), Radio Free Asia (RFA), and all related 

program delivery and support activities. 

• The IBO request includes funding to advance broadcasting efforts related to 

the war on terrorism. The request includes $30 million to initiate the Middle East 

Television Network—a new Arabic-language satellite TV network that, once operational, will have the potential to reach vast audiences in the Middle East. The request also includes funding to double VOA Indonesian radio programming, significantly increase television programming in Indonesia, and expand BBG audience development efforts. 

• The IBO request reflects the shifting of priorities away from the predominantly 

cold war focus on Central and Eastern Europe to broadcasting in the Middle East 

and Central Asia. Funds are being redirected to programs in these regions through 

the elimination of broadcasting to countries in the former Eastern Bloc that have 

demonstrated significant advances in democracy and press freedoms and are new 

or soon-to-be NATO and European Union Members. 

• The IBO request also reflects anticipated efficiencies that achieve a 5-percent 

reduction in funding for administration and management in fiscal year 2004. 

• The fiscal year 2004 request also provides $26.9 million through Broadcasting 

to Cuba (OCB) for continuing Radio Marti and TV Marti operations, including salary and inflation increases, to support current schedules. 

• The fiscal year 2004 request further provides $11.4 million for Broadcasting 

Capital Improvements to maintain the BBG’s worldwide transmission network. The 

23

request includes $2.9 million to maintain and improve security of U.S. broadcasting 

transmission facilities overseas. 

That finishes the State and Related Agencies part of the President’s budget. Now 

let me turn to the Foreign Affairs part. 

THE FOREIGN POLICY ADVISOR RESPONSIBILITIES: FUNDING AMERICA’S DIPLOMACY

AROUND THE WORLD

The fiscal year 2004 budget proposes several initiatives to advance U.S. national 

security interests and preserve American leadership. The fiscal year 2004 Foreign 

Operations budget that funds programs for the Department State, USAID, and 

other foreign affairs agencies is $18.8 billion. 

Today, our number one priority is to fight and win the global war on terrorism. 

The budget furthers this goal by providing economic, military, and democracy assistance to key foreign partners and allies, including $4.7 billion to countries that have 

joined us in the war on terrorism. 

The budget also promotes international peace and prosperity by launching the 

most innovative approach to U.S. foreign assistance in more than forty years. The 

new Millennium Challenge Account (MCA), an independent government corporation 

funded at $1.3 billion will redefine ‘‘aid.’’ As President Bush told African leaders 

meeting in Mauritius recently, this aid will go to ‘‘nations that encourage economic 

freedom, root out corruption, and respect the rights of their people.’’

Moreover, this budget offers hope and a helping hand to countries facing health 

catastrophes, poverty and despair, and humanitarian disasters. It provides $1.345 

billion to combat the global HIV/AIDS epidemic, more than $1 billion to meet the 

needs of refugees and internally displaced peoples, $200 million in emergency food 

assistance to support dire famine needs, and $100 million for an emerging crises 

fund to allow swift responses to complex foreign crises. 

Mr. Chairman, let me give you some details. 

The United States is successfully prosecuting the global war on terrorism on a 

number of fronts. We are providing extensive assistance to states on the front lines 

of the anti-terror struggle. Working with our international partners bilaterally and 

through multilateral organizations, we have frozen more than $110 million in terrorist assets, launched new initiatives to secure global networks of commerce and 

communication, and significantly increased the cooperation of our law enforcement 

and intelligence communities. Afghanistan is no longer a haven for al Qaeda. We 

are now working with the Afghan Authority, other governments, international organizations, and NGOs to rebuild Afghanistan. Around the world we are combating 

the unholy alliance of drug traffickers and terrorists who threaten the internal stability of countries. We are leading the international effort to prevent weapons of 

mass destruction from falling into the hands of those who would do harm to us and 

others. At the same time, we are rejuvenating and expanding our public diplomacy 

efforts worldwide. 

ASSISTANCE TO FRONTLINE STATES

The fiscal year 2004 International Affairs budget provides approximately $4.7 billion in assistance to the Frontline States, which have joined with us in the war on 

terrorism. This funding will provide crucial assistance to enable these countries to 

strengthen their economies, internal counterterrorism capabilities and border controls. 

Of this amount, the President’s budget provides $657 million for Afghanistan, 

$460 million for Jordan, $395 million for Pakistan, $255 million for Turkey, $136 

million for Indonesia, and $87 million for the Philippines. In Afghanistan, the funding will be used to fulfill our commitment to rebuild Afghanistan’s road network; 

establish security through a national military and national police force, including 

counterterrorism and counternarcotics components; establish broad-based and accountable governance through democratic institutions and an active civil society; ensure a peace dividend for the Afghan people through economic reconstruction; and 

provide humanitarian assistance to sustain returning refugees and displaced persons. United States assistance will continue to be coordinated with the Afghan government, the United Nations, and other international donors. 

The State Department’s Anti-Terrorism Assistance (ATA) program will continue 

to provide frontline states a full complement of training courses, such as a course 

on how to conduct a post-terrorist attack investigation or how to respond to a WMD 

event. The budget will also fund additional equipment grants to sustain the skills 

and capabilities acquired in the ATA courses. It will support as well in-country 

training programs in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Indonesia. 

24

CENTRAL ASIA AND FREEDOM SUPPORT ACT NATIONS

In fiscal year 2004, over $157 million in Freedom Support Act (FSA) funding will 

go to assistance programs in the Central Asian states. The fiscal year 2004 budget 

continues to focus FSA funds to programs in Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and 

Tajikistan, recognizing that Central Asia is of strategic importance to U.S. foreign 

policy objectives. The fiscal year 2004 assistance level for Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan 

and Tajikistan is 30 percent above 2003. Assistance to these countries has almost 

doubled from pre-September 11 levels. These funds will support civil society development, small business promotion, conflict reduction, and economic reform in the region. These efforts are designed to promote economic development and strengthen 

the rule of law in order to reduce the appeal of extremist movements and stem the 

flow of illegal drugs that finance terrorist activities. 

Funding levels and country distributions for the FSA nations reflect shifting priorities in the region. For example, after more than 10 years of high levels of assistance, it is time to begin the process of graduating countries in this region from economic assistance, as we have done with countries in Eastern Europe that have 

made sufficient progress in the transition to market-based democracies. U.S. economic assistance to Russia and Ukraine will begin phasing down in fiscal year 2004, 

a decrease of 32 percent from 2003, moving these countries toward graduation. 

COMBATING ILLEGAL DRUGS AND STEMMING NARCO-TERRORISM

The President’s request for $731 million for the Andean Counterdrug Initiative includes $463 million for Colombia. An additional $110 million in military assistance 

to Colombia will support Colombian President Uribe’s unified campaign against terrorists and the drug trade that fuels their activities. The aim is to secure democracy, extend security, and restore economic prosperity to Colombia and prevent the 

narco-terrorists from spreading instability to the broader Andean region. Critical 

components of this effort include resumption of the Airbridge Denial program to 

stop internal and cross-border aerial trafficking in illicit drugs, stepped up eradication and alternative development efforts, and technical assistance to strengthen 

Colombia’s police and judicial institutions. 

HALTING ACCESS OF ROGUE STATES AND TERRORISTS TO WEAPONS OF MASS

DESTRUCTION

Decreasing the threats posed by terrorist groups, rogue states, and other nonstate actors requires halting the spread of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and 

related technology. To achieve this goal, we must strengthen partnerships with 

countries that share our views in dealing with the threat of terrorism and resolving 

regional conflicts. 

The fiscal year 2004 budget requests $35 million for the Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund (NDF), more than double the fiscal year 2003 request, increases 

funding for overseas Export Controls and Border Security (EXBS) to $40 million, 

and supports additional funding for Science Centers and Bio-Chem Redirection Programs. 

Funding increases requested for the NDF and EXBS programs seek to prevent 

weapons of mass destruction from falling into the hands of terrorist groups or states 

by preventing their movement across borders and destroying or safeguarding known 

quantities of weapons or source material. The Science Centers and Bio-Chem Redirection programs support the same goals by engaging former Soviet weapons scientists and engineers in peaceful scientific activities, providing them an alternative 

to marketing their skills to states or groups of concern. 

MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE ACCOUNT

The fiscal year 2004 budget request of $1.3 billion for the new Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) as a government corporation fulfills the President’s March 

2002 pledge to create a new bilateral assistance program, markedly different from 

existing models. This budget is a huge step toward the President’s commitment of 

$5 billion in annual funding for the MCA by 2006, a 50-percent increase in core development assistance. 

The MCA supplement U.S. commitments to humanitarian assistance and existing 

development aid programs funded and implemented by USAID. It will assist developing countries that make sound policy decisions and demonstrate solid performance 

on economic growth and reducing poverty. 

• MCA funds will go only to selected developing countries that demonstrate a 

commitment to sound policies—based on clear, concrete and objective criteria. To beVerDate Feb 1 2002 10:10 Jun 09, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\HEARINGS\108TH\108-4\HBU044.000 HBUDGET1 PsN: DICK
25

come eligible for MCA resources, countries must demonstrate their commitment to 

economic opportunity, investing in people, and good governance. 

• Resources will be available through agreements with recipient countries that 

specify a limited number of clear measurable goals, activities, and benchmarks, and 

financial accountability standards. 

The MCA will be administered by a new government corporation designed to support innovative strategies and to ensure accountability for measurable results. The 

corporation will be supervised by a board of directors composed of Cabinet level officials and chaired by the Secretary of State. Personnel will be drawn from a variety 

of government agencies and nongovernment institutions and serve limited-term appointments. 

In fiscal year 2004, countries eligible to borrow from the International Development Association (IDA), and which have per capita incomes below $1,435, (the historical IDA cutoff) will be considered. In 2005, all countries with incomes below 

$1,435 will be considered. In 2006, all countries with incomes up to $2,975 (the current World Bank cutoff for lower middle income countries) will be eligible. 

The selection process will use 16 indicators to assess national performance—these 

indicators being relative to governing justly, investing in people, and encouraging 

economic freedom. These indicators were chosen because of the quality and objectivity of their data, country coverage, public availability, and correlation with 

growth and poverty reduction. The results of a review of the indicators will be used 

by the MCA Board of Directors to make a final recommendation to the President 

on a list of MCA countries. 

AFRICA EDUCATION INITIATIVE

With $200 million, the United States is doubling its 5-year financial commitment 

to the African Education Initiative it launched last year. The initiative focuses on 

increasing access to quality education in Africa. Over its 5-year life the African Education Initiative will achieve: 160,000 new teachers trained; 4.5 million textbooks 

developed and distributed; an increase in the number of girls attending school 

through providing more than a quarter million scholarships and mentoring; and an 

increase African Education Ministries’ capacity to address the impact of HIV/AIDS. 

INCREASES IN FUNDING FOR MULTILATERAL DEVELOPMENT BANKS (MDBS)

The fiscal year 2004 budget provides $1.55 billion for the MDBs, an increase of 

$110 million over the fiscal year 2003 request of $1.44 billion. This includes $1.36 

billion for scheduled payments to the MDBs and $195.9 million to clear existing arrears. The request provides $950 million for the International Development Association (IDA) for the second year of the IDA–13 replenishment, $100 million of which 

is contingent on the IDA meeting specific benchmarks in the establishment of a results measurement system. By spring 2003, the IDA is to have completed an outline 

of approach to results measurement, presented baseline data, and identified outcome indicators and expected progress targets. By that same time, the IDA is also 

to have completed specific numbers of reviews and assessments in the areas of financial accountability, procurement, public expenditure, investment climate, and 

poverty. 

WORLD SUMMIT ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (WSSD)

The WSSD engaged more than 100 countries and representatives of business and 

NGOs. Sustainable development begins at home and is supported by effective domestic policies and international partnerships that include the private sector. Selfgoverning people prepared to participate in an open world marketplace are the foundation of sustainable development. These fundamental principals guide the U.S. approach to Summit initiatives. At the 2002 Summit the United States committed to 

developing and implementing realistic results-focused partnerships in the areas of: 

Water for the Poor; Clean Energy; Initiative to Cut Hunger in Africa; Preventing 

Famine in Southern Africa; and the Congo Basin Partnership. At the end of the 

Summit new relationships and partnerships were forged and a new global commitment to improve sanitation was reached. The fiscal year 2004 budget supports these 

partnerships with $337 million in assistance funding. 

THE U.S.–MIDDLE EAST PARTNERSHIP INITIATIVE

The President’s budget includes $145 million for the Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI). This initiative gives us a framework and funding for working with 

the Arab world to expand educational and economic opportunities, empower women, 

and strengthen civil society and the rule of law. The peoples and governments of 

26

the Middle East face daunting human challenges. Their economies are stagnant and 

unable to provide jobs for millions of young people entering the workplace each year. 

Too many of their governments appear closed and unresponsive to the needs of their 

citizens. And their schools are not equipping students to succeed in today’s 

globalizing world. With the programs of the MEPI, we will work with Arab governments, groups, and individuals to bridge the jobs gap with economic reform, business investment, and private sector development; close the freedom gap with 

projects to strengthen civil society, expand political participation, and lift the voices 

of women; and bridge the knowledge gap with better schools and more opportunities 

for higher education. The U.S.–Middle East Partnership Initiative is an investment 

in a more stable, peaceful, prosperous, and democratic Arab world. 

FORGIVING DEBT—HELPING HEAVILY INDEBTED POOR COUNTRIES

The administration request provides an additional $75 million for the Trust Fund 

for Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC). These funds will go toward fulfilling 

the President’s commitment at the G–8 Summit in Kananaskis, Canada to contribute America’s share to filling the projected HIPC Trust Fund financing gap. The 

HIPC Trust Fund helps to finance debt forgiveness by the International Financial 

Institutions (IFIs) to heavily indebted poor countries that have committed to economic reforms and pledged to increase domestic funding of health and education 

programs. In addition, the President’s request provides $300 million to fund bilateral debt reduction for the Democratic Republic of the Congo under the HIPC Initiative, as well as $20 million for debt reduction under the Tropical Forest Conservation Act (TFCA). 

The administration believes that offering new sovereign loans or loan guarantees 

to indebted poor countries while providing debt forgiveness to those same countries 

risks their return to unsustainable levels of indebtedness—a situation debt forgiveness seeks to resolve. 

In order to address this situation, the administration recently invoked a 1-year 

moratorium on new lending to countries that receive multilateral debt reduction. 

U.S. lending agencies have agreed not to make new loans or loan guarantees to 

countries that receive debt reduction for 1 year. The measure will not be punitive. 

Should countries demonstrate serious economic gains before the end of the moratorium, lending agencies may, with interagency clearance, resume new lending. The 

administration hopes that this policy will bring to an end the historically cyclical 

nature of indebtedness of poor countries. 

AMERICAN LEADERSHIP IN FIGHTING AIDS AND ALLEVIATING HUMANITARIAN HARDSHIPS

This budget reaffirms America’s role as the leading donor nation supporting programs that combat the greatest challenges faced by many developing countries 

today. The fiscal year 2004 budget proposes a number of foreign assistance initiatives managed by USAID and other Federal agencies to provide crucial resources 

that prevent and ameliorate human suffering worldwide. 

FIGHTING THE GLOBAL AIDS PANDEMIC

The fiscal year 2004 budget continues the administration’s commitment to combat 

HIV/AIDS and to help bring care and treatment to infected people overseas. The 

HIV/AIDS pandemic has killed 23 million of the 63 million people it has infected 

to date, and left 14 million orphans worldwide. President Bush has made fighting 

this pandemic a priority of U.S. foreign policy. 

The President believes the global community can—and must—do more to halt the 

advance of the pandemic, and that the United States should lead by example. Thus, 

the President’s fiscal year 2004 budget request signals a further, massive increase 

in resources to combat the HIV/AIDs pandemic. As described in the State of the 

Union, the President is committing to provide a total of $15 billion over the next 

5 years to turn the tide in the war on HIV/AIDs, beginning with $2 billion in the 

fiscal year 2004 budget request and rising thereafter. These funds will be targeted 

on the hardest hit countries, especially Africa and the Caribbean with the objective 

of achieving dramatic on-the-ground results. This new dramatic commitment is reflected in the administration’s $2 billion fiscal year 2004 budget request, which includes: 

• State Department—$450 million; 

• USAID—$895 million, including $100 million for the Global Fund and $150 

million for the International Mother & Child HIV Prevention; and 

• HHS/CDC/NIH—$690 million, including $100 million for the Global Fund and 

$150 million for the International Mother & Child HIV Prevention. 

27

In order to ensure accountability for results, the President has asked me to establish at State a new Special Coordinator for International HIV/AIDS Assistance. The 

Special Coordinator will work for me and be responsible for coordinating all international HIV/AIDS programs and efforts of the agencies that implement them. 

HUNGER, FAMINE, AND OTHER EMERGENCIES

Food Aid—Historically the United States has been the largest donor of assistance 

for victims of protracted and emergency food crises. In 2003, discretionary funding 

for food aid increased from $864 million to $1.19 billion. That level will be enhanced 

significantly in 2004 with two new initiatives: a Famine Fund and an emerging crises fund to address complex emergencies. Famine Fund—The fiscal year 2004 budget includes a new $200 million fund with 

flexible authorities to provide emergency food, grants or support to meet dire needs 

on a case-by-case basis. This commitment reflects more than a 15 percent increase 

in U.S. food assistance. 

Emerging Crises Fund—The budget also requests $100 million for a new account 

that will allow the administration to respond swiftly and effectively to prevent or 

resolve unforeseen complex foreign crises. This account will provide a mechanism 

for the President to support actions to advance American interests, including to prevent or respond to foreign territorial disputes, armed ethnic and civil conflicts that 

pose threats to regional and international peace and acts of ethnic cleansing, mass 

killing and genocide. 

SUMMARY

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, to advance America’s interests around 

the world we need the dollars in the President’s budget for fiscal year 2004. We 

need the dollars under both of my hats—CEO and principal foreign policy advisor. 

The times we live in are troubled to be sure, but I believe there is every bit as much 

opportunity in the days ahead as there is danger. American leadership is essential 

to dealing with both the danger and the opportunity. With regard to the Department of State, the President’s fiscal year 2004 budget is crucial to the exercise of 

that leadership. 

Thank you and I will be pleased to answer your questions.

Chairman NUSSLE. For my colleagues’ benefit I am going to ask 

that all of us not only stick to the 5-minute rule today but let’s also 

please stick to questions. There are a number of colleagues who 

have important questions they want to ask. The Secretary is only 

going to be with us until 12:30. We may have a vote on the floor, 

so let’s please do that. 

Mr. Secretary, on the technology issue, just to let you know, the 

Budget Committee has just launched a new, I think, exciting program on our Web site. We now provide our Web site in eight different languages so that—including an obscure and little-used language now, French—I am being very careful. I am trying to be. I 

am holding back. 

Mr. Secretary, on the HIV/AIDS program that the President has 

put forward, I would like to ask you to do two things for us. We 

have a number of constituents who heard the President speak at 

the State of the Union and were surprised maybe by the commitment that he made in the State of the Union. They haven’t been 

to Africa. Because terrorism, because Iraq, because North Korea, 

because all sorts of things occupy all of the different news channels 

on a daily basis, unfortunately, some of the biggest issues that face 

our world don’t always get the attention that they should. Many of 

our constituents don’t have the same experience that you have and 

that some of us have in having seen it firsthand. 

They ask the question or they wonder out loud, why are we doing 

this? Why is—why aren’t we dealing with problems in America 

first, Medicare and even AIDS in America first before we start 

reaching out to the continent of Africa or anywhere else? Those are 

28

problems they cause for themselves, behavioral problems that they 

caused. Money won’t solve it. This is a hopeless situation. How 

could we possibly have enough money in our Treasury or pay 

enough taxes in order to manage this disease? 

Would you please respond to those people today in a way that 

can help us all educate our constituents back home, No. 1; and, No. 

2, would you also talk to us a little bit about how this money will 

be used. 

My understanding from traveling there is that it is not just the 

drugs, it is the counseling, it is the mentoring, it is the education, 

it is the advertising, awareness, it is the networking that needs to 

go on and the trust relationship that has to be built in some countries. Because they are using erroneous information, suggesting 

that this is some, you know, grassy knoll plot against their country 

versus some countries, that their government officials are directly 

involved in the advocacy case to control HIV. So would you speak 

to this in a lilt bit more depth than you did in your opening testimony? 

Secretary POWELL. We spent a lot of money on HIV/AIDS in our 

own programs right here at home. We saw what this disease has 

done right here at home. It is still a problem here in the United 

States. We worked hard to start to get on top of it, but it is still 

a problem for many, many Americans. We are a care-giving, compassionate country and people; and we simply cannot look out 

across our oceans and see this kind of plague upon the world and 

think that it has nothing to do with us. 

These children, these are God’s children, and we have an obligation to help them. We have an obligation as a caring, giving, rich 

society to share our wealth and treasure with those who are less 

fortunate. Even though they may not look like us, may not be the 

same color as most of us, are living in a faraway place, speaking 

a strange language, they are nevertheless human beings; and if we 

have the wherewithal to help them, we should. 

And we can help them. It is not money going down a rat hole. 

We need multifaceted programs. As you noted, Mr. Chairman, one 

of the first things we have to do in all the countries we are working 

on is to start educating people with respect to the dangers of HIV/

AIDS and improper sexual activities that will put you at risk of 

getting the infection. That training, that education, has to begin at 

the earliest opportunity in schools. We should teach youngsters 

how to avoid premature sexual activity. We should teach abstinence, but we should also teach safe sex. Because, sooner or later, 

young people will become sexually active, and we should not hide 

from that fact. We should teach them to protect themselves and 

teach them abstinence, teach them protection, help these countries 

get beyond some of the cultural taboos that keep them from talking 

about these issues frankly and candidly. 

One of the most successful countries in dealing with this problem 

has been Uganda. President Museveni said, ‘‘I don’t care what tribal rituals are, or how I am not supposed to talk about this. I am 

going to talk about this. It comes from improper sexual activity. It 

comes from not protecting yourself. It comes from not talking to our 

children. It comes from not being socially responsible with respect 

to sexual partners.’’ He was candid about it, as candid as I am 

29

being with you this morning. And he changed the attitude that existed within the population of Uganda, and he brought the infection 

rate down significantly, as you well know. 

We have to go beyond just teaching and education and training 

and lecturing. We have got to give people the medicines that are 

increasingly more affordable that will deal with the infection and 

give people hope, that if we work on this problem correctly, if we 

do everything we can to get the cost down, there are drugs that can 

let people have a full, productive life, not as full as it might be otherwise or as long as it might otherwise, but still make a contribution to society. 

We can do something to keep the disease from being transmitted 

from mother to child. That is one of the President’s major initiatives, with a very high success rate, and it is cheap. It would be 

irresponsible not to give every child who is subject to the infection 

that opportunity to be rid of the infection with the kind of treatment and the provision of the necessary drugs. 

We also have to be straightforward and say to people there 

should be no stigma associated with being infected, or having the 

disease, or carrying the infection. We have to make sure we don’t 

talk down to a group of people and say you are less worthy than 

anyone else because have you this infection. 

We have to fight it at all fronts: protection, abstinence, training, 

education, antiretroviral drugs, dealing with the other diseases 

that flow from it, tuberculosis, malaria and the other infections you 

become susceptible to, and also to avoid stigmas. 

In some of the countries, as you noted Mr. Chairman, this is the 

toughest part. People just don’t want to talk about this. It goes 

against some of their history. It goes against some of their culture. 

It goes against, in some cases, their religion. But when you don’t 

talk about these issues, when you don’t talk about them head on, 

you are condemning to death millions of your most productive citizens, the citizens you are going to need to keep moving forward. 

The United States cannot stand idly by and watch this happen. 

Knowing that if we don’t help them, these countries will become 

political problems, they will become economic problems that we are 

going to have to deal with later. As you also noted, Mr. Chairman, 

they will become hotbeds of terrorist recruiting. 

If a child has nobody in his or her life, if a child sees the richest 

countries of the world ignore their problem, that child will say, 

well, what should I do? What direction should I move into? The 

first charlatan that comes along and says, we ought to take them 

out, we ought to build bombs, we ought to go kill people; what are 

they doing for you? That charlatan will win the argument. We can’t 

let that person win the argument. 

That is why we have $1.3 billion in this budget for my part of 

this battle and Secretary Thompson has more dollars in his budget, 

for what he has to do. Not only here in the United States but what 

we do in the United States ultimately gets exported to the world. 

Chairman NUSSLE. Thank you very much for your leadership. 

Mr. Moran. 

Mr. MORAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I am going to give the Secretary three areas of inquiry and he 

can choose how he decides to emphasize his response. 

30

The first area I want to ask you about is something that I referenced in the opening statement that deals directly with our budget responsibilities, and that is the needs of our allies and at least 

friends in the region for additional assistance, particularly with regard to the impending Iraq conflict. Israel has asked for $12 billion, 

about $4 billion in grants, about $8 billion in loan guarantees. I 

would like to know your assessment of that and the extent to 

which we are going to use that as leverage with regard to settlement expansion, et cetera. 

Egypt, we know, is going to want 3 to $5 billion; Jordan, I know, 

has told some of us that they are expecting nearly $2 billion; and 

then we have got Turkey and Pakistan. Particularly I know you are 

concerned, rightfully so, that Musharraf is in a precarious position 

because of his perceived friendship with the United States; and, of 

course, a military coup would give people sympathetic to the 

Taliban even within his own military, who we know exist, immediate access to a substantial number of nuclear weapons. Some—

all of these countries we are very much concerned with and are 

going to have to deal with; and I would like to get some sense of 

what you think might be coming, whether it is in a supplemental 

or future budget request. 

Now, with regard specifically to Iraq, I think we were all very 

much impressed by the compelling arguments you made before the 

United Nations Security Council as to the consequences of not 

going to war with Iraq. But just speaking for myself, I think you 

were less clear on what are the consequences if we do go to war 

with Iraq. Even your response this week to the message by bin 

Laden on Al Jazeera television, I don’t know that the fact that bin 

Laden is attempting to exploit the impending invasion of Iraq for 

the purpose of his al Qaeda terrorist network is proof positive of 

a hand-in-glove relationship with Saddam’s despotic use of the 

Baathist party in Iraq. 

So I would—I think what we would like to get a clearer sense 

of is what do we do when we go in and we are told it is weeks rather than months, that there needs to be a ratio of approximately 1 

per 500 citizens. If you have a military occupation, we are told it 

is an indefinite military occupation until we find a leader that is 

to our liking. 

I asked Secretary Rumsfeld yesterday, how many people do we 

have that speak the language? And at best we have about a hundred people learning how to speak the language. It is a country of 

23 million people. You would assume that that means we need 

about 50,000 who can actually communicate with the people. We 

are nowhere near that. 

Now I bring this up because he implied that they are going to 

heavily rely upon State Department personnel for much of that 

function. So I thought I might bring it full circle and get some response from you. 

Then, lastly, in the paper today, I understand that the North Koreans have sought direct talks with the United States but have 

been rebuffed; and in light of what some of us think is our most 

serious threat in North Korea, the urgency of direct talks with 

North Korea would seem to be imperative. So I would like to know 

31

what you plan to do in terms of at least initiating or responding 

to North Korea’s suggestion for direct talks. 

There is enough to deal with. You choose how you want to divide 

your response, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary POWELL. Thank you very much, sir. 

Let me go back to the first one you mentioned in your opening 

statement with respect to the cost once we go into Iraq. In terms 

of how much will the U.S. percentage be, how long will it be there 

and what will we have to provide to our allies, which gets to your 

other question. 

A lot of the answers to these questions are simply not known and 

can’t be known until you see how such a conflict, if it comes—we 

still hope it can be avoided—and you find out how it unfolds. 

What we are doing is making contingency plans that would cover 

a full range of possibilities, but it is hard to put numbers to these 

various contingency plans, and I don’t think that we have solid 

numbers that we should offer to the Congress, because they would 

be embedded in stone, and we really are not sure. What we are 

doing is stockpiling humanitarian supplies, working with the U.N., 

that is also stockpiling humanitarian supplies, in close contact with 

the EU, which is also taking action to position itself, and a number 

of other private nongovernmental organizations that are preparing 

themselves for whatever humanitarian needs might be required 

after a conflict in Iraq. 

I don’t think that one should assume that the country is going 

to be devastated by a conflict. People talk about the reconstruction 

of Iraq, but it is not going to be like Afghanistan. This is a society 

and a system that right now is functioning. It has institutions that 

function. It has a bureaucracy that is very effective. It has a middle 

class. It has an educated population. It has something else. It has 

$20 billion of oil revenue a year. So this is not like Afghanistan, 

where everything had to come up from out of the dust. There is a 

functioning society there. 

What it has, though, is a horrible leadership; and I would hope 

that the conflict would be short, it would be directed principally at 

the leadership and not at the society. That certainly is our goal. We 

don’t go after people. We don’t go after societies. We go after weapons, we go after military units, and we go after the leadership that 

is controlling all of this. 

If we were to successfully remove the leadership, we would try 

to build as much as we can on the institutions that are there. It 

would not be necessary for us to have 50,000 people who could 

speak the language to go to every village throughout, but essentially use the infrastructure that is there. Once it has been purged 

of leadership that does not want to be part of a new country, a new 

political system that has gotten rid of its weapons of mass destruction and is committed to live in peace with its neighbors and become a responsible member of the 21st century, once we got rid of 

those who were not committed to that, then I think you have a 

great deal to work with. 

Then the challenge would be to put in place a representative 

leadership, and this is a country with no democratic tradition. That 

will take some time. There are people outside those in the resistance as well as those inside who I think can be used to start to 

32

put in place a form of government that would accomplish the goals 

that I have just described. 

I think at the outset of a military operation, certainly the military commander who goes in to remove the leadership assumes responsibility for being in charge of the country for some period of 

time. This shouldn’t be surprising to anyone. It has happened in 

every other conflict. It happened in Afghanistan when General 

Franks initially went in, but it would be our goal to quickly transition from military leadership. We don’t want an American general 

running a Muslim country for any length of time. 

How long will it take to transition to civilian leadership, either 

an American civilian initially or an international figure or an international arrangement of some kind, and to transition through that 

as rapidly as possible to an Iraqi government that is representative 

of its people? Everybody is dying to find out the answer to the 

question. 

One of my undersecretaries the other day said that some aid programs can take up to 2 years to come into fruition and to show success. That was immediately grabbed on as we saying that we are 

going to be there for 2 years, no longer. 

We just don’t know at this point, but we have to be prepared for 

a fairly long-term commitment, a commitment that will change in 

shape, scope and dimension over time. Initially military, quickly 

transitioning to civilian organizations, quickly transitioning, I hope, 

to the international community and then never losing sight of as 

rapid a transition as possible to the Iraqi people. 

The advantages here, the reason this situation is different, is 

there is an infrastructure I don’t expect the country to be devastated. The Oil for Food Program exists as a way of delivering 

supplies to the society if we can keep the Oil for Food Program intact and there is money that will be available if the oil fields are 

not destroyed, or if they are damaged, we restore them quickly. 

We are looking at a full range of options from a walk in the sun, 

to destruction of the oil fields, much more destruction of the infrastructure by the outgoing regime than we might have anticipated. 

We are looking at a full range of options to be ready for any one 

of these, whether it is an optimistic outcome or not-so-optimistic 

outcome. But I can’t honestly give you a military estimate of how 

long it will take or, for that matter, a State Department estimate 

or tell you at this point what the overall cost would be. 

I do know that we won’t bear it alone. There are a number of 

nations who have signed up to be a part of a coalition of the willing 

or under U.N. resolution, and the major international organizations. In fact, today Kofi Annan is having meetings about this subject. Major international organizations are gearing themselves up 

to be a part of the aftermath. 

Mr. MORAN. Thank you. 

Secretary POWELL. On the various countries and their requests, 

as you rightly noted, Mr. Moran, they are not in our budget at the 

levels that are being suggested. All of them are under consideration. 

With respect to your specific question about Israel, we know of 

their requirements. We fully understand their needs. No decision 

33

has been made within the administration yet as to what we will 

do. 

Mr. MORAN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Chairman NUSSLE. Mr. Shays. 

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Secretary, thank you for your good work. 

Secretary POWELL. I will get to North Korea later. 

Mr. MORAN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Secretary, thank you for your good work. 

I just want to take this opportunity—two seats next to you is a 

gentleman, your Chief Financial Officer, Christopher Burnham. I 

just want to point out that he served in the State House after I vacated that seat to be in Congress; and when I had to vote on deciding whether or not to send troops to the Gulf War, his mom and 

dad called up and said, don’t do this. We will lose too many men 

and women. Chris Burnham, a reserve officer in the Marines, 

called me up and said we need to go. When I voted to send our 

troops into battle, I knew I was sending Chris Burnham, and I will 

never forget that call to me. 

The National Security Subcommittee of Government Reform, 

which I chair, has oversight responsibilities to the Department of 

State; and I want to say to you that I have seen gigantic improvement in the morale of the men and women who serve. I have seen 

significant improvement in the management and administrative 

practices of the Department, great improvement in technology; and 

I just want to say, keep it up. I also want to say the quality of the 

men and women who serve you and serve our country, they are extraordinarily dedicated, they are intelligent, they are competent, 

they are motivated public servants, and I rejoice in the opportunity 

of meeting with them when I go overseas. 

My question involves right-sizing of overseas deployment of our 

presence there. We have lots of different government agencies; and 

I am struck by the fact that the State Department is really being 

asked to house them, protect them at significant cost. I keep hearing that the administration—and I am aware that OMB is promoting having a surcharge. In other words, let the agencies that 

want to be there pay the costs. I would like you to tell us whether 

we are making progress. 

Secretary POWELL. We are working on it, Mr. Shays, and making 

some progress. I fully believe in the cost-sharing idea. We have 

some of our embassies that have as many as 30 other government 

agencies working under the country team concept, under the supervision of the ambassador. The ambassador has presidential responsibility for the safety, security and management and administration of all of these folks. I believe it is quite appropriate for these 

departments to pay their fair share, especially when you have a crisis somewhere. 

Say you have an embassy that has normally 150 people, but a 

crisis breaks out, and agency after agency from Washington sends 

over TDY detailees. You can double and triple the size of the mission in short order. All of that incremental cost has to be dealt 

with, and just the span of control of the ambassador and the ability 

of his admin officer and security people at the embassy to manage 

that situation becomes more difficult and we have to go outside to 

get more people in just to support people from other departments. 

34

To the extent that we can lay that burden off appropriately, not 

inappropriately, but get others to bear their share of the cost is a 

sensible management technique, and we are certainly working on 

it with OMB. 

Mr. SHAYS. Yes. It would strike me that a free service is basically 

going to be overutilized. 

I don’t want you to go into your red light, but I want to ask this 

question. I made an assumption that we would help pay for the 

cost of going into Iraq by having the oil revenues of Iraq pay for 

that. The administration came out against that; and, with hindsight, I am getting the sense that there is just a concern that people would misunderstand our motive if we did that. So, to make 

sure there is no question at all, we wanted to be clear these reserves are going to be used for the Iraqi people? 

Secretary POWELL. I think people would misunderstand the motive. The more basic issue is that, under international law, if we 

go in as an occupying force for some period of time and we assume 

responsibility for that country, we have an obligation to use the assets of that country, the wealth of that country for the benefit of 

its people. For that reason and to make sure nobody misstates our 

motive in this, we are saying loud and clear that the oil of Iraq belongs to the people of Iraq; and during that period of time when 

we would have responsibility for the country we will protect this 

asset that belongs to the Iraqi people and use it for the right purpose, consistent with international obligations that we take on as 

the occupying force. 

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman NUSSLE. Ms. Baldwin. 

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Secretary, thank you for appearing here today, 

and thank you for your service to this country. 

I have two questions. The first reflects a very big question that 

my constituents are asking me, and the other is a little bit more 

specific. Like Mr. Moran, I will invite you to choose to emphasize 

in your time to answer whichever you would like or both. 

As you know, I and many Americans are extremely concerned 

about the possibility of war with Iraq. From the onset, concerns 

have been raised about the wisdom of such an armed conflict, 

about the suffering that it would provoke, about the wisdom of 

committing our men and women in uniform to a conflict that has 

the potential to expose them to biological and chemical weapons, 

and perhaps even house-to-house combat. I very much share those 

concerns. I know you have struggled with them yourself. But today, 

Mr. Secretary, I want to focus on the impact that this showdown 

has had on our relationship with the United Nations, NATO, our 

friends, our allies, and our adversaries. Because many people have 

raised serious concerns about the negative effects that that is going 

to have on our ability to fight terrorism and to protect the American people, where allies in all corners of this globe are so important and so vital. So I am being asked just how many bridges and 

relationships we are willing to strain and how we are going to repair those strained and sometimes broken relationships. 

Teddy Roosevelt used to say, speak softly and carry a big stick, 

but I don’t think anyone is going to accuse the United States and 

this administration of speaking softly at this moment in history. 

35

Even Henry Kissinger had warned us that, no matter how powerful 

our military is, seen in the terms of politics and international relations, we are not strong enough to protect ourselves if we are not 

without friends. 

So, Mr. Secretary, I am highly concerned about the impact that 

this conflict has had on the United Nations, NATO, and international law. These are institutions in a system that we created 

and with American leadership in a post-war era to provide a framework for peace and security; and I believe that this system, while 

far from perfect, has served us well. Yet our current path ignores 

or disregards some of the spirit of these international agreements. 

It may allow us to get what we need in the short run, but it is extremely dangerous for a long-term stability in the world. 

So my first question is, how will the administration repair relationships with our friends and allies and rebuild and strengthen 

these international institutions? 

My second question relates to what I fear is a subtle erosion of 

the Department’s ability to perform some of its core functions. I 

think the President’s budget proposal in recent actions seem to 

shift some power from State to the White House. Specifically, I am 

thinking about the President’s recently signed executive order formalizing the role of the White House Office of Global Communications in the Nation’s public diplomacy overseas. Doesn’t this, in 

fact, take away a vital role from the State Department, one of 

whose roles is public diplomacy? 

This combined with the administration’s proposal that the Millennium Challenge Account not be administered by USAID and the 

Department of State—although you, of course, will chair the function—it raises concerns about the Department’s ability to carry out 

both parts of its mission as a first line of defense and a first line 

of effective representation of American values and interests abroad. 

Are we witnessing a slow or subtle erosion of State Department 

authority through these subtle policy shifts, even when the numbers may seem to be increasing? 

Secretary POWELL. Thank you, Ms. Baldwin. Let me talk to the 

first issue. 

The President went to the United Nations last September and he 

spoke clearly; one might say softly, one might say directly, but he 

spoke clearly to the international community when he said Iraq 

has been in violation of its obligations through 16 previous U.N. 

resolutions, its obligations to disarm its weapons of mass destruction. He didn’t run out and start a unilateral war. He said to the 

United Nations, what are we going to do? What value does this institution have if its resolutions repeatedly are simply ignored by 

one dictator? 

If this institution is to have relevance, we have to be prepared 

to impose serious consequences on a nation that so ignores its obligations under the resolutions of this body. It isn’t just ignoring 

some little policy item or dictate. It was developing weapons of 

mass destruction, chemical, biological, nuclear weapons that this 

dictator had demonstrated a willingness to use against his own 

people, against his neighbors. 

He invaded two of his neighbors, used chemical weapons, and 

was known by previous United Nations inspectors to have anthrax, 

36

botulitum toxin, a lot of other terrible, terrible things, and he had 

not accounted for what he did with it. Then created a set of circumstances in 1998 which forced the inspectors out. 

The President went to the United Nations and said we have to 

do something about this. That was neither unilateral nor heavyhanded. It was an act of leadership on the part of the President 

to do that. 

In the following 7 weeks, we worked very hard. I worked very 

hard, my colleagues in the Security Council worked hard to come 

up with a resolution that is the now famous 1441. It said Iraq is 

guilty. It didn’t say where is the evidence? It started out in its first 

operative paragraph by saying Iraq is guilty. We have the evidence. 

Anthrax and botulitum are missing. Iraq is guilty. It is guilty of 

material breaches in the past. Those breaches continue into the 

present. 

Second, we will give Iraq a way to get out of the problem if it 

comes clean. The whole burden of this resolution was placed upon 

Iraq, not on the inspectors. 

The resolution said that we will give inspectors strengthened 

powers to do their job if Iraq cooperates and complies with the resolution. 

Fourth, it said if Iraq does not comply and enters into new material breaches, serious consequences will follow. 

Iraq started to let inspectors in suddenly after 4 years. Why? Because they were persuaded by the logic of the resolution? No. They 

saw American troops moving. They saw that we were deadly serious about serious consequences, and suddenly Iraq started doing 

things. 

What they didn’t do was what the resolution called for them to 

do, come into compliance and get rid of the weapons of mass destruction. If they had done that, we wouldn’t be where we are right 

now. If they do it tonight, we wouldn’t be where we might be in 

a few weeks. We have demonstrations planned for this weekend, 

and there is a great deal of controversy on this issue, but the burden was placed on Iraq, not on the United States. 

It is the United States and the United Nations that have an obligation to see that the resolutions of the United Nations are obeyed. 

What we have seen so far is continued misbehavior by Iraq. 

Even though one can question the strength of the linkages between al Qaeda and Iraq, I believe there is enough evidence out 

there that there is something we should be concerned about as a 

minimum because of this nexus between terrorism and weapons of 

mass destruction. Even though individually Osama bin Laden and 

Saddam Hussein might hate each other, they found a community 

of interest here—terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. 

I think that the United States is in a strong position here with 

respect to what we think the United Nations should do. We are approaching the time when the United Nations cannot ignore what 

Iraq has been doing for the last 3 months. We will hear from Dr. 

Blix and Dr. El Baradei, and then a debate will begin as to what 

should be the next step. 

Some suggest we just double or triple the number of inspectors. 

It isn’t a lack of inspectors that is causing a problem. It is Iraq’s 

noncompliance. I am sorry but this is a diversion. Or give them 

37

more technical capability. Dr. Blix would love any additional support he gets, but, as he has said—he has said, not Colin Powell—

he has said Iraq still doesn’t understand that it has to disarm. 

We have got to stay on the track that we are on, and we have 

to make it clear to Saddam Hussein that he will be disarmed of 

weapons of mass destruction one way or another. This has caused 

strains within NATO and within the United Nations, as you have 

said, but NATO and the United Nations are resilient institutions 

that have undergone strain over their 50 years of existence. In my 

roughly 20 years of public service at an exceptionally high level, 

there have always been debates and disagreements within NATO 

and within the United Nations, and we will find a way through 

these disagreements, or if we can’t fine a way through, then we will 

have to act. 

NATO and the U.N. have found in previous crises where you 

can’t get NATO agreement or U.N. agreement action happens 

nonetheless, with the coalition of the willing, such as happened in 

Kosovo; and sometimes we have to act unilaterally as we did in 

Panama. 

The institutions have a history. They are needed. And whatever 

strains exist now, I think they are strains that can be managed 

and in due course. Because there is such a need for these two 

strong, powerful institutions, and they have such a history of success. We will get through these troubled times. 

Let me just talk quickly on your two points. On both White 

House Office of Global Communications and Millennium Challenge 

Account, I don’t feel threatened. We need a global communications 

office in the White House, because if it is just the State Department doing its thing and saying this is all mine, I will do it 

through my international programs, then we aren’t always that 

well coordinated with what the Pentagon might be doing and vice 

versa. 

Communications have become such a complex business in this 

24/7 world where you have got to be up to date, you have got to 

get the information out, that there was a need for an overarching 

communications effort. To show you how it works, the Office of 

Global Communications is putting out now a daily sheet of messages on what we should be saying as a government. I just instructed my staff this past Monday morning to make sure that 

sheet gets out electronically to every embassy in the world. I want 

every ambassador to see this so they know what the whole government is thinking, not just what the State Department is thinking. 

I don’t feel challenged by that, and we are working closely with 

the new office. 

With respect to the Millennium Challenge Account, I am the 

chairman of the board of directors. What the President wanted to 

do is to make the MCA look different. It was not to be just aid as 

usual, but a new kind of focused aid for those nations moving toward democracy. 

We looked at a lot of models and felt that something that was 

free-standing as an independent department, but working closely 

with USAID, and can’t just go off by itself. We have to reconcile 

these programs, and I think in my role as chairman of the board 

of directors, I have the opportunity to make sure that there is inteVerDate Feb 1 2002 10:10 Jun 09, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\HEARINGS\108TH\108-4\HBU044.000 HBUDGET1 PsN: DICK
38

gration and a merger of activities between the Millennium Challenge Account and what AID is doing. 

Finally, the President announced the new global initiative for 

HIV/AIDS in his State of the Union Address, and in this instance 

he saw fit to place it wholly within the State Department. 

It is a matter of finding the right solution for the particular problem, and I don’t feel that the White House is trying to gut me. And 

I thank the President for giving me the global initiative on AIDS, 

because we will do it well in the Department. 

Chairman NUSSLE. Mr. Gutknecht. 

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and thank you, Mr. 

Secretary, for your service to the country. 

Let me clarify one thing about Teddy Roosevelt, before we have 

too much revisionist history here. He was not bashful about using 

that stick, and I think sometimes we forget that part. 

The other thing I want to mention, when you talked about the 

children—and it really is true that the real benefactors of our foreign policy I think are children, whether it is in sub-Saharan Africa, Afghanistan, or Iraq, the whole benefactors are the children. 

One thing that I would add to your list of accomplishments of 

what we have done in Afghanistan, the people need to be reminded 

of, is that for the first time in many parts of Afghanistan in almost 

20 years little girls are going to school for the first time, and that 

happened because of brave Americans like the ones you described 

aboard that aircraft carrier. 

But at the end of the day this is the Budget Committee, and our job is to try and squeeze $2.5 trillion worth of requests into about 

a $2 trillion package. So what I want to get at is in terms of the 

budget and how we are going to make this all work, because it is 

about children. We have heard a lot of economic theory in the last 

couple of weeks in terms of tax cuts and what it does to the economy, but let me give you an economic fact. Government will be paid 

for. It will either be paid for now or it will be paid for in the future 

by our children with interest. So that is a tough job, and I want 

to get to a couple of tough questions for you. 

One is—and I didn’t really hear a very good response—and that 

is what commitments has the administration made to some of our 

allies that could be very expensive in the future? Whether we are 

talking about Turkey or whether we are talking about Israel, any 

of the other countries in the region, it seems to me the administration does have an obligation to share with us what kind of commitments they have made, because the power of the purse is vested 

here. 

Then the second question is, how are we going to pay for this effort in Iraq? Many of us are old enough to remember that when we 

had the first confrontation with Saddam Hussein we were able to 

get our allies to literally pick up all of the expenses of that military 

effort, and as I recall the costs were about $53 billion. Can you 

share with us more of who is going to pay for this effort? 

Because going back to the effort in the Balkans and in the 

former Yugoslavia, those were NATO efforts, and I think our obligation to NATO is to pick up about 25 percent of the cost. As I recall, we ended up picking up well over 75 percent of those costs. 

It seems to me we have got to work together to make certain we 

39

have a clear understanding of how much this is going to cost and 

who will pay for it. 

Secretary POWELL. With respect to commitments we have made 

to various countries, we are in discussions with all of the countries 

that were mentioned earlier on what their needs might be now or 

in the event of a conflict, and most of these amounts are not yet 

programmed for in the 2004 request that you have before you. 

There will certainly be a need to come forward through supplemental action to request more funds. 

I don’t have a specific number that I can give you today, sir, because not all of this has been worked out yet. In fact, I was having 

discussions with a Turkish delegation that is here this morning before coming up here, but as soon as we have a handle on this entire 

package, we will be coming forward to discuss it with the Congress. 

With respect to the cost of this war and how to pay for the cost, 

it is not going to be quite the same, I don’t think, as the Gulf War. 

It will be a different kind of coalition. I am not sure under what 

authority it will be conducted under, if we do have a conflict, 

whether it will be under U.N. resolution or whether it would not 

be, just a coalition of the willing, and the sources of funds that 

were available to President Bush back in 1991 in various countries 

isn’t quite the same as it is now. We have begun discussions within 

the administration, discussions with some of our friends and allies 

about our expectation that they would assist with paying the costs 

of our operation as well as the cost of whatever might be required 

in Iraq afterwards, but I don’t have a specific number that I can 

give you today or a percentage. 

Chairman NUSSLE. Mr. Moore. 

Mr. MOORE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here. I am very grateful for 

the experience, for the compassion and for the wisdom that you 

bring to the office, the high office you hold. 

I want to just talk about two or three areas and get you again 

to comment, if you can and if you will, please, as you have time. 

Chairman NUSSLE. If the gentleman, just for—because the Secretary is only here for another hour and we have a number of 

members, if we keep asking three questions, use 5 minutes and 

then allow him to answer three questions, we are going to run out 

of time. So I would—obviously, you can use your 5 minutes how 

you would like, but I would ask members to try and keep it within 

that 5 minutes so that the Secretary can answer as many questions 

from members as possible. 

Mr. MOORE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief here then. 

Recent newspaper reports indicate that North Korea has attempted to engage in discussions with our country and that they 

feel that they may have been rebuffed. I would like to know if this 

is true, and are we able to multitask here to concentrate and focus 

on what is happening in Iraq and the situation there and at the 

same time engage in talks with North Korea? Because that could 

be obviously a very hot spot, and I know you know that better than 

any of us here in this room? 

No. 2, news reports again indicate that there have been recent 

discoveries of missiles in Iraq that may have longer range than is 

40

permissible. What effect might that have on Dr. Blix’s report tomorrow, as you have indicated? 

Finally, the last question, I will just give you the rest of my time 

to try and answer as you can to comply with the chairman’s request here. I leave on Saturday with a bipartisan group of Members of Congress to meet with parliamentarians and the NATO allies. Anything that I can convey to our friends and German 

friends? 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman—or Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary POWELL. On the second point, the missiles that were 

found to violate the U.N. restriction of 150 kilometers, I won’t prejudge what Dr. Blix will say tomorrow, but I think this is a serious 

matter. If that is what he confirms tomorrow in his presentation, 

it shows continued Iraqi noncompliance. I think it could be a serious matter, and I look forward to Dr. Blix’s report. I will be up 

there at the Security Council to hear it. 

With respect to NATO, I hope you will convey to my French colleagues, and other members of the alliance the position that I took 

here earlier today, and that is that 1441 has to have force behind 

it. It can’t just keep going on and on and on with inspections in 

the presence of Iraqi noncompliance. The issue is Iraqi compliance, 

not how many inspectors for how long. We cannot allow ourselves 

to be diverted from the task at hand, which is the disarmament of 

Iraq. The disarmament of Iraq can take place tomorrow morning 

if Saddam Hussein cooperates in the way intended by 1441. 

On your first point with respect to North Korea, we have a number of channels that we are using to talk to the North Koreans, as 

well as our own direct channel, a bureaucratic channel that we 

have to talk to the North Koreans. 

What we said to them is that we are deeply concerned that, as 

a result of the previous time we talked directly to you in setting 

up the agreed framework, we thought we had put the genie back 

in the bottle and a cork in the bottle with respect to nuclear programs. The previous administration that negotiated that agreement was unaware, and we were unaware for the first year of this 

administration that you had another bottle with another genie trying to develop nuclear weapons in another way, through enriched 

uranium and not through plutonium reprocessing. 

This is a very serious matter. We referred it to the IAEA, which 

yesterday referred it to the United Nations Security Council. What 

we said to the North Koreans is that we are willing to talk to you, 

but it can’t just be the United States and the DPRK. We have to 

find a way to have other concerned nations involved. 

China is threatened. Russia is threatened. South Korea is threatened. They are all encouraging us to talk to North Korea as well. 

We are willing to do that, but we believe this time we have to have 

a regional understanding, a regional settlement, and that is what 

we have been pressing on the North Koreans. But the North Korean position so far has been no, that is strictly between the United 

States and the DPRK, and that is the only basis upon which we 

will talk to the United States. 

We believe we have to find a way to broaden that dialogue, because so many other countries have an interest in it, and so many 

other countries are affected by it. We still think there is a possiVerDate Feb 1 2002 10:10 Jun 09, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\HEARINGS\108TH\108-4\HBU044.000 HBUDGET1 PsN: DICK
41

bility of diplomatic solution. Even the North Koreans have said 

that. We are watching carefully, and we know that if they keep 

moving down the track they have been moving on and start up the 

reactor and then go to reprocessing, then we are facing a new and 

more difficult situation. 

Mr. MOORE. I understand and I agree exactly with what you 

said, but I do hope that we can sit down, even if it means the 

United States alone, and begin discussions and then involve the 

other nations on a regional basis. Because, if we don’t talk, the alternative is not a pleasant one. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary POWELL. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman NUSSLE. Thank you. 

Mr. Thornberry. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, I am particularly interested and even a little excited about some of the new initiatives in your budget. My view is 

the American people are a generous people, but they are a little 

skeptical about our foreign aid, whether it really gets to the people 

we are trying to help and, once it does, is it really helping them? 

It is a little bit like I think we viewed our welfare system in the 

past, that with good intentions sometimes it traps people. 

The Millennium Challenge Account is something that I am very 

interested in and particularly some of the criteria that you are 

going to use to fund that program. For example, I have come to believe that the ideas put forward by Hernando DeSoto, that property 

rights is a fundamental building block, are absolutely correct and 

that if you try to help people and yet they cannot have the government help them hold on to their house or their business, that really 

you haven’t helped anything. 

On the other hand, if you can build on things and have something to pass along to your children, that not only provides stability 

to society, it provides hope where there may be none in a variety 

of places; and that has implications for terrorism and a number of 

other things. 

I guess what I really want to know is, are property rights going 

to be one of the key criteria that you are going to use and encouragements that you are going to use in that account? 

Secretary POWELL. I don’t know that we have it as one of the criteria for consideration of a request, but it is a good idea, Mr. 

Thornberry, and I would like to take it back and put it into the 

staffing process, because I agree entirely with you. To take it one 

step further, when you do have protected property rights, protected 

by the rule of law, and individuals can own property and pass property, they also can develop equity, and you are releasing the wealth 

of the nation that is held in the form of land and property. And 

we have seen what we can do with that here in the United States. 

So I believe that property rights should be something that we 

ought to look at as part of our program. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Well, if we can help build that criteria into the 

funding mechanism, I think we should have that dialogue. 

It has been pointed out to me that some of the same countries 

that you all may be looking at have been part of the International 

Development Association loans, and in a 40-year period exactly one 

42

country has graduated or met their criteria. We don’t want to repeat the mistakes of the past. We want to do better than that and 

lift people up, and it seems to me we are going to have to have different approaches to do that. 

Secretary POWELL. Thank you, Mr. Thornberry. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman NUSSLE. Mr. Edwards. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Secretary, thank you for your lifetime of distinguished service to our country, both in uniform and out. 

I would like to ask two questions, and then perhaps the third one 

would be for written answer, if we could. 

We know that since 1992 there have been at least 14 cases where 

nuclear material, highly enriched uranium has been stolen from 

Russia, and in those cases Russian authorities found it and returned it. But I still think we need to do much more and be much 

bolder in protecting nuclear materials abroad from theft by terrorists. 

On another subcommittee I am on, I am with the Nunn-Lugar 

program. I don’t think those resources can be used outside of Russia. But my question is, do you think, if resources were available, 

would Russia and other former Soviet states be willing to be more 

aggressive in working with us to provide better material protection 

of that nuclear material, possibly including major purchases by the 

United States of that material? 

My second question is this. I have the privilege of representing 

Fort Hood that you are familiar with in Texas, the only two-division Army in the United States. We are in the process of deploying 

12,500 soldiers as we speak to the Iraqi theatre, and if first cavalry 

follows suit in the Iraqi theatre and Korea, we could have 30,000 

soldiers from Fort Hood deployed in harm’s way. 

Would you please use your influence as the President’s chief foreign adviser to talk to either the OMB budget analysts or someone 

above that pay grade to tell them it is a horrible thing to be sending these troops abroad when, at the same time, we are giving 

them a stub as they get on the plane that says, by the way, we are 

cutting your children’s education fund, the Impact Aid military 

education fund, dramatically. The two school districts that provide 

public education for the children of those 44,000 soldiers at Fort 

Hood will be cut under the administration budget proposal $31 million. 

I know this isn’t under your direct authority, but certainly the 

morale of our servicemen and women is vital to success in our 

standing up to Saddam Hussein. I please urge you to use your influence to have that issue addressed; and I think the quicker, the 

better. Normally, we could address this through the normal appropriations process and kill that budget proposal, because most administrations, Republican and Democrat, have proposed it one way 

or another. But in this case, I think for morale purposes, it is hurting morale, and we need to deal with it quickly. 

The final question in writing perhaps is, if we have a clear U.S. 

law against using any tax dollars to fund a single abortion overseas, then why did the administration in fact line-item veto $34 

million for U.N. family planning funds for maternal health programs and also birth control programs and frankly could help preVerDate Feb 1 2002 10:10 Jun 09, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\HEARINGS\108TH\108-4\HBU044.000 HBUDGET1 PsN: DICK
43

vent abortions? Perhaps maybe in that written answer some information about how those funds have been used in other programs, 

hopefully for some of the same purposes. 

Secretary POWELL. Thank you, Mr. Edwards. 

On the last point, I will provide you a full answer for the record. 

As you know, it is a complex issue, but we have reapplied the 

funds. Whether they will be able to actually flow to the accounts 

which are similar still remains to be seen. 

[The information referred to follows:]

LETTER IN RESPONSE TO MR. EDWARDS QUESTION REGARDING THE ADMINISTRATION’S

VETO ON THE U.N. FAMILY PLANNING FUNDS

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, 

Washington, DC, March 26, 2003. 

DEAR MR. EDWARDS: At the House Budget Committee hearing on February 13 you 

asked Secretary Powell why the administration ‘‘* * *[I]n effect, line item veto[ed] 

$34 million for U.N. family planning funds [UNFPA] for maternal health programs 

and also birth control programs and, frankly, that could help prevent abortions?’’ 

In addition, you also requested the Department supply ‘‘* * *[S]ome information 

about how those funds have been used in other programs, hopefully, for some of the 

same purposes.’’ The Secretary indicated that the Department of State would provide additional information for the record, and we are pleased to do so. 

The Secretary determined in July 2002 that China’s national coercive abortion 

and sterilization policies had triggered restrictions contained annually in the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act known as Kemp-Kasten, which states that financial and other assistance cannot be provided to any organization which supports 

or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary 

sterilization. After this determination had been made we were precluded from providing our planned $34 million in fiscal year 2002 funding to UNFPA. 

On September 30, 2002, the President directed that the funds in question be 

transferred to the Child Survival and Health Programs Fund with the instruction 

that the funds be used for maternal and reproductive health and related programs. 

Pursuant to this instruction, and keeping in mind the Secretary’s intent to use the 

funds in countries with the greatest need and as originally envisaged for the purpose of family planning and reproductive health care, the State Department selected 

Afghanistan and Pakistan to receive the funds. 

On January 16, 2003, the Agency for International Development notified Congress 

in the attached congressional notification of our intent to fund reproductive health 

and maternal health and related programs in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The January 16 notification details our plan to spend $25 million on these programs in Afghanistan and $9 million in Pakistan. Afghanistan and Pakistan are priorities of 

the President and of current United States assistance efforts. Focusing on programs 

related to the critical reproductive and maternal health needs in these countries will 

have a significant immediate impact on the lives of women and their families, while 

also helping reshape these countries’ health programs to promote a longterm and 

sustainable improvement. 

After the attached notification was sent to Congress, holds were placed on this 

funding. Additionally, the enactment of the fiscal year 2003 omnibus appropriations 

act contained additional provisions relating to the use of these funds. We continue 

to examine the situation and hope to resolve the issue as soon as possible so we 

can obligate the funds to address the critically urgent maternal and reproductive 

health care needs in Afghanistan and Pakistan. 

We hope you find this information useful, please do not hesitate to contact us if 

we can be of further assistance. 

Sincerely, 

PAUL V. KELLY, 

Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs.

UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ADVICE

OF PROGRAM CHANGE

Program: Two countries—Afghanistan and Pakistan 

Appropriation Category: Child Survival and Health Programs Fund

44

The purpose of this notification is to advise that the $34 million transferred to 

the Child Survival and Health Programs Fund on September 30, 2002, will be used 

for reproductive health and maternal health and related programs as directed by 

President Bush. The funds will support such activities in Afghanistan and Pakistan. 

In accordance with the decision by President Bush, the $34 million originally intended in fiscal year 2002 for UNFPA were transferred to the Child Survival and 

Health Programs Fund. 

Both Afghanistan and Pakistan are in dire need of basic health programs including reproductive and maternal health programs. In both countries, USAID has recently begun to support a program of maternal and child health care and family 

planning activities. With this additional funding, USAID will be able to add more 

programs in the areas of reproductive health and maternal health and related programs, including child survival activities, and to integrate them into broader basic 

health initiatives. This expansion of the programs will save or improve the lives of 

many thousands of women and children. 

Focusing the $34 million on Afghanistan and Pakistan will not only offer a greater immediate impact in these two countries, but will also allow USAID to reshape 

and expand the health programs in these two countries so that future health care 

will improve throughout both countries. Because health indicators in these countries 

are so poor and the needs so great, funds spent here will be very effective in terms 

of results achieved per dollar spent. 

Funding Afghanistan and Pakistan is critical because: 

• The President has made assistance to Afghanistan a priority in the post-Taliban 

period; 

• Parts of Afghanistan have maternal mortality rates that are the highest ever 

recorded in the world; 

• Both Afghanistan and Pakistan have extremely high maternal and infant mortality and morbidity ratios, reflecting their critical maternal and infant health 

needs; 

• Both Afghanistan and Pakistan have a dire need for maternal and reproductive 

health care, including family planning, and the two countries are linked together 

geographically and culturally; 

• Both countries face a shortfall of country-level resources and/or persistent neglect of the social sector (e.g., resources are prioritized to military spending and not 

to social services, including health); and 

• The infusion of these funds will permit the accelerated introduction of high 

quality, culturally-acceptable maternal and reproductive health care and child survival interventions in poor and underserved regions. 

Specific allocations are based in part on the absorptive capacity of local institutions and specific infrastructure needs. In Afghanistan, costs are higher due to the 

substantial investment needed to rebuild the local infrastructure for basic health 

services. 

The funds will be used to accelerate and expand maternal and reproductive health 

care, including family planning and child survival, without creating requirements 

for funds that cannot be sustained. Priority investments include on-the-ground 

training for midwives, community health workers and other medical personnel; 

building, equipping and refurbishing clinics, and provision of supplies including support for a broad range of family planning methods, micronutrients, birthing kits, 

prenatal, postnatal and neonatal care packages, and medical and surgical supplies. 

Providing these types of reproductive and maternal health care and child survival 

interventions will save lives immediately upon initiation of the programs. By protecting the lives and health of women and children, such care will be a sound base 

for long term health gains for those individuals helped during the next few years. 

In addition, by visibly increasing the quality of maternal and child health care and 

thereby demonstrating the utility of seeking medical care, the program will educate 

the population about the value of health care and encourage the population to seek 

health care in the future, which will lead to long-term health gains for the population as a whole. 

PROGRAM DATA SHEET

USAID mission: Afghanistan 

Strategic objective and number: TBD 

Planned fiscal year 2003 obligation and funding source: $TBD 

Unobligated prior year funds and funding source: $25,000,000 CSH

45

1Source for most indicators is the 2002 World Population Data Sheet produced by the population Reference Bureau. Maternal mortality ratio for Afghanistan is taken from Bartlett, Linda 

et al, Maternal Mortality in Afghanistan: Magnitude, Causes Risk Factors and Preventability 

Summary Findings. November 6, 2002. CDC Press Release. 2 Bartlett, Linda et al, op—cit. 

After years of conflict, Afghanistan ranks near the bottom on key health indicators1: 

• Maternal mortality rate [MMR]: 1,600 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births; 

• Percent of births that take place in the presence of trained birth assistance: <10 

percent; 

• Infant mortality rate [IMR]: 154 infant deaths per 1,000 births. 

The results of a recent study2 by the Centers for Disease Control [CDC] indicate 

that overall maternal mortality in Afghanistan is the worst in Asia and ranks 

among the worst in the world. The CDC estimated Afghanistan’s MMR to be 1,600 

and documented a MMR of 6,500—the highest ever recorded—in the remote 

Badakshan region, one of the regions where this assistance will be used. 

USAID allocated nearly $15 million in fiscal year 2002 to developing a comprehensive program of health assistance for Afghanistan that is helping reestablish 

a health infrastructure from the ground up. The core program provides integrated 

services that include immunization, care for childhood illness, antenatal and postnatal care, and vitamin A supplementation, and other basic health care services. 

The $25 million in this notification will expand the areas of coverage and types of 

care provided by the core health program. 

Midwife: Training and Clinic Program. A key barrier to health care is the lack 

of female health care providers. After years of Taliban rule, few trained female 

health care providers exist and those who still practice do not have adequate skills 

to provide life-saving services. Access to maternal and reproductive health care, including family planning, has been particularly adversely affected by the lack of female providers. The midwife program will expand and accelerate access to maternal 

and reproductive health care by integrating it into the national basic health care 

system. 

The funds will help develop and expand the infrastructure and training programs 

needed to increase rapidly the number of skilled female health care providers. The 

funds will cover start-up costs, such as curriculum development and equipment of 

clinical training sites, for the midwife training program, thereby allowing planned 

budgets for future years to manage and support the midwife training with relatively 

low recurrent costs. In this manner, the funds under this notification will extend 

high quality and culturally acceptable maternal and reproductive health care, including family planning, to poor and under-served regions of Afghanistan. 

The midwife training program will: Recruit, train, and deploy auxiliary midwives 

in poor, under-served regions of Afghanistan. The training of these midwives is expected to take 18 months and is in line with the National Safe Motherhood Initiative that will expand the provision of essential obstetrical care and family planning 

services throughout Afghanistan. This program is expected to train at least 250 midwives over the first 2 years, with much larger numbers thereafter. Each midwife 

is expected to serve a community of 30,000. 

• Train teams of master trainers of physicians and midwives. Only one such team 

exists currently; the additional funds will expand the number of master trainer 

teams. 

• Develop training and educational materials on midwifery, pre- and post-natal 

care, hygiene and nutrition, and family planning, and translate these materials into 

local languages. 

The clinic program will:

• Build, refurbish and equip clinical teaching and service sites. These sites will 

provide high quality maternal, reproductive and child health care, as well as supplies to support a broad range of family planning methods. 

• Equip at least 250 clinic sites where the trained midwives will be posted. 

Complementary activities. The funds will support the following activities to complement the clinic and midwife program: 

• Surveying: USAID will arrange to assess needs, demand and provider practices 

in order to provide a baseline for future government, NGO and donor support of maternal and reproductive health care, including family planning. 

• Integrating multiple types of care: Integrate prenatal, postpartum and neonatal 

care, as well as family planning services, into ongoing primary health care programs 

now being implemented. This integration will be accomplished by training of providers and by providing appropriate equipment and supplies. 

46

1Pakistan’s health strategic objective is currently undergoing development and has not yet 

been assigned a numerical symbol. 

• Involving NGOs and the private sector: Increase access to maternal and reproductive health care, including family planning, and child health information and 

services through grants to NGOs and other private sector channels, including private midwives and pharmacists. 

PROGRAM DATA SHEET

USAID mission: Pakistan 

Strategic objective and number: Improving Basic Health Services, 399–XXX1

Planned fiscal year 2003 obligation and funding source: $TBD 

Unobligated prior year funds and funding source: $9,000,000 CSH

Key reproductive health indicators for Pakistan have seen little change over the 

8 years. 

• Maternal mortality rate [MMR]: 200 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births 

(and estimated to be considerably higher in remote areas); 

• Birth assistance rate: approximately 20 percent; 

• Infant mortality rate [IMR]: 86 infant deaths per 1,000 births. 

The funds provided under this notification supplement USAID/Pakistan’s current 

basic health care program restarted in fiscal year 2002 after an eight-year hiatus. 

The current program includes child survival, maternal health, and related, basic 

health care services, and HIV/AIDS prevention activities. The funds provided under 

this notification will expand maternal and reproductive health care programs and 

related programs. 

Like the Afghanistan program, the Pakistan program is in the early stages of design and implementation. The additional funds will be used to accelerate the implementation schedule of planned activities and to expand their scope. For example, 

these funds will cover start-up costs, such as refurbishment and equipment, which 

tend to be higher than recurrent costs. The recurrent costs for sustaining the activities will be able to be covered by USAID/Pakistan’s regular budget. 

The $9 million will support expansion of maternal and reproductive health care, 

including family planning products and services, to poor and underserved rural 

areas. The program will include funding of private sector health care providers who 

will work as partners with the Pakistani Government. 

Specifically, the funds will be used to: 

• Increase number of health care points: Expand maternal and reproductive 

health care, including family planning, to an additional 300 health care points 

where the social marketing program plans to offer integrated health services including well-baby care, immunizations, nutritional supplementation, and pre- and postnatal care. The program will work closely with local NGOs to ensure it responds 

to the needs of the communities. 

• Train midwives: Assist the Government of Pakistan to launch an ambitious program to train 50,000 new midwives throughout the country. At present there are 

virtually no trained midwives in Pakistan and a trained attendant assists only 20 

percent of births. As with the midwife training program described for Afghanistan, 

this program will require development of training curricula, preparation of training 

sites and training of trainers. 

• Train community health workers: Train 1,000 additional community health 

workers through local NGOS to provide basic information to rural communities 

about maternal health care and reproductive health care, including family planning. 

• Integrate multiple types of care: Integrate neonatal care and treatment into maternal and post-partum care in all health care points. 

• Integrate post-abortion care: Double the number of sites for post-abortion care 

(which USAID defines to include treatment of emergency conditions or injuries 

caused by abortion) to 542 health care sites over 2 years; integrate such care into 

basic health care, and link women receiving emergency care to family planning information and supplies in order to help prevent future abortions. 

• Conduct surveys: Gather health information on infant/child and maternal mortality and morbidity to guide the Pakistani government, donors, NGOs, and program 

implementers in making policy and program improvements.

Secretary POWELL. On your first question, we are in aggressive 

conversations with the Russian federation on this issue with respect to highly enriched uranium and other materials left over 

from the old Soviet Union. Nunn-Lugar is a program we support, 

47

and we are also working on other programs within the G–8 community to provide additional funds for the destruction of chemical materials, as well as other kinds of weapons of mass destruction materials that might leak out of the old Soviet Union. We have funding 

in our export control accounts for another $40 million to train people to intercept weapons of mass destruction, giving them the technology, the training to identify this kind of leakage of material and 

enhance their border controls. 

With respect to the Fort Hood system and Impact Aid, I am very 

familiar with Impact Aid. In an earlier phase of my life, I used to 

be the superintendent of schools at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, and 

I not only had a full range of titles, six schools that were under 

my responsibility, but as a father of three kids in military schools 

and communities, serving in the military, I am familiar with Impact Aid; and I will convey your thoughts to my colleagues at OMB. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman NUSSLE. Mr. Hastings. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and, Mr. Secretary, I 

want to congratulate you for all time that you have taken to be on 

the Hill on both sides of the rotunda. You said at the outset that 

is your responsibility, and it is in a free and open society, but your 

answers to all my colleagues’ questions I think really illuminate 

where we are now and why we may have to act, and I think the 

American people appreciate that forthrightness. 

I want to change gears, however, and talk entirely—not talk 

about the current time but talk about the past and talk about another war, the Second World War. There was a Federal appeals 

court in California that recently ruled that the dismissal of World 

War II-based damage claims against Japanese companies against 

U.S. prisoners of war, they upheld that dismissal. Now my understanding is that these claims, whether by Americans against Japanese or Japanese against Americans, are clearly barred by the 1951 

treaty after the Second World War. 

Now my question arises, because a California State appellate 

court recently refused to dismiss some of these claims, and I wonder that if these cases, if they are allowed to proceed to recovery, 

would abrogate that 1951 treaty. 

Now I am advised that during a past Congress the State Department opposed any legislation that would have enabled any of these 

lawsuits in the current Congress. Then can I assume that you 

would continue to oppose those lawsuits, but in lieu of such lawsuits, would you support legislation that would maybe provide limited payments to these former POWs? So this is something that has 

come up, particularly with those that served and were part of the 

Death March of Bataan. 

Secretary POWELL. Yes, sir. I am very familiar with the issue and 

have studied it on a number of occasions over the past 2 years. 

These were our folks, and they suffered mightily during the Bataan 

Death March, and I feel they are entitled to some compensation for 

their suffering. 

The difficult legal situation we find ourselves in is that the 1951 

treaty, by its terms, resolved all outstanding claims. As a matter 

of precedent and international law, we have to defend that principle of the treaty trumping all other claims in this matter. That 

48

is the reason that the State Department has held firmly to the position that the treaty resolve these claims and these issues. 

At the same time, we have been trying to find creative ways outside of the law and outside of the treaty whereby a form of compensation might be provided to these veterans. I can’t speak specifically to the legislation you might have in mind, sir, but I would 

certainly be more than willing and anxious to take a look at it, to 

see if it is a way forward. 

But I have to stand on the principle of the treaty resolving the 

claims. Otherwise, we would open up all sorts of other opportunities for claims that were settled by other treaties or by this treaty. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. SHAYS [presiding]. Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you again for your service to 

our country. 

I want to add my voice to the gentleman from Texas about Impact Aid. If you are a superintendent—former superintendent of 

schools of an impacted school district, we don’t have to tell you 

what to say, but, hopefully, you will say it to OMB. 

Mr. Secretary, I don’t know if you are familiar with Operation 

Smile. It is an organization of plastic surgeons headed by Bill and 

Kathy Magee who take missions to at least 20 different countries, 

providing plastic surgery for those with cleft lip. 

Secretary POWELL. I am very familiar with it. 

Mr. SCOTT. That is a kind of program that, when they leave, they 

have not only impacted a few hundred children and changed their 

lives, but it is also a ton of good will that they leave behind. Is that 

something——

Secretary POWELL. And the training and capacity that they leave 

behind. 

Mr. SCOTT [continuing]. Is that something that could be funded 

by the State Department? It is basically a volunteer operation. 

They don’t charge anything for their services, but there are a lot 

of expenses involved. Is that something that we could find something in the State Department to help fund? And if so, who would 

I talk to? 

Secretary POWELL. Well, you are talking to the right guy. Let me 

take it back to the Department and look at it. I can’t answer off 

the top of my head. It would depend on the nature of the organization, the nature of its status, grant applications and a rather complicated process. We have so many hundreds and hundreds, if not 

thousands, of organizations that would like to receive funding from 

the government in one form or another, from the State Department, the HHS and elsewhere. 

I am very familiar with Operation Smile and other similar programs. They have done a great job, especially starting in China, 

and places like that and in the Americas where they have done just 

fantastic work in giving youngsters hope. 

Mr. SCOTT. We will be in touch with your office directly, Mr. Secretary. 

On Haiti, I have a lot of different questions, and it is a major 

issue with the Congressional Black Caucus. Rather than talk about 

this now, could you meet with the Congressional Black Caucus 

49

Task Force? I think you will be invited shortly. If we can get a commitment from you to meet with them, I think there are a lot of different issues that we would like to discuss with you. 

Secretary POWELL. I look forward to the invitation. My Assistant 

Secretary Paul Kelly is here, and I am sure he will be looking forward to it coming down. 

Mr. SCOTT. You mentioned your new hires. Will an effort be 

made to make sure that the new hires reflect the language deficiencies and ethnic deficiencies that we have? It seems to me that 

we don’t have enough people that speak enough different languages 

so that we could fulfill our mission appropriately. 

Secretary POWELL. We are certainly looking at ethnic deficiencies. We have a number of programs, the Serrano Scholars, 

Charlie Rangel’s program at Howard University, things we are 

doing with the community college system and my old alma matter 

in New York City, and we are also focusing on languages as well. 

We still remain a nation of immigrants, and when they come 

they bring those language skills with them. We are trying to tap 

into that as well and also enhance what I believe is the finest language training facility in the United States, and that is at our Foreign Service Institute. 

Mr. SCOTT. In the AIDS initiative, there are some ways of spending the money where the money can get stretched out a little more. 

Are we making an effort to try and negotiate with the drug companies to get better prices? 

Secretary POWELL. Yes, and we have been working with Kofi 

Annan who has done great work in this as well. There has been 

quite a bit of success in driving the cost down. At one time, providing a year’s worth of antiretroviral drugs from somebody suffering from AIDS would have been $12,000 a year. It has been 

driven down now to in the neighborhood of $300 a year. But $300 

a year is still a lot of money in some of these undeveloped countries. It could be a whole year’s worth of income. We have to do 

a better job, and we are working on it. 

Mr. SCOTT. Now there is some accounts that the money can be 

put in where it is leveraged and others where it is not leveraged—

the global AIDS initiative, I believe. 

Secretary POWELL. Yes. In almost all of our new programs, Millennium Challenge Account and others, we are looking to leverage 

through public-private partnerships where we will partner the government money with private money, nongovernmental organization 

money. When I went to the World Summit on Sustainable Development in South Africa last year, I talked about these kinds of public-private partnerships. 

Mr. SCOTT. There is some concern that some of this money may 

not be new money, it may be shifted from other accounts. Can we 

talk to somebody that can explain——

Secretary POWELL. We can provide that for the record. 

The $15 billion that the President made reference to in his State 

of the Union Address for the global initiative on HIV/AIDS, some 

$5 billion of that would be reallocation of funds from existing accounts, and $10 billion is new. Of the $15 billion, $1 billion would 

go to the Global Health Fund. 

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. 

50

Next will be Congressman Putnam, and then we will go to Congressman Thompson. 

Mr. PUTNAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Powell, it is a pleasure to have you here; and, of 

course, it is always nice to be midway on the questioning standpoint, because all the big ones are out of the way. 

I want to talk to you a little bit about something, though, that 

is a larger issue impacting this country, and that is the demographics of the countries that represent emerging threats. Iran has 

somewhere around two-thirds of their population under 20 or 25. 

The Gulf States, some of them are 45-percent under the age of 15, 

presenting what I believe is a long-term generational conflict, 

where half of their economic potential has been taken off the table 

by the exclusion of women and the young men who remain, as we 

have talked about earlier with regard to Africa, are restless and 

rife for trouble. 

How through our public diplomacy channels are we reaching that 

generation in a sustained, meaningful way? 

Secretary POWELL. There are a number of things we are doing, 

Mr. Putnam. One of our efforts is working in a public-private partnership with Radio SAWA. We are starting to tailor some of our 

broadcast efforts, both in the government and working with media 

outlets outside the government to talk to that younger population. 

I am encouraging my ambassadors, and the work I do in talking 

to people I am increasingly trying to get into the younger population. The largest audience I have had as Secretary of State is 

when I went on MTV and spoke to 350 million people at one time, 

most of whom were under the age of 18, I would guess. 

The new partnership initiative that we have created for the Middle East will talk about the education of young people and turning 

young people on, to not just a religious education, but an education 

that will get them a job. The demographic facts that you laid out 

a moment ago are absolutely right on. These populations are 

young, they are restless, they are in this information age where 

they can see what is happening elsewhere in the world, and they 

want to know how do I get a part of it, how can I be a part of that 

world, and is my government, is my society, is the system in which 

I am living in tune with the world that I can now see instantaneously, and am I being prepared for it? 

There are countries in the area that you touch on where they 

still haven’t come to the realization that you cannot disenfranchise 

50 percent of the population because they are women; and then 

among the male population, those who are coming up, you don’t 

give them an education that is relevant to the kinds of jobs you are 

going to need to have being performed. We are now drilling on this 

in all of our conversations with nations that fall into that category. 

Through our public diplomacy efforts, through our partnership 

efforts with respect to education, in our efforts with the Millennium 

Challenge Account, we are directing all of these efforts toward 

younger and younger elements of the population who are still in 

their formative stage of development, when they are still thinking, 

do they become radical or do they see a future because there is a 

job waiting for them? Coming from a society and a political system 

that is committed to democracy, not to ripping off the economy and 

51

ripping off the wealth of the Nation, and are committed to helping 

them enter into an economic system that will allow them to provide 

a roof over their heads of their family members and to let them 

have a bright future. 

If we don’t do that, then they will all be going to terrorist camps 

somewhere. 

Mr. PUTNAM. I can’t imagine a more important long-term mission 

for State and for diplomatic efforts than speaking to that emerging 

population. 

Are we doing an adequate job in our own country of preparing 

young people and educating young people with the skills that they 

need to be good Foreign Service Officers and good members of your 

diplomatic corps with the language skills and training, beyond just 

French and Spanish that most high schools offer? Are we preparing 

them for the languages and the cultures that represent the greatest need for our diplomacy? 

Secretary POWELL. Probably not in the high schools of America. 

I don’t think we spend enough time on geography and social studies and language, beyond basic Spanish and French. 

At the same time I am enormously impressed by the youngsters, 

and not so young people that take our Foreign Service exam. They 

come in committed, and to just take that exam you have get to 

have a heck of a background to even think you could pass it. You 

have to develop quite a bit of experience and prepare yourself educationally and motivationally to working in foreign fields and taking on the arduous nature of Foreign Service, and we are getting 

a heck of a turnout. We are getting tens of thousands of youngsters 

who are bringing those skills to the table. 

Either I or Deputy Secretary Armitage swear in every single new 

junior officer class. We believe it is that important that I ought to 

swear them in, or Rich will swear them in if I am not around. Before I go up to the ceremony and talk to these youngsters, they just 

look like soldiers from my old career. Their eyes are burning and 

they have got smiles on their faces. I look at the files of all of these 

youngsters before I go up and swear them in just to see what the 

group is like, and they will range in age from 25 to 50. Some will 

come having had full careers elsewhere. They may be retired military. They may be coming out of corporate life after a successful 

career and want to change and serve after the age of 45. They 

bring all kinds of background experience and very often some considerable language skill into the Foreign Service. 

Mr. SHAYS. We are going to go from Congressman Thompson to 

Congressman Brown. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for being here. I also want 

to thank you for your great service. Although you said it was part 

of your job to be here, I am here to tell you that, with the 85 percent poll numbers that you have, you can be anywhere that you 

want. 

I would like to ask you a little bit about Afghanistan and the 

alarming reports that we are getting from there. I am heartened 

by your words in your statement about the progress that we are 

making and the good things that are happening, but it seems that 

we become more and more vulnerable over there, and there is a 

52

great deal of instability. And I think that everybody would believe 

that President Karzai has provided some measure of stability in 

the area, and now there are rumors that he may not seek a second 

term. I would like to get an idea of what that means to you and 

what pieces aren’t effectively working over there. How can we fix 

those, and what sort of costs are going to be associated with that? 

Secretary POWELL. I don’t know what President Karzai might or 

might not do. I heard the same reports, but let me just say that 

he has been a tremendous leader. He was the man we needed at 

the time we needed such an individual. I am so pleased he took the 

risks associated with assuming a leadership position, and he has 

done it very well. I hope he takes a long time to decide what he 

is going to do next, and perhaps I will have a conversation with 

him if he is looking for any advice. 

With respect to the situation in Afghanistan, it is still fragile, it 

is still dangerous, and it is especially dangerous in the southeast 

area, as you get toward the Pakistan border and where you find 

the border is linked up, of course, with the tribal areas on the other 

side of Pakistan, which have never been under the same degree of 

control that other parts of Pakistan are. It is still dangerous. You 

still see American soldiers hunting people down in those caves, trying to get them out. There are still bombs that go off from timeto-time. We are still taking casualties, and we should never forget 

that. The casualty level hasn’t been great, although every casualty 

is great for that family. I think slowly but surely we are imposing 

our will and pulling out these al Qaeda remnants, but it will take 

a long time. 

In the 2004 request we have $658 million for Afghanistan. When 

you go back to the 2001 and 2002 Emergency Response Fund and 

supplementals in 2002, and in the 2003 request, we have an investment of some $1.66 billion. We are going to be there for a considerable period of time. 

When the President went in, he said he would stay with it so we 

don’t let Afghanistan fall back to tribalism and fall back to being 

a failed society. We had an obligation when we went in, just as we 

will have an obligation if it is necessary to go into Iraq. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Considerable time and considerable dollars. 

Secretary POWELL. Considerable time and considerable dollars 

for years. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Can you give us any idea of what you think our 

long-term commitment in Iraq will be, if we do go in, after the war 

effort, our stabilizing force and what the cost of that is going to be? 

Secretary POWELL. I cannot, sir. I can’t tell you because I think 

over time the nature of our commitment and the nature of our 

presence will change. Certainly, in the first phase, it is military. 

We will be going in there with soldiers to take out a despotic regime, cut out the leadership of this regime, and build on the institutions that are remaining. There will be institutions remaining 

and there is a source of money. It is a wealthy country, but its 

wealth has been misspent. Initially there will be a strong military 

component to it. I know that the administration will move as quickly as we can to start shifting responsibilities to civil organizations 

of the Iraqi society as well as international organizations, nonVerDate Feb 1 2002 10:10 Jun 09, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\HEARINGS\108TH\108-4\HBU044.000 HBUDGET1 PsN: DICK
53

governmental organizations, and other U.S. agencies coming in to 

help. 

I know the military is going to want to get out of there as fast 

as they can and not get tied down with another large commitment. 

We shouldn’t deceive ourselves that some military presence may be 

necessary for a period of time to ensure that there is stability in 

that country and it doesn’t break up. 

I cannot give you an estimate of how many troops that would 

take or for what period of time. Ultimately, and as quickly as we 

can, we want to get it back into the hands of the Iraqi people with 

a responsible government representing all the people, living in 

peace with its neighbors, and then the United States can pull out. 

It will give us a chance to do other things in the region in the absence of that kind of regime. We won’t need that many U.S. troops 

throughout that part of the world. 

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. We are going to Mr. Brown and Congressman Emanuel. Congressman Brown. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being in this place at this time. We 

are grateful for your support. The question I want to ask is regarding our position with Iraq and the war on terrorism. What is the 

mission of the U.N., and what can we do to bring accountability to 

the U.N.? Must we take on the enforceability of the U.N. by ourselves? 

Secretary POWELL. Right now the violations that Iraq is committing are against U.N. resolutions. The U.N. remains an important 

body for stating the will of the world, the will of the international 

community, the 191 nations in the U.N. We must continue to support the U.N. because it does reflect the will of the international 

community. 

We have been working hard in recent years to make the U.N. a 

better managed organization and a more accountable organization. 

I think we have been able to satisfy the Congress that there has 

been improvement in the management of the U.N. and I think in 

response, Congress, with considerable wisdom, allowed to us pay 

most of our arrearages to the U.N. I think we are on a much better 

footing with respect to the leadership and management activities 

within the U.N., but it is still an organization that has a large 

number of members. Increasingly these members are democratic 

societies that have to respond to the passions of their people and 

the views of their people. 

Life doesn’t get easier the bigger an organization becomes and 

the more democratic it becomes. It requires leadership on the part 

of the United States to set down principles, tell people what we believe in, and then work, debate, fight, disagree, agree, compromise, 

find consensus among the membership of the U.N. to move forward. That is what diplomacy is about. 

It is a big change in my life from being chairman of Joint Chiefs 

of Staff, when I said do it. Now I am Secretary of State I have to 

say, come on guys, let’s talk. That is what diplomacy is all about. 

That is what democracy is all about. Sometimes I get them to agree 

easily, sometimes I can’t get them to agree at all. That is what diplomacy is about and that is what alliance management is all 

about. 

54

The U.N. is a very important institution for world order and for 

world peace. It is one of the reasons the President also made the 

decision which he announced at his speech last September 12 to rejoin UNESCO because it is doing important work that we should 

be a part of. 

Do things happen in the U.N. that annoy the devil out of us? 

Yes. I don’t like seeing the Commission on Human Rights chaired 

by Libya, or the possibility that Iraq, because of an alphabetical rotation, will suddenly end up as Chair of the Conference on Disarmament at the same time we are trying to disarm it. You get these 

anomalies, unacceptable things that occur when you have 190 nations pulling together. 

Mr. BROWN. I am grateful you are wearing this new hat and 

thank you very much for being here today. 

Mr. SHAYS. Congressman Emanuel and Congressman Wicker will 

be next. 

Mr. EMANUEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, as I remember, you started off with your enthusiasm to be here in front of the committee. If the choice was between the French Foreign Minister and the Budget Committee, I 

too would be enthused to be here. Never has the House Budget 

Committee looked so good. 

Secretary POWELL. I will be seeing him tomorrow. 

Mr. EMANUEL. Say hello from all of us. 

Secretary POWELL. I shall. 

Mr. EMANUEL. I have one statement and a set of questions 

around the nonproliferation area. Though a supporter of if we have 

to militarily move to deal with both Saddam Hussein and the 

weapons of mass destruction, I would hope that before any firing 

is done that NATO does not become the first casualty of that possible military conflict. And I would also hope that that conflict does 

not end up doing to NATO what Russia and the Soviet Union could 

not do in 50 years, we do in one conflict. 

As a supporter of the administration, if we end up having to have 

a military effort, I do, I really hope that all effort is expended to 

stitch back what has been an important partnership for America. 

We are secure because of NATO, and I think one of the worst 

things that would happen, finally expanding it eastward and having worked on that Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia—and finally after 50 years and they are getting in, we shut the lights off 

and shut the door on them. I think there would be nothing crueler 

to people of the former Eastern Bloc. 

There are some 40 to 50 research reactors around the world with 

materials very loosely secured. And does the State Department 

have any plan or are you considering one to secure these materials? 

And anything beyond what is in your nonproliferation 

antiterrorism- and antimining-related programs budget? 

And second, although it is in DOD, a philosophical question, your 

thoughts about using Nunn-Lugar as a model to expand it to deal 

beyond just the old Soviet Union and Ukraine but to other areas, 

given the conflicts and what we see both in between Pakistan and 

India and obviously in the Korean peninsula. 

Secretary POWELL. On the first question, with your permission, 

Mr. Emanuel, what I would like to do is go and consult with my 

55

colleagues at Defense and Energy, and give an answer for the 

record with respect to what plans we might have or might want to 

come up with with respect to controlling the material that comes 

out of the many research reactors that are around the world. I especially would want to talk to Spence Abraham about that before 

giving you an answer. 

[The information referred to follows:]

LETTER IN RESPONSE TO MR. EMANUEL’S QUESTION REGARDING THE UNITED STATES’ 

EFFORTS TO SECURE NUCLEAR MATERIALS

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, 

Washington, DC, March 26, 2003. 

DEAR MR. EMANUEL: This letter responds to the question you asked Secretary 

Powell in the hearing on the Department of State budget priorities for fiscal year 

2004 on February 13, 2003, concerning U.S. efforts to secure nuclear materials at 

research reactors worldwide. The Secretary has asked that I respond on his behalf. 

The U.S. is involved in a number of programs to enhance physical security at research reactors. For reactors with U.S.-origin nuclear material, the U.S. dispatches 

interagency teams to the countries on a periodic basis to hold discussions with their 

governments on their regulations and oversight of physical protection at nuclear facilities, examine the physical protection arrangements, make recommendations and, 

as needed, provide assistance in making necessary upgrades. We are working with 

the managers of this program and the interagency to enhance this effort. 

The U.S. also has a longstanding policy to convert research reactors from the use 

of high enriched uranium (HEU) fuel to the use of low enriched uranium (LEU) fuel, 

which is of substantially less proliferation and terrorism concern. So far, over 30 foreign research reactors have been converted to use LEU fuel. In support of this program, the U.S. is accepting back spent research reactor fuel containing U.S.-origin 

nuclear material in order to promote conversion. Shipping this fuel to the U.S. and 

converting the reactors to low enriched uranium fuel reduces their attractiveness as 

a target for terrorists. 

The U.S. is also working with Russia and the International Atomic Energy Agency 

(IAEA) on a program similar to the one in the U.S. to ship HEU spent fuel from 

Soviet-era research reactors located in third countries to Russia for management 

and disposition. In cooperation with the Russian and Serbian governments, the U.S. 

led a successful effort to move a stockpile of fresh HEU, which represented a possible terrorist target, from Serbia to Russia for down-blending. 

The JAEA has a program called the International Physical Protection Advisory 

Service (IPPAS) under which member states can request a multinational team to 

evaluate its physical protection infrastructure and make recommendations for improvements. The U.S. actively supports this program and often provides technical 

and financial support to implement needed upgrades. This is one part of the IAEA’s 

Action Plan to Combat Nuclear Terrorism. The plan also assists IAEA member 

States in other ways, for example, to improve their systems of accounting and control for nuclear material, to do a better job of stopping illicit trafficking and improving controls on radioactive materials. The U.S. has so far contributed $8 million to 

funding this Action Plan. 

In addition to these programs, the U.S. also has an extensive program to ensure 

the adequate physical protection of nuclear material at facilities in Russia and the 

new independent and Baltic states, including research reactors. 

Even as I write this letter, the U.S. is working in Vienna at the DKEA on two 

complementary tracks to help reduce the risk from nuclear and other radioactive 

materials. One track has as its goal amendment of the Convention on the Physical 

Protection of Nuclear Materials to extend its coverage to nuclear materials in peaceful uses during domestic transport, use and storage. This amendment process will 

result in an international legal obligation to maintain adequate physical protection 

at civilian research reactors and other civilian nuclear facilities. The second track 

is intended to improve controls on radioactive sources in civilian use, especially 

those that are the most dangerous, and thereby reduce the risk of radiological terrorism. Secretary Abraham announced Monday that the United States would provide $3 million to help states bring dangerous sources under control and then maintain them safely and securely. This will help to augment the IAEA-Russia-U.S. program that will accomplish the same goal in the new independent states. 

For the future, we are beginning to promote enhanced efforts to regulate, track, 

secure, and safeguard biological, chemical, nuclear and radiological materials and 

56

the equipment and know-how needed to misuse them. Among the goals of this effort 

are to secure the storage facilities and enhance transportation requirements for dangerous materials and to remove dangerous materials from insecure facilities or regions. We have substantially increased our funding request for fiscal year 2004 for 

the Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund in order to address the priority activities of this new initiative. 

Sincerely, 

PAUL V. KELLY

Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs.

Secretary POWELL. With respect to NATO, we are having a rough 

spot right now. I still have optimism that will solve the Turkish 

support problem in the next several days. I hope that will be the 

case. This alliance has weathered a lot over the last 50 years. It 

has faced some tough issues; it usually finds a way to solve them, 

sometimes not. It won’t come apart. It won’t cease to exist or be 

destroyed. It links North America to Europe. It is a great trans-Atlantic organization that will continue to have value for the nations 

that have been there from the beginning as well as the new nations 

who desperately wanted to be members. 

Why did they want to be members so badly? Why? I remember 

in 1989 I was giving speeches when I was just made chairman of 

the Joint Chiefs of Staff before the cold war ended, and I kept telling my former generals when the cold war starts to end, all of 

these nations are going to want to be in NATO. They will want a 

branch transfer from the Warsaw Pact to NATO. They said, how 

could you say such a thing? I said, because they want to be part 

of an alliance that includes America. The only alliance of a security 

nature that includes America is NATO. NATO will continue to 

serve a useful purpose for many years and decades into the future. 

Did I miss one Mr. Emanuel? 

Mr. EMANUEL. The Nunn-Lugar bit. That could be answered 

later. 

Secretary POWELL. No, that is easy. I think Nunn-Lugar is a 

great program. It is being supplemented by other programs in our 

nonproliferation efforts. I would say I would have no reservation 

about thinking of ways to expand the Nunn-Lugar concept to cover 

other nations. We may have a need, if and when we get into Iraq, 

to start destroying all the materials that are in Iraq. 

Mr. EMANUEL. Thank you. 

Mr. SHAYS. Let’s get going. Thank you very much. We will go to 

Congressman Wicker and then Congressman Baird. I thank you, 

Congressman Emanuel. 

Mr. WICKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Mr. Secretary, thank you once again for the time that you 

have allotted. With all you have going I know that you could have 

begged off and asked for an hour or something like that. We probably would have understood. Very important testimony today, and 

I really appreciate it. 

I know from my previous opportunities to hear you testify and 

from hearing you in various forums that you deeply love America. 

And I love America. And it sometimes doesn’t compute with people 

like me and my constituents that many in the rest of the world 

don’t feel that way. And I am sure you have given a lot of thought 

to this. 

I would like to ask to you comment about that in the context of 

what we do after Iraq—when we are still engaged in the larger 

57

war. After Afghanistan, certainly there was going to always be the 

larger war which we are still engaged in. Tell us the effect of what 

I am sure will be a successful military conclusion on the region, the 

effect in the short term, the effect in the long term, and the effect 

globally. Will this give rise to additional acts of Islamic fundamentalism? 

I noted yesterday a news account saying that members of this 

administration had expressed concern that we are losing what we 

had accomplished over perhaps three decades in terms of nuclear 

nonproliferation, with relatively small nations attempting to get a 

nuclear capability. And we are going to have a real problem stopping the global spread of nuclear weapons. And in that context, by 

my calculations we are spending .2 percent of our gross domestic 

product on foreign assistance. Is that the way you add it up? Is 

that going to be enough over the long haul? 

And then finally, Mr. Secretary, how will we know when we have 

won the war on terrorism globally? 

Secretary POWELL. On the first question with respect to fundamentalism, what might happen with the conflict in Iraq, I suspect initially there will be some disturbances. There are some people who will respond to any such conflict with demonstrations and 

other acts that might put some of our people at risk, and there will 

be expressions of anti-Americanism. I think if we do it well, and 

we do it successfully, and if we do it as I know we will do it, with 

a minimum loss of civilian life or collateral damage, we are not 

going to destroy Iraq in order to build Iraq. We are going in to take 

out a despotic regime if we have to go in. 

But I think we can rapidly turn opinion around when people see 

what America does once it is faced with that kind of a challenge. 

We have a pretty good record over the last 60 years of leaving 

places a lot better than we found them when we went in. 

It will be the fourth time in a period of 12 years we have gone 

into a Muslim country, a Muslim situation, not to conquer, not to 

take over, not to claim sovereignty, but to help Kuwait, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and then Iraq. I think it would give us opportunities to 

change this impression of America. 

I also have to say that as I think about this, and I see expressions of anti-Americanism coming from a lot of these fundamentalists, fundamental spokespersons, that there still are lines outside 

of every one of my consular offices around the world. What for? 

They want a visa. They want to come to the United States. In fact, 

one of the major problems I have is the visa system. Muslim countries complaining that we have made it too hard to get visas to 

come to the United States because of our efforts to secure our borders. People are afraid we are going to close our doors. So the new 

slogan in our consular affairs operation is: Secure borders, open 

doors. America is open. Come on. We want you to come our hospitals, our schools, Disneyworld, Las Vegas, if that is of interest to 

you. We want you to come to America. People want to come to 

America. 

So the problem we are having right now is people think we are 

getting too tight with respect to who can come in. Why are you 

fingerprinting our people? Why are you making it harder for them 

to go to your schools? 

58

There is this residual feeling of support, sometimes affection, 

sometimes jealousy, sometimes resentment, sometimes admiration, 

it is all mixed up, for things American and for Americans. 

Right now the problem we are having has to do more with policies that we are applying rather than we are Americans. We generate resistance because of some of the things we believe we must 

do with respect to Iraq, and because some people believe we have 

not done enough with respect to the Middle East peace process, 

and they are expecting to us do more. We will be doing more in 

the near future. 

There is a residual of support and affection for the United States 

that I think we can get into once we deal with some of these policies that are objected to by people in the world. 

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Secretary, we are going to be getting you out at 

12:30 as promised. So we have Congressman Baird, Congressman 

Bonner, and then Congressman Neal, and I think that is going to 

be it. Congressman Baird. 

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here and thanks 

to all your people who serve this country so well around the world. 

I will be fairly brief because I want you to have time to answer 

other questions. 

Let me give you several questions, pick them, and make sure we 

stay within our 5 minutes. First of all, the Millennium Challenge 

Account, I think there was a recent study by the Center for Global 

Development suggesting that there may be in our efforts to make 

sure that money is well targeted—and I support that—there may 

be countries who are doing well in terms of many of the democratic 

institutions, rule of law, et cetera, but don’t have the money to 

fund on the human capital investments, and they may paradoxically be ruled out of the very kind of funds MCA is designed to 

target. 

Real quickly, a second issue. As I look at the countries that receive our foreign aid, too often it seems to me we are spending on 

countries that have so many problems and ignoring our friends. If 

I were to contrast Colombia with Costa Rica, for example, I would 

spend a lot more money in Costa Rica which has been the bastion 

of democracy in Central America for years, and I might spend less 

in a country with human rights abuses and narco-traffickers, et 

cetera. 

Third, I am greatly concerned about State Department policies 

and financial spending by this country being set by people who are 

not confirmed by the U.S. Senate, members of nongovernment organizations, especially strident anti-choice voices associating with 

U.S. State Department missions and setting government policy, 

particularly regarding family planning and birth control, as Mr. 

Edwards raised. 

And, finally, I hope you can talk a little bit what—if not now at 

some point—what we can do to make our spending more effective. 

We spend more in dollars than almost any other country in the 

world, but I am not sure we get the clout out of it in terms of the 

choices we make with the spending. I welcome your responses to 

any of those. 

Secretary POWELL. On the MCA, there is a problem we will have 

to work our way through, there is a challenge. Some nations are 

59

so committed to democracy and doing everything we ask of them, 

but they still have needs, but they are doing well enough so they 

are not quite as poor as those that we are going to put in the first 

tranche. And we are going to have to find a way to balance that, 

either using our other assistance accounts or some public/private 

partnerships. In the first instance as we start the MCA, we really 

need to focus on those that have the lowest GDP but have made 

the commitment to get them started up the road to success. I understand the problem. 

Second, I think with regard to Costa Rica and Colombia, we had 

to make some judgments in all of these instances. In the case of 

Colombia, this was a problem that was directly affecting us here 

in the United States with respect to narco-trafficking and narcoterrorism. That is why there has been such an investment in Colombia and perhaps not as much in Costa Rica, which has been a 

bedrock of stability in the region for many years. 

With respect to anti-choice NGOs, I think you are quite familiar 

with the policy of the administration and the policy of the President with respect to these issues. We try to operate our family programs and reproductive choice programs in a way that is consistent 

with the President’s policies and philosophies. 

Finally, I want to make spending as efficient as possible. We are 

trying to constantly cut down on overhead and make sure no 

money is being lost as it dribbles through the pipeline as it gets 

out to where it is needed. 

Mr. BAIRD. This is also just a question of do we invest it in a way 

that when people see the investment, they say that was thanks to 

the United States of America? I was in Guatemala a while back 

and went to a place where $2,000 would have helped people build 

a school and they would have said thanks to America for the next 

three generations. 

If we can spend our money in ways that are clearly stamped, 

USA got you this, and it matters to you, I think we will benefit. 

Secretary POWELL. We try to trademark and stencil as much as 

we can. 

Mr. BAIRD. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. SHAYS. We are going to go to Congressman Bonner and close 

with Congressman Neal. 

Mr. BONNER. Mr. Secretary, at the risk of being redundant, rather than just thank you for appearing before our committee, I want 

to thank you once again for answering the call to public service and 

also ask that you pass that thanks along to your wife. 

Secretary POWELL. Thank you, I will. 

Mr. BONNER. You know, Congressman Davis and Congressman 

Lewis, before he went to Georgia to try to help them out over there, 

we were natives of Alabama and we are proud that she is, too. So 

please give her our best. 

Secretary POWELL. I shall indeed. Thank you Mr. Bonner. 

Mr. BONNER. I was pleased to note that in the President’s budget 

there is funding adequate for the Child Survival and Disease Programs Account. I come to this job following Congressman Sonny 

Callahan, who gave birth to this idea when he chaired the Foreign 

Operations Subcommittee on Appropriations. It was Congressman 

Callahan’s belief that while there may not be popular support with 

60

the American people for increased foreign aid, there is a great deal 

of compassion, and anytime we can help the children of the world, 

that we are doing so with the support of the American people. 

I am also pleased to note that there is no funding requested for 

the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization, KEDO, 

in view of North Korea’s resumption of its nuclear weapons program. My question is: If North Korea were to negotiate in good 

faith tomorrow and cease its weapon activities, would the United 

States likely revive this assistance program? And if so, what level 

of funding would be contemplated and would stronger conditions be 

placed on this aid? 

Secretary POWELL. If we were to get into a discussion with North 

Korea, and I expect sooner or later there will be a discussion with 

North Korea, about how to move forward and move away from the 

situation we now find ourselves in, it would have to be a comprehensive solution that would deal with the basic problem. That 

is North Korea’s development of nuclear capability. 

There are other issues we have with North Korea as well: sale 

of missile technology; sale of missiles themselves; and the large 

army that it maintains that is essentially helping to bankrupt the 

country. 

With respect to the nuclear issue, there would have to be a comprehensive solution that would have to deal with all of the technologies that they have been exploring for the development of nuclear weapons. 

I think as part of that comprehensive solution and dealing with 

that, we would have to say to the North Koreans, we understand 

that you have energy needs, which is what they say was the reason 

for them moving down this road. KEDO and providing HFO fuel 

was one way to satisfy that requirement. Lightwater reactors was 

also part of the agreed framework to satisfy that requirement. 

I think as we looked into the future we would have to make a 

judgment about what is the best way to satisfy their legitimate 

need for power and also to repair the grid that we have to accept 

such power. Whether the answer remains lightwater reactors and 

HFO supplement or something else in the field of energy, I think 

is an outstanding question, which I am not prepared to answer 

today. There would certainly be a need to provide energy to North 

Korea, part of a comprehensive solution, and there would be a cost 

associated with that, not only for us but for our partners in the region who are now our partners in KEDO. 

Mr. BONNER. Returning to the crisis at hand with regard to the 

situation in Iraq, it appears that NATO is going to deny military 

assistance to Turkey, a NATO member, because of its cooperation 

with the United States preparation for the possible war. It was 

gratifying that Turkey, despite difficult internal politics, agreed to 

allow the United States to utilize its bases. I noted in the budget 

that there is $200 million requested for Turkey based primarily on 

its role as a frontline state in the Afghanistan conflict. In view of 

Turkey’s frontline role in Iraq as well and the potential denial of 

NATO support, will consideration be given to enhancing aid to Turkey either in the ’04 bill or in a supplemental? 

61

Secretary POWELL. Yes. On your first point, I don’t think it is a 

given that NATO will deny Turkey. I am hopeful that will find a 

way forward. 

Mr. BONNER. My last question is regarding NATO. Does the denial of support, if it continues, to a member nation undermine the 

United States’ future participation in this organization? I think you 

have addressed this in other ways. 

Secretary POWELL. I think it would be a very bad outcome. I 

think it would to some extent undermine NATO to the extent that 

a member nation came before it and said, look, no war has started, 

we understand that, but in anticipation that we might have a 

threat, is it unreasonable for to us come before our allies and say 

give us some help? And 16 of the allies, 15 plus the requesting 

country say yes, and 3 allies say no, because this would look like 

we are condoning war, or we are ready to get into the war. That 

was an unreasonable position for those three nations—France, Germany, and Belgium—to take. Luxembourg also had been in that 

position but realized it was not the correct position and moved 

over. But 16 of the nations, to include the requesting country, believe that Turkey has a legitimate need for this support, these services. That is what being a member of an alliance is all about. 

I hope that we will find a way for the other three nations, or two 

at least of the other three nations, if we have to handle it in a 

slightly different manner, come to that conclusion and will provide 

to Turkey the support that it needs under the NATO framework. 

If that turns out to be impossible, we will still find a way to make 

sure that Turkey is not unsupported. 

Mr. BONNER. Thank you again. 

Mr. SHAYS. Congressman Neal. 

Mr. NEAL. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Four and a half minutes and 

I will yield the last 30 seconds to my friend, Mr. Lewis. 

Mr. Secretary, you are held in the highest personal and professional regard here and across the country. You have mentioned a 

very ambitious agenda: more security support for our embassies, 

more hiring, more foreign aid, rebuilding Iraq, rebuilding Afghanistan. And at the same time, we are talking about permanently repealing the estate tax, companies that move offshore to Bermuda 

for the purpose of avoiding corporate taxes, a dividend proposal 

that by all estimates would cost $370 billion, and coming now, deficits again as far as the eye can see. 

Mr. Gutknecht asked a very pertinent question earlier: How are 

we going to remain consistent to the principle of a balanced budget 

and pay for all of this? 

Secretary POWELL. Sir, there are needs that have to be met by 

the American people in foreign assistance and our domestic programs. 

Mr. NEAL. Which I agree with. 

Secretary POWELL. The President believes that the economic plan 

he has put forward, if enacted, recognizing that we are in a deficit 

situation for some time, is the best way to approach this problem. 

And on matters of tax policy, I will have to yield to my colleagues 

in other parts of the administration to make the case to the Congress that this is the correct way to move forward. 

62

Mr. NEAL. Fair enough, Mr. Secretary. On a positive note, if you 

were to speak to the British Government, as I am sure you are, or 

the Irish Government, they would say that it was the American dimension that has brought the Irish peace process to the point that 

it has reached This was a great achievement for America in terms 

of international diplomacy, and bipartisan in nature, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II. Could you comment quickly on where that stands, 

knowing that your plate is pretty full with Iraq and Afghanistan 

as well? 

Secretary POWELL. Follow it very closely. Ambassador Richard 

Haass is my special envoy, the President’s special envoy to the 

process. He was in the area last week. He stays in very close touch 

with all of the different elements that have an interest in this, all 

the different factions. We are working with the parties to see if we 

can get this big bang going. We still have some optimism that we 

might be able to find a solution. It is a difficult situation, but I 

have somebody who handles this who is an expert and is well regarded. 

Mr. NEAL. He is good to work with. Thanks for your personal attention. 

I yeild the last 30 seconds to Mr. Lewis. 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for being so courteous and 

so patient. Thank you, my friend and seat mate, Mr. Neal. Mr. Secretary, it is good to see you. 

Secretary POWELL. Good to see you again, sir. 

Mr. LEWIS. Welcome. I don’t have a question but I just want to 

take a moment to thank you for your extraordinary contribution to 

our own country and to the world community. In addition, I am 

happy to hear you say that you are going to use some of your resources to make the State Department, embassies, and consulate 

look more like America and more like the world. Thank you. 

Secretary POWELL. Thank you, Mr. Lewis. 

Mr. SHAYS. Before having you adjourn, Representative Spratt. 

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Secretary, I am sorry that I could not be here 

for your opening statement. I did get to hear a lot of the examination. Let me say since I followed your career in my 20 years here, 

that you have served with distinction in every position of leadership you have held and not the least the one you hold right now. 

What you are asking for is a fairly tall order. It is an 11.3-percent increase and $2.9 billion over last year. We will do our best 

to provide it, not least because we believe that in your hands it will 

be handled with good stewardship. 

Secretary POWELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Spratt. Thank you 

for the support that you have provided to me personally through 

many incarnations over the last years. 

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Secretary, I will say as a new member, the questions of the committee I thought were outstanding, I thought your 

answers were outstanding. Thank you very much for being here. 

Our prayers are with you, sir. 

Secretary POWELL. Thank you, Mr. Shays. 

[Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

Æ