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

91–796PDF 2004

THE PRESIDENT’S INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

REQUEST FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

FEBRUARY 11, 2004

Serial No. 108–88

Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/international—relations 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman 

JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa 

DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, 

Vice Chairman 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

PETER T. KING, New York 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

AMO HOUGHTON, New York 

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado 

RON PAUL, Texas 

NICK SMITH, Michigan 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

JERRY WELLER, Illinois 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

THADDEUS G. MCCOTTER, Michigan 

KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida 

TOM LANTOS, California 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

BARBARA LEE, California 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

ADAM SMITH, Washington 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

CHRIS BELL, Texas 

THOMAS E. MOONEY, SR., Staff Director/General Counsel 

ROBERT R. KING, Democratic Staff Director 

KRISTEN GILLEY, Senior Professional Staff Member 

MARILYN C. OWEN, Senior Staff Associate 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Colin L. Powell, Secretary, U.S. Department of State ................ 9

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Henry J. Hyde, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Illinois, and Chairman, Committee on International Relations: Prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 5

The Honorable Colin L. Powell: Prepared statement ........................................... 17

APPENDIX 

Fragment of the last letter clandestinely delivered from Dr. Oscar Elias 

Biscet, a prisoner in Cuba, directed to his wife on December 26, 2003, 

as submitted for the record by the Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida ............................................ 65

The Honorable Christopher H. Smith, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of New Jersey, and Vice Chairman, Committee on International 

Relations: Prepared statement ............................................................................ 66

The Honorable Gary L. Ackerman, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of New York: Prepared statement ............................................................ 68

The Honorable Joseph Crowley, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New York: Prepared statement ...................................................................... 69

Response from the Honorable Colin L. Powell to question submitted for the 

record by the Honorable James A. Leach, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Iowa ......................................................................................... 70

Responses from the Honorable Colin L. Powell to questions submitted for 

the record by the Honorable Gregory W. Meeks, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York ....................................................................... 71

Responses from the Honorable Colin L. Powell to questions submitted for 

the record by the Honorable Christopher H. Smith .......................................... 73

Response from the Honorable Colin L. Powell to question submitted for the 

record by the Honorable Christopher H. Smith and the Honorable Shelley 

Berkley, a Representative in Congress from the State of Nevada ................... 76

Response from the Honorable Colin L. Powell to question submitted for the 

record by the Honorable Joseph Crowley ........................................................... 77

Responses from the Honorable Colin L. Powell to questions submitted for 

the record by the Honorable Dan Burton, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Indiana .................................................................................... 77

Responses from the Honorable Colin L. Powell to questions submitted for 

the record by the Honorable Shelley Berkley .................................................... 80

Responses from the Honorable Colin L. Powell to questions submitted for 

the record by the Honorable Nick Smith, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Michigan .................................................................................. 81

Responses from the Honorable Colin L. Powell to questions submitted for 

the record by the Honorable Grace F. Napolitano, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of California ................................................................ 82

Responses from the Honorable Colin L. Powell to questions submitted for 

the record by the Honorable Adam B. Schiff, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of California ................................................................................ 83

Responses from the Honorable Colin L. Powell to questions submitted for 

the record by the Honorable Betty McCollum, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Minnesota ................................................................................ 86

(1)

THE PRESIDENT’S INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS 

REQUEST FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2004

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 12:05 p.m., in Room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Henry J. Hyde (Chairman of the Committee) presiding. 

Chairman HYDE. The Committee will come to order. 

Mr. Secretary, welcome to the Committee on International Relations. We are eager to hear your testimony, but before that I would 

like to offer a few thoughts and ask then my distinguished Ranking 

Member, Mr. Lantos, to offer remarks of his own. And any Member 

wishing to make a statement may submit it for the record to allow 

as much time as possible for questions. 

The Administration is facing an onslaught of criticism regarding 

the pre-war intelligence concerning weapons of mass destruction in 

Iraq. Some eagerly proclaim in unflattering haste a more sweeping 

pronouncement: That the entire conflict was a mistake, an opinion 

curiously put forward by many, including some Members in this 

House, whose prior support was accompanied by few, if any, qualifications. 

But the political season is upon us and, as in war, truth is often 

the first casualty. 

The role of intelligence in the decision to go to war, the costs and 

benefits of that conflict, and many other facets are the subject matter of legitimate contention. But those originally opposed, and those 

belatedly discovering their doubts, equate failure to find these 

weapons—that is, to find a loaded gun aimed directly at our head—

with failure of the enterprise as a whole. At its core, their criticism 

is that the President took action to defend this country instead of 

just sitting there. 

A principal mistake arises for both critics and defenders in viewing the conflict in Iraq as a thing in itself. However, instead of its 

depiction as a lone adventure of questionable wisdom, a more reasoned view is that our actions in Iraq must be judged in a larger 

context. Our actions there are in fact part of an incredible success 

story, one that is still unfolding and one that is due almost entirely 

to the foresight and determination to act that is a refreshing characteristic of this Administration. 

Over the years, I have found myself in ever-greater agreement 

with former Senator Sam Nunn, who has incessantly warned us of 

the threat of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction being 

2

placed into the waiting hands of our enemies. The Bush Administration has transformed our entire approach to this staggering 

challenge by crafting and implementing an unprecedented multifaceted global and—this is key—action-oriented effort, of which 

Iraq is an integral part. 

I need not rehearse the arguments regarding weapons of mass 

destruction in Iraq, other than to point out that every intelligence 

agency, along with the United Nations, Saddam’s own generals and 

even the majority of today’s critics, believed that those weapons existed. 

In our vulnerable world, to wait until compelling evidence of a 

threat is leisurely compiled is to wait for our destruction, to err on 

the side of annihilation. It is a mistake, or evidence of an alarming 

naivete, to talk of intelligence failures as shocking surprises, as 

though these estimates and extrapolated predictions could ever be 

more than imperfect. 

A far more serious intelligence failure than the one currently in 

the spotlight became evident in 1991 when, in the aftermath of the 

Gulf War, we uncovered Iraq’s massive weapons of mass destruction programs, including the bonechilling discovery that Saddam 

was only an estimated 6 months away from an operational nuclear 

device. Was not that failure of prediction and the inaction if encouraged of greater consequence than the recent conclusion that he 

still possessed vast arsenals of WMDs, a deception he himself cultivated? We had valuable but incomplete intelligence preceding 

September 11th and largely ignored it. Is that the model to which 

critics of our actions in Iraq would have us adhere? When is it wise 

to risk the safety of the American people? Because that is the outcome that a demand for certainty will guarantee. 

Now making the rounds is the view that the United States has 

lost credibility around the world due to its failure to find evidence 

of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I suggest the exact opposite 

is true. We have in fact gained enormous, immensely valuable, 

even decisive credibility from our actions. For the next time the 

U.S. or at least this President, warns some foreign despot to cease 

actions we believe are threatening to our security, my hunch is 

that he will listen and listen carefully. The fact that we went into 

Iraq virtually alone, excepting our courageous partner Great Britain, not only without the sanction of the international community 

but in blunt defiance of its strenuous efforts to stop us, is far from 

the ruinous negative it is often portrayed as. In fact it is all to the 

good, for it is unambiguous proof that absolutely nothing will deter 

us, that the entire world arrayed against us cannot stop us. The 

message to those on the receiving end could not be clearer, and unless they are suicidal they will understand that their options have 

been radically narrowed. 

This is not theory. Already, the Administration has won another 

victory in Muammar Khaddafi’s decision to surrender his weapons 

of mass destruction programs as a direct consequence—a direct 

consequence of our actions in Iraq. He himself has said that the example of Iraq was the determining factor in his decision. And it is 

a powerful precedent, for it is the first time that a state has surrendered these weapons without a regime change. If he makes good 

on his promise, and if we can in confidence readmit him fully to 

3

the international community, the effects on others cannot but be 

salutary. We can then offer offenders a stark choice of the sword 

or the olive branch, of destruction or the rewards of cooperation, 

with all ambiguity torn away and thereby refocus their cold calculations of self-interest away from ambition and toward survival. 

Our intervention in Iraq has made this seminal message both 

possible and credible for the first time. Can anyone cognizant of the 

threats we face doubt its value? 

The benefits of this new mode of interaction are evident in the 

current standoff with Iran. The recent and unexpected exposure of 

Iran’s massive nuclear weapons program has startled that regime 

into a hastily constructed policy of stalling and superficial cooperation. Only a fool would believe that the Iranians will voluntarily 

abandon their nuclear ambitions, but their coerced cooperation has 

been helpfully motivated by their fear of United States action 

against them. And in truth, they should be afraid. Imagine the 

view from Tehran. Iran battled Iraq for a decade with the loss of 

hundreds of thousands of men, the end result being a return to 

their respective starting positions. Yet twice the U.S. has easily demolished their menacing neighbor. Iran would be a much different 

challenge, but no Iranian leader can truthfully say once the regime 

was targeted that his sleep would remain undisturbed and, should 

sleep come, dreams of the Taliban’s fate would invade his fitful 

slumber. 

Here as well Iran’s adherence to the deal it cut with Britain, 

France and Germany for a suspension of its programs has been 

made more likely by the United States stance, a pressure on 

Tehran that even the Europeans privately acknowledge to be useful. That situation is far from resolved but does anyone actually believe that the possibility of halting Iran’s march would exist without Saddam’s sobering example? 

None of this has been lost on the North Korean regime. Our 

demonstrated willingness to use force to remove a threat, paired 

with the possibility of reward for cooperation, provides the decision 

makers in Pyongyang with useful instruction in the rules of this 

new world. Once again, this bracketing of the regime’s options was 

made possible by our actions in Iraq. 

To this Administration must go the credit for many other longdelayed but indispensable actions to reverse our slide toward the 

chasm. The Proliferation Security Initiative, the cooperation arrangement among countries concerned about WMDs and determined to do something concrete about them, is a muscular enhancement of our ability to halt trafficking in the components of 

these weapons. 

Despite the program’s infancy, there have already been notable 

successes. It was the interception of a vessel loaded with nuclear 

components for Libya that helped convince Khaddafi that the days 

of his undisturbed accumulation of the instruments of destruction 

were over. 

I will cite two more praiseworthy innovations in this area by the 

Bush Administration. The first is a surprisingly successful effort to 

persuade the leader of Pakistan to interrupt the proliferation of nuclear materials and assistance that has metastasized unchecked 

from within that country for many years. The revelations in PakiVerDate Mar 21 2002 15:36 Jun 02, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\021104\91796 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
4

stan, combined with those emerging from Libya, are beginning to 

expose the international black market in nuclear technology and 

know-how, which prior to this inside information had only been 

sketchily understood. We are now in the process of unraveling that 

network and eliminating the horrors its commerce would otherwise 

help bring into being. 

Here again, action long dreamed of is finally being taken. We are 

no longer bystanders wringing our hands and hoping that our intelligence will be good enough to somehow uncover it all, no longer 

waiting for some international court to issue a reluctant warrant 

or grudging permission to allow us to take measures to protect ourselves. 

Taken together, these many elements constitute an extraordinary 

effort by this Administration to put in place a far-seeing, comprehensive, and action-oriented policy focused on preempting our 

annihilation. Of course, we inherited some very valuable initiatives, such as the Nunn-Lugar program that continues the longterm effort to secure the vast arsenal left in the wreckage of the 

Soviet empire. But it is simply beyond credibility and simple decency to dispute that this Administration has aggressively pursued 

a vastly increased effort against weapons of mass destruction and 

their proliferation, that it has drawn bright and unmistakable lines 

of warning, has recruited committed allies, and has conducted a direct assault on a seemingly impregnable fortress. 

The work is not done. We must make up for decades of stillborn 

plans, of whining excuses, of wishful thinking, of irresponsible passivity. This President has begun to lay the foundation for a comprehensive, multilayered, root-and-branch approach to the mortal 

danger of the proliferating instruments of our destruction. A global 

system of overlapping levels of international, multilateral and unilateral measures is being erected, each using different tools and 

methods but all sharing a common purpose. Each and all are needed. For even a single gap might well prove fatal, the hole through 

which our future is bled away. 

We are only at the beginning, but it is an extraordinary beginning. Everyone in this room, everyone in this country, owes this 

Administration their thanks for the fact that this ultimate of 

threats is not only being battled, but battled successfully. 

That is the true context in which our actions in Iraq should be 

judged. 

We were not born to suffer a fate molded by our enemies. We 

cannot be made victims without our consent. If unmet, the terrors 

of this century will overwhelm us. 

But although we may at times be uncertain of our path, we have 

never failed ourselves. 

Are we safer now? Measured in this ultimate context, in the successes our actions in Iraq and elsewhere have made possible, in 

this contest on which our survival rests, the answer cannot be 

other than yes. And I am grateful that this President has carried 

out his duty. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hyde follows:]

5

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE HENRY J. HYDE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

DELIVERING OURSELVES FROM EVIL

Mr. Secretary, welcome to the Committee on International Relations. 

We are eager to hear your testimony, but before that, I would like to offer a few 

thoughts. I would then ask the distinguished Ranking Member, Mr. Lantos, to offer 

remarks of his own. 

The Administration is facing an onslaught of criticism regarding the pre-war intelligence concerning weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Some eagerly proclaim 

in unflattering haste a more sweeping pronouncement, that the entire conflict was 

a mistake, an opinion curiously put forward by many—including some members in 

this House—whose prior support was accompanied by few, if any, qualifications. 

But the political season is upon us and, as in war, truth is often the first casualty. 

The role of intelligence in the decision to go to war, the costs and benefits of that 

conflict, and many other facets are the subject of legitimate contention. But those 

originally opposed, and those belatedly discovering their doubts, equate failure to 

find these weapons—that is, to find a loaded gun aimed directly at our head—with 

failure of the enterprise as a whole. At its core, their criticism is that the President 

took action to defend this country instead of just sitting there. 

A principal mistake arises for both critics and defenders in viewing the conflict 

in Iraq as a thing in itself. However, instead of its depiction as a lone adventure 

of questionable wisdom, a more reasoned view is that our actions in Iraq must be 

judged in a larger context. Our actions there are in fact part of an incredible success 

story, one that is still unfolding and one that is due almost entirely to the foresight 

and determination to act that is a refreshing characteristic of this Administration. 

Over the years, I have found myself in ever-greater agreement with former Senator Sam Nunn who has incessantly warned us of the threat of the proliferation of 

weapons of mass destruction being placed into the waiting hands of our enemies. 

The Bush Administration has transformed our entire approach to this staggering 

challenge by crafting and implementing an unprecedented multifaceted, global, 

and—this is key—action-oriented effort, of which Iraq is an integral part. 

I need not rehearse the arguments regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, 

other than to point out that every intelligence agency—along with the United Nations, Saddam’s own generals, and even the majority of today’s critics—believed that 

those weapons existed. 

In our vulnerable world, to wait until compelling evidence of a threat is leisurely 

compiled is to wait for our destruction, to err on the side of annihilation. It is tendentious—or evidence of an alarming naivete—to talk of intelligence failures as 

shocking surprises, as though these estimates and extrapolated predictions could 

ever be more than imperfect. 

A far more serious intelligence failure than the one currently in the spotlight became evident in 1991 when, in the aftermath of the Gulf War, we uncovered Iraq’s 

massive WMD programs, including the bone-chilling discovery that Saddam was 

only an estimated six months away from an operational nuclear device. Was not 

that failure of prediction and the inaction it encouraged of greater consequence than 

the recent conclusion that he still possessed WMDs, a deception he himself cultivated? We had valuable, but incomplete intelligence preceding 9/11 and largely ignored it. Is that the model to which critics of our actions in Iraq would have us adhere? When is it wise to risk the safety of the American people? Because that is 

the outcome that a demand for certainty will guarantee. 

Now making the rounds is the view that the United States has lost credibility 

around the world due to its failure to find evidence of weapons of mass destruction 

in Iraq. I suggest that the exact opposite is true: We have in fact gained enormous, 

immensely valuable, even decisive credibility from our actions. For the next time the 

United States, or at least this President, warns some foreign despot to cease actions 

we believe are threatening to our security, my hunch is that he will listen, and listen carefully. The fact that we went into Iraq virtually alone, excepting our courageous partner Great Britain, not only without the sanction of the international community but in blunt defiance of its strenuous efforts to stop us, is far from the ruinous negative it is often portrayed as. In fact, it is all to the good, for it is unambiguous proof that absolutely nothing will deter us, that the entire world arrayed 

against us cannot stop us. The message to those on the receiving end could not be 

clearer, and unless they are suicidal, they will understand that their options have 

been radically narrowed. 

6

This is not theory. Already, the Administration has won another victory in Muammar Khaddafi’s decision to surrender his WMD programs as a direct consequence 

of our actions in Iraq. He himself has said that the example of Iraq was the determining factor in his decision. And it is a powerful precedent, for it is the first time 

that a state has surrendered these weapons without a regime change. If he makes 

good on his promise, and if we can in confidence readmit him fully to the international community, the effect on others cannot be but salutary. For we can then 

offer offenders a stark choice of the sword or the olive branch, of destruction or the 

rewards of cooperation, with all ambiguity torn away, and thereby refocus their cold 

calculations of self-interest away from ambition and toward survival. 

Our intervention in Iraq has made this seminal message both possible and credible for the first time. Can anyone cognizant of the threats we face doubt its value? 

The benefits of this new mode of interaction are evident in the current stand-off 

with Iran. The recent and unexpected exposure of Iran’s massive nuclear weapons 

program has startled that regime into a hastily constructed policy of stalling and 

superficial cooperation. Only a fool would believe that the Iranians will voluntarily 

abandon their nuclear ambitions, but their coerced cooperation has been helpfully 

motivated by their fear of U.S. action against them. 

And, in truth, they should be afraid. Imagine the view from Tehran. Iran battled 

Iraq for a decade with the loss of hundreds of thousands of men, the end result 

being a return to their respective starting positions. Yet, twice the U.S. has easily 

demolished their menacing neighbor. Iran would be a much different challenge, but 

no Iranian leader can truthfully say, once the regime was targeted, that his sleep 

would remain undisturbed. And should sleep come, dreams of the Taliban’s fate 

would invade his fitful slumber. 

Here as well, Iran’s adherence to the deal it cut with Britain, France, and Germany for a temporary halt to its programs has been made more likely by the existence of the U.S. threat, a bad cop routine that even the Europeans privately acknowledge to be useful. That situation is far from resolved, but does anyone actually 

believe that the possibility of halting Iran’s march would even exist without 

Saddam’s sobering example? 

None of this has been lost on the North Korean regime. Our demonstrated willingness to use force to remove a threat, paired with the possibility of reward for cooperation, provides the decision-makers in Pyongyang with useful instruction in the 

rules of this new world. Once again, this bracketing of the regime’s options was 

made possible by our actions in Iraq. 

To this Administration must go the credit for many other long-delayed but indispensable actions to reverse our slide toward the chasm. The Proliferation Security 

Initiative, the cooperative arrangement among countries concerned about WMDs 

and determined to do something concrete about them, is a muscular enhancement 

of our ability to halt trafficking in the components of these weapons. Despite the 

program’s infancy, there have already been notable successes. It was the interception of a vessel loaded with nuclear components for Libya that helped convince 

Khaddafi that the days of his undisturbed accumulation of the instruments of destruction were over. 

I will cite two more praiseworthy innovations in this area by the Bush Administration. The first is a surprisingly successful effort to persuade the leaders of Pakistan to interrupt the proliferation of nuclear materials and assistance that has metastasized unchecked from within that country for many years. The revelations in 

Pakistan, combined with those emerging from Libya, are beginning to expose the 

international black market in nuclear technology and know-how, which, prior to this 

inside information, had been only sketchily understood. We are now in the process 

of unraveling that network and eliminating the horrors its commerce would otherwise help bring into being. 

Here again, action long dreamed of is finally being taken. We are no longer bystanders wringing our hands and hoping that our intelligence will be good enough 

to somehow uncover it all, no longer waiting for some international court to issue 

a reluctant warrant or grudging permission to allow us to take measures to protect 

ourselves. 

Taken together, these many elements constitute an extraordinary effort by this 

Administration to put in place a far-seeing, comprehensive, and action-oriented policy focused on preempting our annihilation. Of course, we inherited some very valuable initiatives, such as the Nunn-Lugar program that continues the effort to secure 

the vast WMD arsenal left in the wreckage of the Soviet empire. But it is simply 

beyond credibility and simple decency to dispute that this Administration has aggressively pursued a vastly increased effort against WMDs and their proliferation, 

that it has drawn bright and unmistakable lines of warning, has recruited comVerDate Mar 21 2002 15:36 Jun 02, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\FULL\021104\91796 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
7

mitted allies, and has conducted a direct assault on a seemingly impregnable fortress. 

The work is not done. We must make up for decades of stillborn plans, of whining 

excuses, of wishful thinking, of irresponsible passivity. This President has begun to 

lay the foundation for a comprehensive, multilayered, root-and-branch approach to 

the mortal danger of the proliferating instruments of our destruction. A global system of overlapping levels of international, multilateral, and unilateral measures is 

being erected, each using different tools and methods, but all sharing a common 

purpose. Each and all are needed. For even a single gap might well prove fatal, the 

hole through which our future is bled away. 

We are only at the beginning. But it is an extraordinary beginning. Everyone in 

this room, everyone in this country, owes this Administration their thanks for the 

fact that this ultimate of threats is not only being battled, but battled successfully. 

That is the true context in which our actions in Iraq should be judged. 

We were not born to suffer a fate molded by our enemies. We cannot be made 

victims without our consent. If unmet, the terrors of this century will overwhelm 

us. 

But although we may at times be uncertain of our path, we have never failed ourselves. 

Are we safer now? Measured in this ultimate context, in the successes our actions 

in Iraq and elsewhere have made possible, in this contest on which our survival 

rests, the answer cannot be other than ‘‘yes.’’ And I am grateful that this President 

has carried out his duty.

Chairman HYDE. I now turn to my esteemed colleague and 

friend, Tom Lantos, for any remarks he may choose to make. 

Mr. LANTOS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like 

to begin by expressing my continued appreciation for the strong 

and effective manner in which you have run this Committee since 

assuming the Chairmanship. As a result of your stewardship and 

willingness to work across party lines, last year we passed two critical bills creating the new Millennium Challenge Account and authorizing a landmark global HIV/AIDS initiative that will help save 

the lives of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children in 

the developing world. 

This time, I want to issue a very special welcome to our distinguished Secretary of State. He is always welcome here, but following your operation, we are delighted to see you in such wonderful and robust condition. 

Mr. Secretary, it is once again a great pleasure to have you before this Committee. Neither the global HIV/AIDS bill nor the Millennium Challenge Account would have happened without you and 

your hard work. We are deeply grateful for your leadership of the 

Department of State. 

Mr. Secretary, it is gratifying that the United States has just 

taken the historic step of officially stationing an American diplomat 

in Libya, a preliminary move toward establishing a full-fledged 

Embassy and normalizing our relations with that country. 

As I found during my visit to Tripoli 2 weeks ago, the government there is eager to demonstrate its commitment to its December 

19th announcement that it is dismantling its programs to produce 

weapons of mass destruction and taking all other steps to rejoin 

the international community. 

I would particularly like to thank you, Mr. Secretary, for the support for my trip provided by the Department of State. I am pleased 

to report that we are seeing in Libya something that was previously unthinkable: A country with weapons of mass destruction 

has made the affirmative decision, peacefully, to give up its weapons of mass destruction programs. 

8

In an hour and a half meeting, Colonel Ghadafi made it clear to 

me that his nation is committed to a 180-degree turn and that 

Libya intends verifiably—I underscore verifiably—to eliminate 

weapons of mass destruction and all weapons related programs. 

The facts, Mr. Secretary, speak for themselves. The Libyans have 

loaded sensitive nuclear designs and other nuclear related equipment on U.S. military aircraft bound for the United States. They 

have welcomed the technical assistance of American and British experts. 

Based on my meetings in Tripoli, it is clear that Colonel Ghadafi 

made this historic decision because he and his advisers realized 

that Libya could no longer afford to be a pariah nation. Libya’s 

pursuit of weapons of mass destruction was enormously expensive 

and has drained its oil wealth. All the while, United States and 

international sanctions were a stranglehold on the Libyan economy. 

Libya’s growing economic problems can only be solved by a redirection of its resources and its reintegration into the global economy. But given Libya’s past outrageous record, over 3 decades, including the tragic Pan Am 103 bombing, we must tread very carefully. We must be skeptical of Libya’s actions at every turn and we 

must be relentless in verifying their destruction of weapons of mass 

destruction programs. 

American actions to normalize relations must be matched every 

step of the way by verifiable Libyan actions. In light of Libya’s actions since December 19th, we should immediately lift the ban on 

travel by Americans to Libya and we should establish a full-fledged 

American diplomatic presence in Tripoli. But removal of Libya from 

the terrorist list and the complete elimination of United States 

sanctions should only occur after Libya has totally dismantled its 

weapons of mass destruction program and agreed to long-term 

monitoring procedures and after it has fully satisfied our officials 

that its links to terrorism have been severed once and for all. 

As I told Colonel Ghadafi, it is not only insufficient for them to 

terminate their past terrorist ties, they need to cooperate with us 

in fighting global terrorism, particularly in Africa. 

A public apology for the Pan Am 103 bombing and a significant 

improvement in the human rights situation would also help pave 

the way for normal relations between our two countries. As you 

know, Mr. Secretary, there are several Bulgarian nurses who have 

been imprisoned for many years and whose release is long overdue. 

Mr. Secretary, American policy under Republican and Democratic Administrations was a critical factor in Libya’s dramatic 

about face. The economic, political, and diplomatic sanctions imposed against Tripoli were the result of bipartisan agreement involving our last three Presidents and it involved cooperation with 

the British government and some of our other allies. 

This clearly indicates that firm and consistent international cooperation against rogue nations does produce significant positive 

results. 

Information that has come out of Libyan WMD programs in the 

past few weeks is providing our country and the international community with critical insights to proliferation of illicit weapons programs. And looking at the larger picture, Libya has established a 

9

model that other countries, North Korea, Iran, and Syria, ought to 

follow. It is profoundly disappointing that following your visit and 

my much less important visit to Damascus some months ago, Syria’s President has yet to respond affirmatively to our suggestions. 

And I hope that President Assad will look more carefully at the 

dramatic policy shift of Colonel Ghadafi. 

While much remains to be done, I am convinced that we are on 

the verge of a new chapter in United States-Libyan relations. 

When the American flag flies over the American Embassy in Tripoli once more and the Libyan flag over the Embassy here in Washington, it will be a wonderful symbol that historic changes can be 

wrought by peaceful means, America’s preferred alternative. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for calling today’s hearing and I look 

forward to hearing the Secretary’s observations. 

Chairman HYDE. Thank you, Mr. Lantos. And we salute you for 

your initiative in your recent historic trip to Libya. I am encouraged by reports that Libya is taking significant steps to end its 

support for international terrorism and divest itself of weapons of 

mass destruction. I am also hopeful that cautious re-engagement 

with Libya, conditioned on continued and verifiable continued cooperation, will provide incentives for responsible behavior not only 

in Libya but other rogue nations as well. 

I am pleased to announce this Committee will convene a public 

hearing the week of February 23rd to hear from Assistant Secretaries of State Burns and DeSutter on the future of United StatesLibyan relations. In this hearing we will carefully examine the possibility of a restoration of travel links and the encouragement of 

educational, health and other exchanges with Libya. We also will 

examine the extent to which re-engagement should be linked to 

Libya’s fulfillment of pledges to cease support for terrorism, to dismantle weapons of mass destruction programs, and support further 

investigations into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. We are encouraged by Libya’s actions of late, but I concur with my esteemed 

Ranking Member, we must trust but verify. 

And now at long last we come to the main attraction. Secretary 

of State Colin Powell has a long and distinguished career of public 

service and is too well-known, and justifiably so, to require my recounting today. But we want to thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your 

public service, for your work with Members of this Committee, and 

for your appearance here today. Please proceed with your statement and then we will ask some questions. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE COLIN L. POWELL, 

SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Secretary POWELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is a 

great pleasure to appear before the Committee. I thank you for 

your warm welcome. Mr. Lantos, I thank you for your welcome and 

for the two opening statements. 

Mr. Chairman, I do have a prepared statement for the record 

which I would like to submit and then summarize the statement 

with a few opening comments. 

Chairman HYDE. Without objection, so ordered. 

Secretary POWELL. Mr. Chairman, before I begin responding to 

your comments and Mr. Lantos’ opening comments and then getVerDate Mar 21 2002 15:36 Jun 02, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\021104\91796 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
10

ting into the body of my statement, let me say to all the Members 

of the Committee how much I appreciate the support you have provided to me personally, but, more importantly, to the members of 

the Department of State over the last 3 years that I have been 

privileged to lead these wonderful men and women. 

We have accomplished a lot with the Congress over the last 3 

years. We have started hiring again in significant numbers. You 

ought to see the great young people who are stepping forward to 

become members of the State Department, Foreign Service, Civil 

Service, or Foreign Service Management Specialists and Technicians. We are giving the Foreign Service exam to more people in 

a single year than we have ever done before. The results are showing up, as I watch youngsters we recruited a year or two ago go 

out to their missions and bring such energy and life and the American value system out to our missions around the world. 

We wouldn’t have been able to do it if you hadn’t supported our 

diplomatic readiness initiative. And I hope you will continue to do 

so as we move forward in the future. Technology: We have 44,250 

Internet-capable broadband computers on every desk in the State 

Department. We only had a couple hundred a few years ago. My 

staff at the staff meeting yesterday morning handed me a plaque 

showing that, finally, 2 months ago we got rid of the last Wang 

computer in the State Department. It took some doing, but we 

couldn’t have done it without the support of Members of Congress 

and especially without the strong support of this Committee. 

We have our building plan under control. We are putting up Embassies at less cost and meeting all of the standards that the Congress had put upon us. We are trying to lead and manage the department in a very effective way so that we will always be seen as 

good stewards of the people’s monies. I hope, Mr. Chairman, that 

you will consider that to be the case and will support the President’s budget request, which I will get to in a few moments. 

But before getting into that part of the statement, let me respond 

directly to two statements that were made, one by you, Mr. Chairman, and one by Mr. Lantos. Mr. Chairman, you said at the end 

of your introductory remarks concerning Iraq: Are we safer now? 

The answer is yes. Mr. Lantos, you ended by saying: Peaceful 

means, America’s preference. Both of these are absolutely true 

statements. America seeks peace, not war. America always tries to 

solve problems through political and diplomatic means before we 

take on the burden of war because we know lives will be lost. But 

a time comes when that may be the only way to solve the problem 

that is before us. And America must never be unwilling to go to 

war if that is what is required to protect our Nation, to protect our 

allies, and to protect our interests around the world. 

With respect to Iraq, yes, we are safer. A dictator is gone. A tyrant is gone. Not only are we safer, the people of Iraq are safer. 

The region is safer. We can debate weapons of mass destruction all 

we want about what was there in the past, but know they will be 

an issue there in the future. Did the President do the right thing? 

He absolutely did. Did he get the best advice that was available to 

him, political, policy and intelligence advice? Yes, he did. 

As the President went through this process, and as we all went 

through the process with the President, I think I brought a unique 

11

perspective to the debate because I was Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff, as you all know, in the first Gulf War. I will never 

forget that on the eve of that war and getting ready for the ground 

portion of that war, I wondered whether the young men and 

women who would be crossing the line of departure would be 

struck by chemical weapons. We knew they had them and had used 

them before. We knew they had every intention of using them to 

affect the outcome of the mother of all battles, as Saddam Hussein 

called it. Our youngsters went across that line of departure fully 

equipped in chemical gear because they thought they would be 

struck. 

Fortunately, they were not struck with chemical weapons, but 

not because the Iraqis did not have them. They did have them, and 

we found them. It was not a figment of anyone’s imagination. 

Those weapons were on the battlefield in the winter of 1991. And 

it was as a result of discovering those weapons that we had proof, 

evidence of what Saddam Hussein was still carrying in his inventories. 

I watched this situation for the remainder of my time as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I watched it in my retirement, and 

I watched it beginning day one after I was confirmed Secretary of 

State. And as we determined what kind of a threat the region and 

the Nation was facing as a result of Saddam Hussein and his continued ignoring of Security Council resolutions, we had to look at 

it as a threat by examining the intent of an opponent and the capability that opponent has. You put those two together, and it equals 

a threat. 

Intent: There was never any doubt in anyone’s mind and no intelligence agency, past, present or future, will ever demonstrate 

that Saddam Hussein gave up the intent to have such weapons. 

And we know he has used them in the past, willingly, against his 

own people and against Iran, I have been to Halabjah where those 

weapons were used, and I saw the graves of 5,000 people who were 

gassed in 1988 by Saddam Hussein. There was no question that he 

did have the intent, and he never lost that intent to have such 

weapons. He has demonstrated that if it came to it that he would 

use such weapons if he had no other choice or wasn’t stopped in 

the use of such weapons. The intent never went away, and there 

was no question about that from any of the President’s political advisers or any intelligence agency that was involved in this matter. 

The question is then did he have the capability? Capability 

comes in many forms. Do you have the intellectual ability? Do you 

have the people who can make these kinds of weapons? The answer 

is yes, he did. He had the people. Second level is did he have the 

infrastructure, the wherewithal? Yes, he did. There is no question 

in the intelligence community. Dr. Kay confirms it. Other intelligence agencies, and other nations confirm it. The U.N. confirmed 

it over a period of years of investigation from 1991 to 1998 before 

the inspectors left. President Clinton’s experts and the analyses 

that he went through led him to believe that this capability was 

there—the infrastructure, the knowledge, the know-how, people 

who could do it. Did he have factories that could be of a dual use 

nature that could produce this kind of material? Yes, he did. Did 

12

he have just-in-time capability, and was he developing it? Yes, he 

was. 

The one question that there is a dispute about is what was the 

stockpile level that might be there or not be there? I can assure 

you that as we went through this analysis and we looked at all 

these levels of capability, when it came to stockpiles, the preponderance of all information available to us, available to our many intelligence agencies, available to British intelligence, and intelligence agencies of other nations made it clear that the correct answer was: Yes, he had such weapons. He had such stockpiles. 

There was no doubt in my mind. 

A year and a few days ago when I was representing my country 

before the United Nations to make the case, I spent days out with 

the best of our analysts, with Director Tenet, and with Deputy Director McLaughlin at the CIA going over the case, making sure 

that everything I was going to say to the entire world that could 

be challenged immediately, that everything I said was supported by 

multisource intelligence that would back it up. 

That information was there. There wasn’t a word that was in 

that presentation that did not represent the consensus view of the 

intelligence community. There might have been objections on a 

point or another by one or other or more intelligence agencies, but, 

overall, the Director of Central Intelligence, who has the responsibility to break ties and make an informed judgment when there is 

a disagreement, and his analysts supported every word in that 

presentation, and I took it with great confidence into the United 

Nations. It was also the same information that was in the National 

Intelligence Estimate that was provided in the months before, I 

think it was November 2002, to Members of Congress and was the 

basis for the resolution that was correctly, rightfully passed by the 

Congress supporting the President and his actions. 

Now, we subsequently have learned that stockpiles have not 

been found. The work continues. The Iraqi Survey Group will continue its work under Mr. Duelfer. Dr. Kay has made a number of 

statements, and he has presented his impressions and findings to 

the world through Committee appearances, meeting with the President, and his public appearances. And he says he does not think 

the stockpiles are there. He has also said that there was no question about intent, no question about capability, no question about 

infrastructure, and no question in his mind that Saddam Hussein 

was in material breach of his obligations as contained in 12 years 

of U.N. resolutions. There was no question in Dr. Kay’s mind, just 

as there was no question in my mind or in that of the other President’s advisers, that this was something that had to be dealt with, 

was dealt with, and Dr. Kay said it was the right thing to do because this country under that leader was a greater threat than 

anyone might have imagined. 

The question of stockpiles is yet to be determined, as the work 

of the ISG continues. There is no question about whether the President had the right basis of information upon which to take the decisions that he took. He had the right basis. If any of those elements in the equation had changed, if Saddam Hussein had demonstrated having no intentions, which is most unlikely, but he was 

given that opportunity in the U.N. Resolution 1441. Give us an 

13

honest declaration. Tell us the truth and the U.N. would have responded in a different way. We might have responded in a different 

way. 

But he did not do that, and it is absolutely clear to me that the 

President made the right decision. It is also clear to those nations 

that joined us in the coalition that succeeded in putting this regime 

into the history books. 

We also saw that, as a result of our action, we have a dictator 

who will no longer be filling mass graves, a dictator who will no 

longer be using the money that has been given to him through the 

natural resource of his country, oil, to build weapons of mass destruction or to suppress one part of a population or another. Now 

we are faced with a situation where we are working hard with the 

new leadership of Iraq to put in place a government that will be 

representative of the people. 

We are looking forward to transferring sovereignty at the end of 

June, if all goes well, and we are pressing to that end. We have 

a difficult security program, as you can see today, as manifested by 

a terrible explosion, an explosion done by terrorists and other elements of the regime who do not recognize that their day is over 

and their day is gone. Their day will ultimately be totally gone as 

the security forces of Iraq gain in strength and capability and are 

able to defend their people from this kind of attack. These attacks 

are directed more against Iraq and Iraq’s bright future than they 

are against U.S. forces. They will be defeated and we will succeed. 

I believe that as we move forward we will have more and more 

nations join us. We are working with the United Nations now to 

give it a vital role to play. We are working with our European colleagues who had a difference of view about this a year ago, who 

are now meeting with us and talking about what NATO and other 

countries might be able to do as we move forward. We should be 

proud of what we have done as a Nation to free the people of Iraq 

and give them hope for a better future, and we shouldn’t allow debates over one part of this complex equation that I mentioned distract us from the reality that we did the right thing. We should be 

proud. 

As was noted by you, Mr. Chairman, it has had an effect in other 

parts of the region and other parts of the world. Libya has decided 

to give up its weapons of mass destruction, and it has been noted 

those materials are now flowing out of the country under our control. Libya did it for a variety of reasons. I will not put myself in 

Mr. Ghadafi’s mind. But he looked around, he saw that the United 

States and the international community of like-minded nations 

would take action, and he also took a look and said: What am I getting for all of this? All I have gotten is I have wasted a lot of 

money and a lot of junk in the desert I cannot use, and I have 

made myself a pariah on the world stage. He took the right decision. We hope that others will examine that same kind of situation, 

run their calculus and come to the same conclusion. And we hope 

that Iran, North Korea, Syria, and anyone else who is so inclined 

will take a hard look at this. We are working with the international community in all of these matters, working with the 

IAEA, with the United Nations on another resolution on proliferation activities, working with Pakistan. 

14

I have been talking to President Musharraf almost every week 

now for a long period of time about the Abdul Khan situation. The 

President has been deeply involved, and we now have seen a breakthrough where A.Q. Khan has now come forward and described 

what he has done. And President Musharraf, when I spoke to him 

over the weekend, has assured me that he would not stop the investigation until the whole thing is pulled up—as was said, root 

and branch—and we know everything about what A.Q. Khan was 

doing all around the world, and we roll this network up in its entirety and help President Musharraf get through this very difficult 

period. 

We will continue to support initiatives like Nunn-Lugar, and I 

will say a few words about this later when I talk about the President’s speech that he will be giving in the next hour or so. 

If I might linger for a moment on Mr. Lantos’ comments, I want 

to thank you for your support of the Millennium Challenge Account, now also manifested in the Millennium Challenge Corporation. I am proud to be the Chairman, and we had the first meeting 

of the Millennium Challenge Corporation last week, now that we 

have the legislation. We have already provided to the Congress the 

63 countries that are initially eligible under the law to be candidates for Millennium Challenge Account funding. We are moving 

with this program. It is an exciting program, and I will say more 

about it in a moment. 

Thank you, also, ladies and gentlemen, for what you have done 

with the HIV/AIDS program. Now that it is funded, you will see 

us move out quickly. Andy Tobias, the head of the office, will be 

announcing awards now that we have made notification to Congress, and over $300 million of awards will be going out. We want 

to move quickly. 

On Libya, Mr. Chairman, we have had a terrific success. Mr. 

Lantos, I thank you and congratulate you on the historic moment 

that took place when you landed in Tripoli, the first Member of 

Congress to do so in decades. And I thank you for the message you 

conveyed to Colonel Ghadafi and for the op-ed you wrote when you 

came back and the communications and information you have 

given us. 

We said to Libya, if you do the right thing you will see the right 

response from us. Assistant Secretary Burns met with Libyan officials last week, and we have laid out to them—you have seen it in 

the press—some of the things that we are prepared to do with respect to the lifting of travel restrictions, with respect to other matters of this nature. We want to help them with their most urgent 

needs. Hospitalization and medical care is one of their most immediate needs. We can help them with that and do that quickly. But 

we are laying out for them in a sensible, phased way what we are 

prepared to do as we verify the materials that have come out and 

make sure that we have gotten it all, and it has all come up, root 

and branch. 

We are also not unmindful, Mr. Lantos, of the nature of this regime, even after they have taken care of all of these matters. It is 

still not quite our full cup of tea, if I can put it that way. And we 

will be on guard, and we will make sure that they meet the standVerDate Mar 21 2002 15:36 Jun 02, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\021104\91796 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
15

ards that are expected of a nation that wants to join the international community. 

We will press this with Iran, with North Korea and Syria as examples of how you can just put yourself in a much better place in 

this world if you get rid of these foolish weapons that will do nothing for you except to bring the condemnation of the world, to bring 

you financial ruin and not put one plate of food in front of any citizen in your country. These kinds of weapons for these kinds of 

countries are nothing more than fool’s gold. 

With regard to North Korea, we will start another round of discussions on the 25th of February in the six-nation format and hope 

for progress, more progress than we have seen previously. And I 

am encouraged by the response of all of the other members of the 

six-party format. 

Mr. Chairman, I have taken a little bit longer than I thought I 

would with my extemporaneous remarks, so I will go rapidly 

through this shortened set of prepared remarks just to say that the 

President’s international affairs budget for 2005 totals $31.5 billion, broken down as foreign ops, $21.3 billion; state ops, $8.4 billion; P.L. 480 food aid, $1.2 billion; international broadcasting, 

$569 million; and the Institute For Peace, $22 million. 

The top priority reflected in this budget submission is winning 

the war on terrorism. Winning on the battlefield with our superb 

military forces is just one step in this effort. To eradicate terrorism 

altogether the United States must help create stable governments 

in nations that once supported terrorism, nations like Iraq and Afghanistan, and we must go after the terrorist support mechanisms 

as well as the terrorist themselves. 

We must help alleviate conditions in the world that enable terrorists to bring in new recruits to find fertile ground for their efforts. To these ends in 2005 our foreign affairs agencies will continue to focus on the reconstruction efforts in Iraq and the Afghanistan. We will continue to support our coalition partners to further 

counterterrorism, law enforcement, and intelligence cooperation, 

and we will continue to expand democracy and help generate prosperity, especially in the Middle East. 

Forty-eight percent of the President’s budget for foreign affairs 

supports the war on terrorism; $1.2 billion supports Afghan reconstruction security and democracy building activities; $5.7 billion 

provides assistance to countries around the world that have joined 

us in the war of terrorism; $3.5 billion indirectly supports the war 

on terrorism by strengthening our ability to respond to emergencies 

and to conflict situations; and, finally, $190 million is aimed at expanding democracy in the greater Middle East, which is crucial if 

we are to attack successfully the motivation for terrorism. 

Two of the greatest challenges facing us, of course, are Iraq and 

Afghanistan. I think I have touched on Iraq. I must add a word or 

two just to say that the Coalition Provisional Authority and the 

Iraqi Governing Council are working hard to bring the 15 November agreement into place, and I am pleased that the U.N. is now 

over there working with us. 

A lot is being done with respect to building up the Iraqi army, 

the Iraqi self defense forces, and the Iraqi police forces. Thousands 

of brave Americans, both in uniform and in mufti, are in Iraq now 

16

working tirelessly along with their military colleagues. Members of 

USAID, State Department and departments all across our government are working together to implement infrastructure democracy 

building, education, and health and economic development programs. 

You do not hear enough about these programs. You hear about 

a bomb going off, and that is news. You cannot ignore it or push 

it aside. But there are so many good things that are happening. 

Town councils are forming. PTAs are forming; civil society is working. And all of these efforts will really pay off as the people of Iraq 

realize that they will be in charge of their country, and they will 

decide how they are going to be governed in the future. 

Afghanistan is another high priority. The United States is committed to helping build a stable and democratic Afghanistan that 

is free from terror and no longer harbors threats to our security. 

After we and our coalition partners defeated the Taliban, we 

faced the daunting task of helping the Afghan people to rebuild 

their country. We have demonstrated our commitment to this effort 

by providing over $3.7 billion in economic and security assistance 

to Afghanistan since 2001. Through our assistance and the assistance of the international community, the government of Afghanistan is successfully navigating the transition that began in October 

2001. We saw that when the Afghan people adopted a constitution 

last month, and they have now turned their attention to preparing 

for national elections in June. 

Since 2001 the United States has rehabilitated 205 schools, 140 

health clinics, and we have done so many other things with respect 

to rebuilding the infrastructure in Afghanistan. The Kabul-toKandahar highway has now been completed—one of the President’s 

highest priorities. We have a lot more to do in Afghanistan, but I 

think we should see that we should be, once again as in Iraq, very 

proud of what we have been able to accomplish. 

We are making good progress and I would like to thank our coalition partners for all that they have done to bring us to this point 

of success. 

Mr. Chairman, we have a lot of other items in the program, including $700 million for Pakistan to help in regional efforts there, 

$461 million for Jordan to increase economic opportunities for Jordanian communities and to strengthen Jordan’s ability to secure its 

borders, and $577 million for Colombia to support President Uribe’s 

unified campaign against drugs and terrorism. We are helping all 

of those countries who wish to help themselves. 

The Millennium Challenge Account is going to do so much as a 

historic change in the way in which we provide development assistance. The greatest killer in the world today is HIV/AIDS, and no 

nation is as forward-leaning and doing as much as the United 

States to fight this terrible scourge on the face of humankind. 

In a few moments President Bush will be speaking at the National Defense University, and he will outline the Administration’s 

approach to another danger that continues to grow. Men and 

women of our own and other intelligence services have done superb 

and often dangerous work to unveil, to take the curtain down 

around some of these proliferating activities we have seen, including the proliferating activities of Mr. Abdul Khan in Pakistan. 

17

Now we and our friends can do more, working around the clock 

to get all the details of this network out and shut it down. And to 

do more, President Bush will be proposing new measures in his 

speech to strengthen the world’s efforts to prevent the spread of 

weapons of mass destruction, expanding the Proliferation Security 

Initiative to address more shipments and transfers, and to take direct action against proliferation networks. We are going to call on 

all nations to strengthen international controls that govern proliferation, expand our efforts to keep cold war weapons and other 

dangerous materials out of the hands of terrorists, close loopholes 

that exist in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and, finally, disallow countries under investigation from participating fully in the 

leadership of the IAEA. 

As the President will point out in his speech, the nexus of terrorists and weapons of mass destruction is a new and unique threat. 

It comes not with ships and fighters and tanks and divisions, but 

clandestinely in the dark of night, and the consequences are devastating. No President can afford to ignore such a threat, and this 

President will not ignore such a threat. 

Mr. Chairman, I am going to close my presentation now. There 

are so many other things that we could talk about. We are involved 

in so many things and so many different parts of the world. I am 

so proud of the diplomats that are serving in so many parts of the 

world. Ambassador John Blaney, our Ambassador in Liberia, came 

into the President’s office yesterday to describe what he is doing to 

bring Liberia back into the column of nations that believe in democracy. When you think of where we were just a few months ago, 

Mr. Payne and others who were so interested in this issue, it was 

very, very moving to see Chairman Bryant, the new leader of the 

transitional government of Liberia, meet with the President. 

I think of how close we are to the solution in the Sudan brought 

about by political and diplomatic efforts. We need only a little bit 

more work to be done. I see what we are doing with free trade 

agreements around the world as we expand the opportunity for 

trade to nations who would never would have dreamed of it a few 

years ago. I see all of these things happening, Mr. Chairman, and 

I get a good feeling because it says that America is being a leader 

in the world, whether it has to do with opening trade or ending 

proliferation, whether it has to do with fighting terrorists, whether 

it has to do with just sharing our values with the rest of the world. 

America is performing its leadership role of destiny, and I am 

pleased that the men and women of the State Department are 

playing their role. Moreover, I am very pleased to appear before 

this Committee, which has been so instrumental in providing us 

with the support and the wherewithal needed to play that role. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Powell follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE COLIN L. POWELL, SECRETARY, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify 

on the State Department’s portion of the President’s Budget Request for Fiscal Year 

2005. 

18

The President’s FY2005 International Affairs Budget for the Department of State, 

USAID, and other foreign affairs agencies totals $31.5 billion, broken down as follows:

• Foreign Operations—$21.3 billion

• State Operations—$8.4 billion

• P.L. 480 Food Aid—$1.2 billion

• International Broadcasting—$569 million

• U.S. Institute of Peace—$22 million

Mr. Chairman, the President’s top foreign policy priority is winning the war on 

terrorism. Forty-eight percent of the President’s budget for foreign affairs directly 

supports that priority by assisting our allies and strengthening the United States’ 

diplomatic posture. For example: $1.2 billion supports Afghanistan reconstruction, 

security and democracy building, and more than $5.7 billion is provided for assistance to countries around the world that have joined us in the war on terrorism, and 

$3.5 billion indirectly supports the war on terrorism by strengthening our ability to 

respond to emergencies and conflict situations. Moreover, $190 million is aimed at 

expanding democracy in the Greater Middle East, in part to help alleviate the conditions that spawn terrorists. 

In addition, $5.3 billion is targeted for the President’s bold initiatives to fight 

HIV/AIDS and create the Millennium Challenge Corporation, both of which will support stability and improve the quality of life for the world’s poor—and, again, help 

to relieve conditions that cause resentment and despair. 

Mr. Chairman, let me elaborate a bit on how some of these dollars will be spent. 

WINNING THE WAR ON TERRORISM

Winning on the battlefield with our superb military forces is just one step in defeating terrorism. To eradicate terrorism, the United States must help create stable 

governments in nations that once supported terrorism, go after terrorist support 

mechanisms as well as the terrorists themselves, and help alleviate conditions in 

the world that enable terrorists to bring in new recruits. To this end, in FY2005 

the State Department and USAID will continue to focus on the reconstruction of 

Iraq and Afghanistan, support our coalition partners to further our 

counterterrorism, law enforcement and intelligence cooperation, and expand democracy and help generate prosperity, especially in the Middle East. 

Building a Free and Prosperous Iraq 

The United States faces one of its greatest challenges in developing a secure, free 

and prosperous Iraq. The USG is contributing almost $21 billion in reconstruction 

funds and humanitarian assistance to this effort. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund are expected to provide another $4 to 8 billion in loans and 

grants over the next three years. These resources, coupled with the growing assistance of international donors, will ease the transition from dictatorship to democracy 

and lay the foundation for a market economy and a political system that respects 

human rights and represents the voices of all Iraqis. 

The Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) and the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC) 

have made great strides in the areas of security, economic stability and growth, and 

democratization. Iraqi security forces now comprise more than half of the total security forces in the country. In addition, the CPA has established a New Iraqi Army, 

issued a new currency and refurbished and equipped schools and hospitals. And, as 

you know, the CPA is taking steps to return sovereignty to the Iraqi people this 

summer. 

Much work remains to be done. Working with our coalition partners, we will continue to train Iraqi police, border guards, the Civil Defense Corps and the Army in 

order to ensure the country’s security as we effect a timely transition to democratic 

self-governance and a stable future. 

At the same time, we are helping provide critical infrastructure, including clean 

water, electricity and reliable telecommunications systems which are essential for 

meeting basic human needs as well as for economic and democratic development. 

Thousands of brave Americans, in uniform and in mufti, are in Iraq now working 

tirelessly to help Iraqis succeed in this historic effort. Alongside their military colleagues, USAID, State Department and the Departments of the Treasury and Commerce are working to implement infrastructure, democracy building, education, 

health and economic development programs. These efforts are producing real 

progress in Iraq. 

19

Winning the Peace in Afghanistan 

Mr. Chairman, Afghanistan is another high priority for this Administration. The 

U.S. is committed to helping build a stable and democratic Afghanistan that is free 

from terror and no longer harbors threats to our security. After we and our coalition 

partners defeated the Taliban government, we faced the daunting task of helping 

the Afghan people rebuild their country. We have demonstrated our commitment to 

this effort by providing over $3.7 billion in economic and security assistance to Afghanistan since 2001. 

Through our assistance and the assistance of the international community, the 

government of Afghanistan is successfully navigating the transition that began in 

October 2001. Afghanistan adopted a constitution last month and is preparing for 

democratic national elections in June. With technical assistance from the U.S., Afghanistan successfully introduced a new stable currency in October 2002 and is 

working to improve revenue collection in the provinces. The lives of women and girls 

are improving as women pursue economic and political opportunities and girls return to school. Since 2001, the United States has rehabilitated 205 schools and 140 

health clinics and trained thirteen battalions of the Afghan National Army (ANA). 

Also, President Bush’s commitment to de-mine and repave the entire stretch of the 

Kabul-Kandahar highway was fulfilled. The road had not been functional for over 

20 years. What was once a 30-hour journey can now be accomplished in 5 or 6 

hours. 

While the Afghanistan of today is very different from the Afghanistan of September 2001, there is still much left to accomplish. In the near-term, the United 

States will assist the government of Afghanistan in its preparations for elections in 

June to ensure that they are free and fair. To demonstrate tangible benefits to the 

Afghan people, we will continue to implement assistance on an accelerated basis. 

The FY2005 Budget contains $1.2 billion in assistance for Afghanistan that will be 

focused on education, health, infrastructure, and assistance to the ANA, including 

drawdown authority and Department of Defense ‘‘train and equip’’. For example, 

U.S. assistance efforts will concentrate on rehabilitation and construction of an additional 275 schools and 150 health clinics by June 2004, and complete training and 

equipping of fifteen army battalions. The U.S. will also extend the Kabul-Kandahar 

road to Herat so that people and commerce will be linked East and West across Afghanistan with a ground transportation link between three of the largest cities. 

Support for Our Coalition Partners 

As part of the war on terrorism, President Bush established a clear policy to work 

with other nations to meet the challenges of defeating terror networks with global 

reach. This commitment extends to the front-line states that have joined us in the 

war on terrorism and to those nations that are key to successful transitions to democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Our assistance enables countries cooperating closely with the United States to 

prevent future attacks, improve counter-terrorism capabilities and tighten border 

controls. As I indicated earlier, the FY2005 Budget for International Affairs provides more than $5.7 billion for assistance to countries around the world that have 

joined us in the war on terrorism, including Turkey, Jordan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, 

Indonesia and the Philippines. 

U.S. assistance has also resulted in unparalleled law enforcement and intelligence 

cooperation that has destroyed terrorist cells, disrupted terrorist operations and prevented attacks. There are many counterterrorism successes in cooperating countries 

and international organizations. For example:

• Pakistan has apprehended more than 500 al Qaeda terrorists and members 

of the Taliban through the leadership of President Musharraf, stronger border 

security measures and law enforcement cooperation throughout the country.

• Jordan continues its strong counterterrorism efforts, including arresting two 

individuals with links to al Qaeda who admitted responsibility for the October 

2002 murder of USAID Foreign Service officer Lawrence Foley in Amman.

• The North Atlantic Treaty Organization has endorsed an ambitious transformation agenda designed to enhance its capabilities by increasing deployment speed and agility to address new threats of terrorism.

• Colombia has developed a democratic security strategy as a blueprint for waging a unified, aggressive counterterror-counternarcotics campaign against designated foreign terrorist organizations and other illegal, armed groups.

The U.S. and its Southeast Asian allies and friends have made significant advances against the regional terrorist organization Jemaah Islamiyah which was responsible for the Bali attack in 2002 that killed more than 200 people. In early AuVerDate Mar 21 2002 15:36 Jun 02, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\FULL\021104\91796 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
20

gust 2003, an Indonesian court convicted and sentenced to death a key figure in 

that bombing. 

Since September 11, 2001, 173 countries have issued orders to freeze the assets 

of terrorists. As a result, terror networks have lost access to nearly $200 million in 

more than 1,400 terrorist-related accounts around the world. The World Bank, 

International Monetary Fund and other multilateral development banks have also 

played an important role in this fight by strengthening international defenses 

against terrorist finance. 

While progress has been made attacking terrorist organizations both globally and 

regionally, much work remains to be done. The FY2005 President’s Budget strengthens our financial commitment to our coalition partners to wage the global war on 

terror. Highlights of the President’s request include $700 million for Pakistan to 

help advance security and economic opportunity for Pakistan’s citizens, including a 

multi-year educational support program; $461 million for Jordan to increase economic opportunities for Jordanian communities and strengthen Jordan’s ability to 

secure its borders; and $577 million for Colombia to support President Uribe’s unified campaign against drugs and terrorism. 

In September 2003, at the United Nations, President Bush said: ‘‘All governments 

that support terror are complicit in a war against civilization. No government 

should ignore the threat of terror, because to look the other way gives terrorists the 

chance to regroup and recruit and prepare. And all nations that fight terror, as if 

the lives of their own people depend on it, will earn the favorable judgment of history.’’ We are helping countries to that judgment. 

Expansion of Democracy in the Middle East 

We believe that expanding democracy in the Middle East is critical to eradicating 

international terrorism. But in many nations of the Middle East, democracy is at 

best an unwelcome guest and at worst a total stranger. The U.S. continues to increase its diplomatic and assistance activities in the Middle East to promote democratic voices—focusing particularly on women—in the political process, support increased accountability in government, assist local efforts to strengthen respect for 

the rule of law, assist independent media, and invest in the next generation of leaders. 

As the President emphasized in his speech last November at the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), reform in the Middle East is of vital importance to the 

future of peace and stability in that region as well as to the national security of 

the United States. As long as freedom and democracy do not flourish in the Middle 

East, resentment and despair will continue to grow—and the region will serve as 

an exporter of violence and terror to free nations. For the United States, promoting 

democracy and freedom in the Middle East is a difficult, yet essential calling. 

There are promising developments upon which to build. The government of Jordan, for example, is committed to accelerating reform. Results include free and fair 

elections, three women holding Cabinet Minister positions for the first time in Jordan’s history, and major investments in education. Positive developments also can 

be found in Morocco, which held parliamentary elections last year that were acclaimed as free, fair and transparent. 

In April 2003, the Administration launched the Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI), an intensive inter-agency effort to support political and education reform and economic development in the region. The President continues his commitment by providing $150 million in FY2005 for these efforts. 

To enhance this USG effort with a key NGO, the President has doubled the NED 

budget to $80 million specifically to create a Greater Middle East Leadership and 

Democracy Initiative. NED is a leader in efforts to strengthen democracy and tolerance around the world through its work with civil society. We want that work to 

flourish. 

As President Bush said in his November speech at NED: ‘‘The United States has 

adopted a new policy, a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East. This strategy requires the same persistence and energy and idealism we have shown before. 

And it will yield the same results. As in Europe, as in Asia, as in every region of 

the world, the advance of freedom leads to peace.’’

Public Diplomacy in the Middle East 

And the advance of freedom is aided decisively by the words of freedom. 

Democracy flourishes with freedom of information and exposure to diverse ideas. 

The President’s FY2005 Budget promotes expansion of democracy in the Middle 

East by providing public access to information through exchange programs and the 

Middle East Television Network. 

21

New public diplomacy efforts including the Partnerships for Learning (P4L) and 

Youth Exchange and Study (YES) initiatives have been created to reach a younger 

and more diverse audience through academic and professional exchange programs. 

In FY2005, the P4L and the YES programs, funded at $61 million, will focus more 

on youth of the Muslim world, specifically targeting non-traditional, non-elite, often 

female and non-English speaking youth. 

U.S. broadcasting initiatives in the Middle East encourage the development of a 

free press in the American tradition and provide Middle Eastern viewers and listeners access to a variety of ideas. The U.S. revamped its Arabic radio broadcasts 

in 2002 with the introduction of Radio Sawa, which broadcasts to the region twentyfour hours a day. As a result, audience size for our Arabic broadcasting increased 

from under 2 percent in 2001 to over 30 percent in 2003. Based on this successful 

model, the U.S. introduced Radio Farda to broadcast to Iran around the clock. 

Building on this success, the FY2005 President’s Budget Request provides over $70 

million for Arabic and Persian radio and television broadcasts to the Middle East. 

In early 2004, the United States will launch the Middle East Television Network, 

an Arabic language satellite network that will have the capability of reaching millions of viewers and will provide a means for Middle Easterners to better understand democracy and free market policies, as well as the U.S. and its people. 

OUR NEW APPROACH TO GLOBAL PROSPERITY

President Bush’s approach to global economic growth emphasizes proven American values: governing justly, investing in people, and encouraging economic freedom. President Bush has pledged to increase economic engagement with and support for countries that commit to these goals through an ambitious trade agenda 

and new approaches to development assistance focusing on country performance and 

measurable results. 

The Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) 

In February of 2003, we sent the Congress a budget request for the MCA and legislation to authorize the creation of the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), 

the agency designed to support innovative development strategies and to ensure accountability for results. 

The MCC will fund only proposals for grants that have clear, measurable objectives, a sound financial plan and indicators for assessing progress. 

The Congress appropriated $1 billion for MCA for FY2004. The FY2005 Budget 

request of $2.5 billion makes a significant second year increase to the MCA and 

paves the way to reaching the President’s commitment of $5 billion in FY2006. 

Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) 

President Bush recognizes that the fastest, surest way to move from poverty to 

prosperity is through expanded and freer trade. America and the world benefit from 

free trade. For this reason, one of his first actions upon taking office in 2001 was 

to seek TPA, allowing him to negotiate market-opening agreements with other countries. The President aims to continue vigorously to pursue his free trade agenda in 

order to lift developing countries out of poverty, while creating high-paying job opportunities for America’s workers, businesses, farmers and ranchers and benefiting 

all Americans through lower prices and wider choices. As the President said in 

April, 2001 at the Organization of American States: ‘‘Open trade fuels the engines 

of economic growth that creates new jobs and new income. It applies the power of 

markets to the needs of the poor. It spurs the process of economic and legal reform. 

It helps dismantle protectionist bureaucracies that stifle incentive and invite corruption. And open trade reinforces the habits of liberty that sustain democracy over the 

long term.’’

Since receiving TPA in 2002, the President has made good on his promise, completing free trade agreements with Chile and Singapore, which were quickly approved by Congress and went into effect on January 1. We have recently completed 

negotiations with five Central American countries on the Central America Free 

Trade Agreement (CAFTA) and are working to bring the Dominican Republic into 

that agreement. Earlier this week, we announced the conclusion of an agreement 

with Australia. Negotiations are ongoing with Morocco, the Southern African Customs Union (SACU), Bahrain, and on the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas 

(FTAA). We are concluding comprehensive agreements that include market access 

for goods and services, strong intellectual property and investment provisions, and 

include commitments for strong environmental and labor protections by our partners. These arrangements benefit Americans and our trading partners. 

Building on this significant progress, the President intends to launch free trade 

negotiations with Thailand, Panama, and the Andean countries of Colombia, EcuaVerDate Mar 21 2002 15:36 Jun 02, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\FULL\021104\91796 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
22

dor, Bolivia and Peru. The President has also stated his vision for a Middle East 

Free Trade Area by 2013, to ignite economic growth and expand opportunity in this 

critical region. Finally, the President is committed to wrapping up successfully the 

World Trade Organization’s Doha agenda. The United States has taken the lead in 

re-energizing these negotiations following the Cancun Ministerial. 

CARING FOR THE WORLD’S MOST VULNERABLE CITIZENS

Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief 

When President Bush took office in January 2001, the HIV/AIDS pandemic was 

at an all time high, with the estimated number of adults and children living with 

HIV/AIDS globally at 37 million, with 68 percent of those individuals living in subSaharan Africa. From fiscal years 1993 to 2001 the total U.S. Government global 

AIDS budget was about $1.9 billion. As part of the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, 

the President proposed $2 billion in fiscal year 2004 as the first installment of a 

five-year, $15 billion initiative, surpassing nine years of funding in a single year. 

The President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief represents the single largest international public health initiative ever attempted to defeat a disease. The President’s 

Plan targets an unprecedented level of assistance to the 14 most afflicted countries 

in Africa and the Caribbean to wage and win the war against HIV/AIDS. In addition, programs will continue in 75 other countries. 

By 2008, we believe the President’s Plan will prevent seven million new infections, treat two million HIV-infected people, and care for 10 million HIV-infected individuals and those orphaned by AIDS in Botswana, Cote d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Guyana, Haiti, Kenya, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, South Africa, Tanzania, 

Uganda and Zambia. 

Announced during President Bush’s State of the Union address on January 28, 

2003, the Emergency Plan provides $15 billion over five years for those countries 

hardest hit by the pandemic, including $1 billion for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, 

Tuberculosis and Malaria. The FY2005 Budget provides $2.8 billion from State, 

USAID, and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to combat global 

AIDS, more than tripling funding for international HIV/AIDS since the President 

took office. 

Over the past year, we have worked with the Congress to pass legislation laying 

the groundwork for this effort and to appoint a senior official at the State Department to coordinate all U.S. Government international HIV/AIDS activities. Ambassador Randall Tobias has been confirmed by Congress and has now taken steps to 

assure immediate relief to the selected countries. He announced mechanisms to initiate services in five key areas, such as care for orphans and vulnerable children 

as well as care and antiretroviral treatment for HIV-infected adults. 

As a crucial next step, the FY2005 Budget Request expands on the Emergency 

Plan. By working together as a highly collaborative team, and placing primary ownership of these efforts in the hands of the countries that we are helping—just as 

you will recall the Marshall Plan did so successfully in post-WWII Europe—the Department of State, USAID and HHS can use significantly increased resources quickly and effectively to achieve the President’s ambitious goals in the fight against 

global AIDS. 

Mr. Chairman, President Bush summed it up this way in April of last year, 

‘‘There are only two possible responses to suffering on this scale. We can turn our 

eyes away in resignation and despair, or we can take decisive, historic action to turn 

the tide against this disease and give the hope of life to millions who need our help 

now. The United States of America chooses the path of action and the path of hope.’’ 

These dollars put us squarely on that path. 

Emergency Humanitarian Assistance—Helping Others in Need 

The President’s Budget Request reflects a continued commitment to humanitarian 

assistance. The request maintains U.S. leadership in providing food and non-food assistance to refugees, internally displaced persons, and other vulnerable people in all 

corners of the world. In addition, the budget reflects the findings of the Program 

Assessment Rating Tool (PART) evaluations completed for the United Nations High 

Commissioner for Refugees and for USAID’s Public Law 480 Title II international 

food assistance, which confirmed a clear purpose for these programs. 

In 2003, the Administration provided funding to several international and nongovernmental organizations to assist nearly 200,000 Angolan refugees and internally displaced persons return home after decades of civil war. 

In an Ethiopia enveloped by drought, the Administration led international efforts 

to prevent widespread famine among 13 million vulnerable people, providing over 

one million metric tons of emergency food aid (valued at nearly half a billion dollars) 

23

to the World Food Program and NGOs, funding immunizations for weakened children, and supplying emergency seeds to farmers. 

In Sudan, the Administration worked with the United Nations and the Government of Sudan so that vital assistance could be delivered to the Sudanese people. 

This year the U.S. will provide about $210 million in vital assistance to the people 

in the south, including approximately 125,000 metric tons (valued at nearly $115 

million) in food aid, as well as non-food assistance, such as sanitation and water. 

We anticipate that a comprehensive peace agreement in Sudan will allow us to expand significantly our development assistance to help the Sudanese people in effecting a long-awaited recovery following decades of civil war. The FY2005 Budget includes $436 million in humanitarian and development, economic, and security assistance funding, much of which will be contingent upon a peace settlement between 

the government and the south. 

The FY2005 Budget ensures that the Administration can continue to respond 

quickly and appropriately to victims of conflict and natural disasters and to help 

those in greatest need of food, shelter, health care and other essential assistance, 

including those in areas starting to recover from conflict and war, such as Liberia. 

In particular, the budget requests funding for a flexible account to give the President the ability to respond to unforeseen emergency needs, the Emergency Fund for 

Complex Foreign Crises, funded at $100 million. 

KEEPING AMERICANS SAFE AT HOME AND ABROAD

Mr. Chairman, we also have a sacred responsibility to look to the security of our 

citizens, here and overseas, when that security is a part of our responsibility. 

Capital Security Cost Sharing Program 

The State Department has the responsibility to protect more than 60,000 U.S. 

Government employees who work in embassies and consulates abroad. Since the 

1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa, the State Department has improved physical security overseas; however, as many of you are well aware, many 

posts are still not secure enough to withstand terrorist attacks and other dangers. 

To correct this problem, in 1999, the State Department launched a security upgrade 

and construction program to begin to address requirements in our more than 260 

embassies and consulates. 

Working with the Congress, President Bush has accelerated the pace of improving 

and building new secure facilities. Moreover, we have reorganized the Overseas 

Buildings Office to manage the effort with speed, efficiency, and effectiveness. Within the budget, we are launching a plan to replace the remaining 150 embassies and 

consulates that do not meet current security standards over the next 14 years, for 

a total cost of $17.5 billion. To fund construction of these new embassy compounds, 

we will begin the Capital Security Cost Sharing (CSCS) Program in FY2005. We 

will implement this program in phases over the next five years. 

Each agency with staff overseas will contribute annually towards construction of 

the new facilities based on the number of positions and the type of space they occupy. We arrived at the cost shares in the FY2005 President’s Budget Request in 

consultations with each agency and the State Department’s Overseas Buildings Office. 

CSCS is also a major component of the President’s Management Agenda Initiative 

on Rightsizing. Along with securing facilities, we have focused on assuring that 

overseas staffing is deployed where they are most needed to serve U.S. interests. 

As agencies assess the real cost of maintaining staff overseas, they will adjust their 

overseas staffing levels. In this way, new embassies will be built to suit appropriate 

staffing levels. The program is already producing rightsizing results. Agencies are 

taking steps to eliminate unfilled positions from their books to reduce any unnecessary CSCS charges, which in turn is leading to smaller embassy construction requirements. 

Border Security 

Prior to September 11, 2001, the State Department’s consular officers focused primarily on screening applicants based on whether they intended to work or reside 

legally in the United States. In deciding who should receive a visa, consular officers 

relied on State Department information systems as the primary basis for identifying 

potential terrorists. The State Department gave overseas consular officers the discretion to determine the level of scrutiny that should be applied to visa applications 

and encouraged the streamlining of procedures. 

Today, Consular Affairs at the State Department, working with both Customs and 

Border Protection and the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services at the 

24

Department of Homeland Security, are cooperating to achieve our goals more effectively by sharing information and integrating information systems. 

The Department of State has invested substantial time, money, and effort in revamping its visa and passport process as well as its provision of American Citizen 

Services. The Department has more than doubled its database holdings on individuals who should not be issued visas, increased training for all consular officers, established special programs to vet applications more comprehensively, increased the 

number of skilled, American staff working in consular sections overseas, and improved data-sharing among agencies. The State Department, along with the Department of Homeland Security, is currently developing biometrics, such as fingerprints, 

digital photographs or iris scans, for both visas and passports in order to fulfill requirements of the Patriot and Border Security Acts and the International Civil Aviation Organization. 

As a part of the State Department’s efforts to screen visa applicants more effectively, and in particular to ensure that a suspected terrorist does not receive a visa 

to enter the United States, we will be an active partner in the Terrorist Screening 

Center (TSC). The TSC, established in December 2003, will maintain a single, consolidated watchlist of terrorist suspects to be shared with Federal, state, local and 

private entities in accordance with applicable law. The Department of State will also 

participate in the Terrorist Threat Integration Center (TTIC), a joint-effort aimed 

at reducing the potential of intelligence gaps domestically and abroad. 

To achieve our goal of secure borders and open doors, in FY2005 the State Department plans to expand the use of biometrics to improve security in the visa and passport processes; more effectively fill gaps worldwide by hiring people with specific 

skills including language expertise; improve and maintain all consular systems; and 

more broadly expand data sharing with all agencies with border control or immigration related responsibilities. The budget in FY2005 includes $175 million for biometric projects including photographs and fingerprints to comply with Border Security 

and Patriot Acts. 

The Border Security program underwent a PART analysis in the development of 

the FY2004 and FY2005 budgets and this budget request reflects the results of 

those analyses. The Department is moving ahead on program management improvements that clearly link to the Department of Homeland Security goals related to 

visa policy. 

THE CRITICAL IMPORTANCE OF DIPLOMATIC READINESS

We created the Diplomatic Readiness Initiative (DRI) in 2002 to address staffing 

and training gaps that had become very adverse to the conduct of America’s diplomacy. The goal of DRI was to hire 1,158 new foreign and civil service employees 

over a three-year period. These new hires, the first over-attrition hires in years, 

would allow us to provide training opportunities for our people and greatly improve 

the Department’s ability to respond to crises and emerging priorities overseas and 

at critical domestic locations. To bring these new people on board—and to select the 

best men and women possible—we significantly improved Department hiring processes, to include recruiting personnel from more diverse experience and cultural 

backgrounds and people who could fill critical skill gaps. In the process, we broke 

records in recruiting and thus had the best and the brightest from which to select. 

The Department of State will be reaping the benefits from this process for many 

years to come. We also created new mandatory leadership and management training, enhanced public diplomacy and consular training, and made significant increases in the amount of language training available for new Foreign Service Officers. DRI hiring has supported the Department’s efforts in responding to crises since 

September 11th and provided the additional resources necessary to staff overseas 

locations that truly represent the front line in the war on terrorism. 

Some of these positions, however, are being diverted to support new requirements 

not envisioned by DRI, such as permanently staffing new embassies in Afghanistan, 

Iraq, Sudan, and possibly in Tripoli. Because of this, the FY2005 Budget Request 

provides additional resources to continue our DRI commitment. 

DRI has allowed the Department to focus on recruiting, training and retaining a 

high quality work force, sized to requirements that can respond more flexibly to the 

dynamic and demanding world in which we live. We need to continue it. 

USAID has begun a similar effort to address gaps in staffing in technical skills, 

calling it the Development Readiness Initiative. USAID plans to hire approximately 

40 Foreign Service Officers in FY2004 under this initiative. This Budget Request 

includes authority for USAID to hire up to 50 additional Foreign Service Officers 

in FY2005, in order to fill critical skill gaps identified through a comprehensive 

workforce analysis. 

25

Mr. Chairman, I have focussed your attention for long enough. There is more in 

the President’s Budget Request for FY2005; but what I have outlined above represents the top priorities for the State Department. I will be pleased to answer any 

questions you have about these priorities or about any other portion of the budget 

request in which you are interested. If I cannot answer the question myself, I have 

a Department full of great people who can; and I will get you an answer for the 

record. 

Thank you.

Chairman HYDE. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. As much praise as 

I have for the Administration on fighting the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, I must take this opportunity to express my 

concerns about our policies with regard to defense, trade and export controls. In continuing to give weapons of mass destruction 

and long-range missiles our urgent priority, we must also not overlook the fact that all of the casualties to date inflicted on us and 

our friends and allies by foreign terrorists have come from their 

use of conventional munitions and dual-use technologies. These 

areas demand our continued vigilance. 

And you and I have worked together on several export control 

issues, including the QRS–11 issue and license-free defense exports 

for the UK and Australia. Despite some procedural fumbling, we 

did reach a successful resolution on the QRS–11. 

This morning I provided to you a letter outlining our views in 

some detail on the ITAR waivers. Mr. Secretary, as you know, we 

have differences of opinion on the merits of the Administration’s 

proposal. We feel expanded cooperation with the UK and Australia 

should occur without subjecting our interests to increased risk. We 

hope you will take into consideration our concerns and modify your 

proposals. 

Given our interaction on those issues, I think you appreciate that 

Mr. Lantos and I both have strongly held views about the need to 

uphold the principles contained in the Arms Export Control Act 

and we would be very concerned with more proposals to relax export controls over U.S. weapons and dual use technology in the 

midst of a war on terror. The Committee understands that the Administration is very close to announcing a new presidential policy 

directive on export controls for U.S. weapons and technology, and 

this new policy has apparently been developed in response to a review which the Administration announced was under way in November 2002. I think you will find the same level of concern in the 

Armed Services Committee from Chairman Hunter, as well as in 

Homeland Security under Chairman Cox. 

But nothing has been said to any of us about the new policy that 

will be coming out soon. In that regard, I would appreciate very 

much, before this new policy is announced, that you or Dr. Rice 

brief the leadership of these Committees in advance of any announcement, and I would be happy to host such a meeting if we 

could bring that about. 

And now at long last, Mr. Lantos. 

Mr. LANTOS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to 

thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your outstanding statement. 

I would like to ask a series of interrelated questions about Libya. 

So if you will bear with me for a minute, they will all relate to 

Libya, but they are all very important, different facets of our relationship. 

26

First, Mr. Secretary, how would you assess the progress Libya 

has made in fulfilling its pledge of ridding itself of weapons of mass 

destruction and the means to deliver them? Is there any evidence 

of backsliding by the Libyan regime? Once Libya has met its WMD 

commitments, what mechanism will be put in place to ensure that 

Libya does not restart these programs? 

Secondly, has the Administration developed a road map for normalization with Libya? Do you plan to lift all the sanctions once 

Libya has fulfilled its commitments on WMD and terrorism, or do 

you foresee an extended period of defining Libyan intentions even 

after Libya meets its weapons of mass destruction commitments? 

Will the establishment of full diplomatic relations be tied to 

issues other than WMD and terrorism, such as human rights or an 

apology for the Pan Am 103 atrocity? 

What is the current state of Libya’s involvement with terrorism, 

if any? What more must it do to achieve removal from the list of 

state sponsors of terrorism? What steps, Mr. Secretary, is the Administration taking to prepare to integrate Libyan scientists and 

technicians into the international scientific community through retraining, collaborative research and academic exchanges? 

I understand the Department of State funds nongovernmental organizations with expertise in engaging former weapons scientists 

overseas with United States scientists. I would encourage you to 

utilize the expertise of such organizations. Such activities would 

help ensure that scientists and technicians who would otherwise be 

left unemployed as Libya divests itself of WMD are engaged only 

in peaceful activities. And there are few tasks more urgent if we 

are to ensure that the authors of Libya’s WMD programs do not 

use their highly coveted knowledge to create new problems in 

Libya or elsewhere in the region. 

Likewise, Mr. Secretary, I am particularly eager to hear about 

your plans for preparing to bring Libyan students to the United 

States and to send American professors to Libya, once Libya has 

been removed from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. 

I know from my contacts in Libya that the Libyans place the 

highest possible priority, both on retraining their scientists and on 

student exchanges, and I urge you to begin laying the groundwork 

for such programs as soon as possible. I assure you this Committee 

will be fully supportive of your efforts. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary POWELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Lantos. Almost everything you mentioned on your list is a work in progress and is 

somewhere on a roadmap going forward. With regard to Pan Am 

103, an arrangement has been struck between the families and 

Libya which resolved that matter with respect to compensation to 

the families 

As we go down our roadmap, more compensation becomes available to the families under the terms of the agreement that the families have with Libya. I would always consider it appropriate for 

Libya to do more if they could with respect to Pan Am 103 than 

is contained within this settlement between the families, such as 

acknowledging fully their responsibility at the highest levels of the 

government. We are not, however, making that a barrier to our 

ability to go forward 

27

On the very first question you raise, though, how are they doing 

with respect to what they said they would do, the answer is very, 

very—well, almost astonishing to an old warrior who had to pull 

out of the Soviet Union one warhead at a time. In the case of the 

Libyans, I had to retrain myself and some of the old timers on the 

staff that this situation is not like the Soviet Union. 

They are pushing material at us. And they have been forthcoming. We went in there with the IAEA. People thought we would 

have a blowup with the IAEA. We didn’t. IAEA personnel and inspectors are working alongside American and UK inspectors in a 

good spirit of cooperation. No problems, no fights. Material is coming out well. They are exceeding my expectations as to what they 

would do. 

And they have shown no indication so far that they are going to 

try, frankly, to hide something. We will be vigilant, and we will follow everything we know, every lead we have, and make sure we 

bring it up as has been said, ‘‘root and branch.’’

Once we have reached that point, then we will have to make 

judgments as to whether monitoring remains the thing to do or is 

the appropriate thing to do. What is it we are monitoring if there 

are no more chemical stocks we are aware of, and if the facilities 

that could have been used for illicit purposes are gone? What then 

is the appropriate monitoring regime if one is necessary? We have 

experts looking at that. 

The roadmap has been developed. You are familiar with it. Ambassador Burns started to explore it with the Libyans last week, 

as I mentioned, and, as they perform satisfactorily, which they 

have done so far, then we will start to take steps, such as letting 

people visit. That then ultimately leads to student visits. We do 

have programs to retrain scientists. We will be looking at that. We 

have always had an interest section in Tripoli, in the Belgian Embassy. We now have sent American diplomats to be in that interest 

section, and in due course, we will have our own facility in place, 

which we hope will grow into an Embassy and have normal relations as this whole thing unfolds. We think the wisest course right 

now is to proceed in a deliberate way with some haste, but not so 

much haste that we fail to make sure that we have verified everything that they said that they were going to do, and they have done 

these things to our satisfaction. 

I think, Mr. Lantos, that you will be pleased at the plans we are 

putting together, and I hope it unfolds the way we have seen it unfold in the last several weeks. 

Mr. LANTOS. Thank you, Mr. Secretary 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Secretary, all Congressional retirements 

aren’t equal, and some deserve a pause for reflection. And since the 

last time the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, was in this 

room in a public session, he has announced his retirement, and indeed his early departure from the House. No one on this Committee is more respected than Doug Bereuter for his involvement 

in our work and for his sober judgment. His contribution has been 

sustained and substantive. The Asia Foundation is indeed lucky to 

have him as its next President, and we all sincerely wish him a 

long and successful tenure there. He will certainly be missed by 

28

those of us who are privileged to work with him in the past, and 

we wish the very best to you, Doug. 

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues on the Democratic 

side fully identify ourselves with your comments of praise and recognition for our friend Doug Bereuter, his enormous contributions 

to the work of this Committee, and indeed the Congress, and Doug 

will be sorely missed by all of us. 

Chairman HYDE. Thank you, Tom. 

Mr. Bereuter is recognized for a question period. 

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. 

Lantos, for your kind remarks. As a matter of fact, I think I had 

recommendations from both sides of the aisle that I leave the Congress and take the Asia Foundation position. I think it is a national 

treasure, and I look forward to working with this Committee as 

soon as the ethics rules allow. 

Mr. Secretary, it is good to see you here, and thank you for your 

exceptional leadership. I still have responsibilities in Europe, so I 

am not going to ask a question on Asia today, although the temptation is there. 

As you know, Mr. Secretary, Senator Biden and Senator Lugar 

advanced a resolution which suggested strongly that NATO take a 

larger role in Iraq and that in fact those assets and the programs 

of the United Nations that could be used would be asked to be used 

by the United States and coalition partners, and that passed by 

overwhelming vote unanimously. And I took that exact language 

and added it without dissent to another bill, neither of which have 

become law, but I think they are a clear indication to the Administration that this is the direction the Congress thinks that the Administration and the coalition should take. I note with great interest and appreciation that some of our allies that were vocally in 

dissent in February of last year, and before that in the Security 

Council, seem to have moderated their views and perhaps are moving in that direction. 

And the effort that NATO supports, the so-called Polish units 

supported by several other countries, I understand, may well be 

something in which NATO directly takes a larger role in the future. 

Mr. Secretary, would you advance your thoughts and what you 

know about this subject and what the prospects are for us to have 

a larger NATO and a larger appropriate role in transformation reconstruction by the United Nations? 

Secretary POWELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Bereuter. If I may 

start my reply by also congratulating you for your service here. I 

look forward to working with you at the Asia Foundation. 

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you. 

Secretary POWELL. We will have even more to do together than 

we have had in this particular relationship. I wrote a letter to you 

yesterday, and I hope it gets delivered in the very near future. 

Congratulations to you, sir. 

Mr. BEREUTER. We go through a variety of cleansing processes on 

our mail here. 

Secretary POWELL. I know. There is nothing in the envelope, sir. 

When you see Secretary of State, please don’t be worried. 

29

I believe NATO can play an important role in Iraq, and I had 

been conveying to my colleagues in NATO that they should give 

this serious consideration. I started that last spring, just as the 

war was coming into its final phase of active combat operations, 

and Saddam Hussein had been dispatched into hiding. To my great 

surprise, no nation would speak against it to say we are not for it. 

Now, not everybody was ready to commit troops to it, but no nation 

was prepared to stop it, because the pitch we made was we had a 

big fight over whether there should be a war, but we had a war, 

and a bad guy was really gone. Now we have to come together as 

the NATO alliance, the United States, the EU, within the United 

Nations to support the reconstruction of Iraq, and part of that includes security. 

Since then, since last spring and up to the meeting this last 

weekend, there has been sometimes slow, sometimes fast—depending on different countries—but there has been increasing acceptance that NATO does have a role to play. Even the Germans, as 

you may have noticed in weekend reporting, said we don’t think we 

would send troops, but we wouldn’t object to NATO playing a role. 

What role should NATO play? Most of NATO’s countries are 

there now. It is somewhere between 17 and 19 of the 26 that have 

troops there now. It is not as if there is a huge reservoir of troops 

that suddenly becomes available when it shifts to a NATO mission, 

but you do get NATO headquarters, you do get NATO involvement 

and the alliance involved. And that is important, even if it doesn’t 

generate many more troops on the ground, although it could. 

I think the easiest way to start this would be for NATO to assume responsibility for the zone that you described, where the 

Poles and the Spaniards and the UK and others are working. That 

would plug right into our troops. And if it should all take place at 

the time that sovereignty is transferred, then you would have 

NATO working with a sovereign government, which I also think is 

a nice visual for the whole thing as well as a proper policy outcome. 

We are encouraging our NATO allies to look at this. 

The Secretary General of NATO—the new Secretary General, 

Jaap De Hoop Scheffer, was here last week, and we talked about 

this in considerable detail. He is supportive of it. He cautions, however, that Afghanistan has to come first for NATO. They are now 

in Afghanistan. They have to make sure they have that right, and 

they do that well. But he is already thinking about what NATO 

can do in Iraq, and we will be pursuing this in the spring. We 

might be ready to make the appropriate decisions at the Istanbul 

NATO summit at the end of June if, perhaps, not before. If we can 

do it before, fine, but at least ratify it when all the heads of State 

are together in Istanbul. 

The U.N. would certainly be interested in what these arrangements are. Right now, I don’t expect to see the U.N. playing a significant role in security arrangements, even though under the current U.N. Resolution 1511, it is a multinational force that is there, 

not just a U.S. and coalition force. 

We are working through all of these issues, but working in the 

direction that you suggested, Mr. Bereuter, and that is for NATO 

to play a role. 

30

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Berman. 

Mr. BERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you for being 

here. As you were speaking earlier, it occurred to me, particularly 

in the context of both Libya and Pakistan, maybe one day in the 

context of Iran, there is tension between our different interests, 

and I would be curious if you would be willing to speak your 

thoughts on how one balances those tensions. As a general rule, 

underlying U.S. foreign policy is a fundamental belief that universal human conditions are better and our national security is better when people get to participate in their own governance through 

the democratic process in one variation or another, when there is 

respect for individual rights, when the concepts of an acceptance of 

pluralism is inculcated and institutionalized in different regimes. 

And the President spoke really quite forcefully on this in the context of the Middle East recently. The vision for what Iraq would 

hopefully become certainly reflects those values. 

At the same time, September 11th, terrorism, weapons of mass 

destruction and their relationship should be, I think, fairly obvious 

to everyone, and the importance for our security interests and that 

of our allies and friends around the world who deal with that also 

requires us to give great attention to those issues. 

In the case of Pakistan and in the case of Libya, we talk about 

what we hope might happen. We have such important interests in 

Pakistan in terms of helping with the areas under Pakistan sovereignty where al-Qaeda still may be harbored, in terms of promoting negotiations with the Indians on Kashmir and stopping 

support for the terrorists there, and in terms of getting rid of Pakistan’s really stunning role as proliferator of weapons of mass destruction and technology. 

At the same time, Musharraf is not a democrat. In a sense, the 

corruption of some of the institutional processes there and the military and the intelligence services is pretty well known. How one 

works through a sensible bilateral relationship in the context of 

that, the same could apply to Libya as you talked about that, and 

I am curious how you would work through those. And with Iran, 

there are doubts about whether they are even committed to their 

agreement that they made with the European leaders. Their continued support for terrorism is obvious; and, of course, we have this 

stunning situation where what is happening to those people who 

stand for reform and change in Iran in terms of the upcoming election, and the unwillingness apparently of the elected leadership of 

Iran to confront the guardians and this council that is knocking 

people out of the election contests draws the point there. 

How do we relate to Iran in all these different facets? I am curious how you work through balancing these. 

Secretary POWELL. It is what I spend most of my day doing, Mr. 

Berman. I have to play the cards that I am dealt, and I play those 

cards in accordance with the President’s direction. His direction 

starts out with our belief in our value system, and we believe that 

our value system is more than just for Americans. It is universal 

freedom, democracy, and individual rights of men and women. We 

take these values to every country that we have relations with, 

31

whether they are in sync with us and believe as we do, or whether 

they don’t. I can give the same sermon about these values, and it 

almost comes down to a sermon. I can give it just as easily in Pakistan as I can in India. 

And if I ever get to Tripoli, I will give them the same sermon, 

and the reason I can do this is because I believe in these universal 

values. But even more important than that, they lead to a system 

that works in the 21st century. Democracy and open economic systems and letting people pursue their own dreams and ambition, 

this is what works, and more and more nations are discovering it. 

And more and more nations are shifting over to the democratic column. Look at Eastern Europe. Look at our own hemisphere. More 

and more nations are realizing what they have to move away from. 

They have to move away from forms of government that do not 

allow people to be represented fully, but it doesn’t happen overnight. Diplomacy isn’t like combat action, as I have discovered. It 

isn’t something that is resolved overnight. It takes time. It takes 

persuasion, and you have to be considerate of the pace at which a 

particular country can move. 

When I go back to Pakistan, let me take Pakistan as an example, 

on the evening of the 13th of September 2001—or the morning of 

the 14th, 2 days after 9/11, I placed a phone call to President 

Musharraf. This was after my deputy, Mr. Armitage, had sent a 

list of demands and suggestions and recommendations as to what 

Pakistan should do. At that point there was no parliament functioning. General Musharraf was General Musharraf. The regime 

was supporting the Taliban. We told him it is time to start changing, and he did. And here it is now a couple of years later. 

He is still the President, but there is a parliament that is functioning, and there is a Prime Minister. He still has ultimate power. 

We talked to him about changing his education system. He is doing 

that. We talked to him about open trade, and he is moving in that 

direction. We talked to him about A.Q. Khan, and we talked to him 

about the problems that we saw in that man and his institutions, 

and now he has moved on that. 

I think we have seen the kind of progress we like to see going 

in the right direction, keeping in mind that during a large part of 

the last couple of years with Pakistan, we have also worried about 

a major war breaking out that could have been nuclear between 

India and Pakistan. We worked all of that. There was no war. 

There was no nuclear exchange. Those two countries are now talking to one another. They are exchanging high commissioners, and 

trade is starting to go across the border. They have met with each 

other, and now the A.Q. Khan situation has been dealt with. There 

is more to do but matters have certainly been dealt with in the 

first instance, and we are making progress in a place like Pakistan. 

But I can’t hold it yet to the standard that you and I would expect 

to see in our own country, or among our western European friends, 

a country of one of our western European allies. 

What we do is we never step back from our value system. We 

never fail to preach to them. The Congress has given me a number 

of tools to work with, human rights tools, trafficking in person 

tools, other requirements that you gave me to make sure that I am 

applying this value system in our foreign policy activities. 

32

We have good relations with China—the best relations we have 

had with China in 30 years, I would submit—good economic relations, good cooperation on regional issues. But at the same time we 

preach to them, we let them know there are consequences if they 

don’t obey the standards having to do with the World Trade Organization requirements that they entered into on human rights, or 

religious freedom, or tolerance of other points of view. China hasn’t 

become a full democracy overnight, but it is certainly not where it 

was 20 years ago. 

The value system that you started out with, Mr. Berman, is the 

foundation stone for the President’s foreign policy. It is what we 

spend an enormous amount of our time in the department doing. 

Balancing this value system against what a particular country is 

doing and then determining what should we do with that country 

to keep it moving, not just to serve a particular interest we have 

in a moment in time, but to keep it moving so that it slowly but 

surely moves in the direction. Not because we want them to, but 

because we think it is best for them to move in that direction in 

order to create a more peaceful environment in their part of the 

world, a more peaceful world and to have them join a community 

of nations that believes in democracy and believes in the individual 

dignity of men and women and believes in open economic systems. 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Chris Smith. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Secretary, thank you for the extraordinary job that 

you, President Bush and John Miller and so many others are doing 

on the human slave and trafficking-in-persons effort. 

As I think you would agree, smart sanctions do work. When the 

threat of those sanctions hung over Israel, Turkey, Greece and 

South Korea, they did an enormous amount of work to get off of 

the list, the tier 3 list, as we call it, and more importantly, to make 

reforms to mitigate and hopefully end trafficking within their own 

country. 

I would just ask you one of the new tools as you mentioned a moment ago that we have given to the department is the whole idea 

of the watch list, and I hope that that watch list, which the President just signed into law, is part of a whole package of new tools 

will be used very, very rigorously. There are countries like Russia 

where we are still waiting for and holding our breath and hopefully 

soon we will see the necessary legislation get enacted. 

Take a look, if you would, Mr. Secretary, at the Netherlands. A 

recent rapporteur report suggested that something on the order of 

80 percent of the women who are being bought and sold every day 

in the Netherlands are foreigners, a significant portion of which 

have been trafficked, yet they are tier 1. I would hope that they 

would be looked at with some real scrutiny. 

Just in the ongoing, one of the tier 3 countries—and this deserves I think a real look—Uzbekistan’s President’s daughter, 

Gulnara Karimova, has been linked to trafficking, and there are 

others who are very high up in government that whenever this information comes forward, we ought to be following it up very rigorously. 

On religious freedom, Mr. Secretary, yesterday the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom testified that they think 

33

there ought to be at least 11 countries on the CPC list, the countries of particular concern, including Vietnam, and I would encourage you to look at those countries. John Hanford, our U.S. Special 

Ambassador for Religious Affairs, said that it is under a very, very 

active review, and it seems to me looking at what is going on in 

Vietnam, including the renunciation of faith that the government 

is imposing on some religious believers, warrants, I think, CPC 

designation. 

Thirdly, you mentioned China briefly, but China continues to be 

a basket case when it comes to human rights issues. They continue 

to repress all dissidents. The one-child-per-couple policy remains 

one of the worst assaults in human history, I should say, on women 

and children, as well as on families where children are illegal if 

they are not explicitly authorized by the state, and of course, that 

is enforced by forced abortion and forced sterilization. 

And finally, as you know, I chair the Helsinki Commission, and 

I continually hear criticisms of what goes on at Guantanamo. I 

have gone there, with others, and didn’t find any of the torture 

that was being talked about by our friends and allies in Europe. 

But why don’t we have, in Europe, the same kind of expression of 

angst and opposition to what goes on right across the borderline, 

and that is to say what goes on in Havana with Fidel Castro? 

As we all know, he recently rounded up some of the best and the 

brightest and the bravest in Cuba, including Dr. Roscer Bassett 

and others, and has meted out 25-, 26-, 27-year prison terms for 

aspiring to democracy and for speaking the truth to power. 

I would hope that our European allies—they did initially, a few 

of them—would speak out against these atrocities that are going on 

in Cuba today. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary POWELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Smith. With respect to trafficking in persons, I think you know how aggressively 

the department is pursuing this issue and how much we appreciate 

the support and the nudge Congress has given us over the years. 

I have participated in television shows, including a Dateline show 

a few weeks ago that I thought was very moving in describing what 

goes on in trafficking of children, and some of the horrific scenes 

that the Dateline crews came up with which should shock all civilized people. And you can count on this department and this President following up on this as much as we can. 

When I was in Russia 2 weeks ago, I met with President Putin. 

I met with a lot of people, but as part of my trip, I visited a conference on trafficking in persons with civil leaders, with government leaders, and with all sorts of people who have come together 

to begin talking about this problem in Russia. I addressed that conference. I am aware of the Netherlands problem. We continue to 

call that to the attention of our colleagues in the Netherlands. 

On China, we are not holding back on that. We have told the 

Chinese that we have seen backsliding over the last year, not 

progress, and that this is of concern to us. 

With respect to Guantanamo, there is no question that we are 

treating all of the detainees down there in a proper manner, consistent with our international obligations. I did a television interview earlier today on Spanish television to announce that the 

Spanish detainee will be released in the next day or so. You will 

34

see in the next couple of weeks that the interrogation and other 

procedures that have been in place to make sure we knew who we 

were dealing with down there have been expedited, so that more 

and more people who we have no reason to be detained will be released and sent back to their countries. 

But for those who are bad guys—and we have every reason to 

detain because they could go right back out on the streets and attack us—we are going to retain. We will make the case to the international community and the human rights organization as to why 

it is necessary for us to do that to protect our citizens. 

I think even my European colleagues finally are starting to realize that you look over the fence at Guantanamo, and there is Cuba, 

and it is the worst offender, and I found it much easier to make 

that case to European Union colleagues in recent months as a result of continued, horrible misbehavior on the part of the Cuban 

government. 

Mr. BEREUTER [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Smith. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Ackerman, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, thank 

you for being with us today, and I am glad to see you are looking 

so robust, and thank you for the great work that you are doing for 

us all over the world. 

Mr. Secretary, a year ago you appeared before the United Nations Security Council and brilliantly detailed the case against Saddam Hussein and his regime. Your presentation that day was the 

apogee of a larger campaign by the President and his senior advisers to make the public case for going to war and removing Saddam 

Hussein and his government from power. 

I want to be clear, Mr. Secretary. I supported the decision to go 

to war. I voted for the resolution authorizing the President to use 

force as a last resort, and I would have voted for it for the right 

reasons. I would have voted for it for the honest reasons. They 

would have been sufficient for me. 

But I also believed in the Administration and I believed their 

case and the case that they were making. But in the aftermath of 

the war, finding no weapons of mass destruction and no plans in 

a decade thereto, and with shifting justifications from the war coming from the President who refuses to take personal responsibility 

for what is, at best, an intelligence disaster, or at worst, massaging 

the intelligence books, I can’t help but feel the same unease that 

my constituents feel, that we were sold a bill of goods and that the 

buck will stop somewhere short of the President’s desk. 

While no one in a policy making position in the Administration 

ever publicly said the word ‘‘imminent,’’ everything that was said 

to convince the public and the Congress suggested that we needed 

to take immediate action, immediate, if not sooner. The President 

said we would not live at the mercy of Iraq’s dictator. 

Dr. Rice said:

‘‘We don’t want the smoking gun—I will underline it, the 

smoking gun to turn out to be a mushroom cloud.’’

We know what makes mushroom clouds. And in case there was 

anyone who didn’t get the picture that was being painted, the Vice 

President said:

35

‘‘Simply put, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has 

weapons of mass destruction.’’

That kind of language amounts to a case for imminence, even if no 

one actually said that word. 

The distinguished Chairman of this Committee cited in his remarks the adage that truth is the first casualty of war. I would 

contend that the truth was murdered before a shot was fired. 

Now unable to discover the stockpiles of weapons that Vice President Cheney asserted were absolutely there and that Secretary 

Rumsfeld claimed to know the exact location of, we find ourselves 

with a big problem. Not that our failure to find the weapons is not 

a big problem or that al-Qaeda forces are sneaking into Iraq to attack our troops is not a big problem or that rebuilding a nation the 

size of California is not a big problem, the real problem is much 

bigger. The problem is an utter lack of credibility. This Administration lacks credibility with Congress, the American people and the 

international community. 

The credibility gap is not just about the reasons we went to war 

in Iraq, but extends to the plans for what we would do after the 

war. I was one of those in Congress who agreed that, by comparison, winning the war would be easy and winning the peace would 

be hard. We won the war. The Secretary of War makes good war. 

And for the peace we were assured, the American people were assured, that there was a plan; and in fact there was a plan. It was 

produced by the State Department, and I suspect at your direction. 

It fills 13 volumes and occupies a shelf in our Committee’s office. 

It is very detailed and discusses all the issues that we have now 

confronted since the very first day of the occupation; yet, this plan 

was deliberately shoved aside and its chief architect summarily removed from our reconstruction efforts in Iraq. How are the American people to believe the current plan to hand over power to Iraqis 

on June 30th, ready or not, come hell or high water, will actually 

work, when all the expertise the United States Government could 

muster has been summarily ignored? I have concluded the Administration’s plan to get us into the war was bait and switch, and the 

plan to get us out looks very much like cut and run. 

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Ackerman, you’re time is expired. To keep on 

track for everyone, we really need to stop at this point. 

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I request unanimous consent that 

the gentleman have a minute to conclude his statement. 

Mr. BEREUTER. Is there an objection? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I object, Mr. Chairman, because all of us are 

waiting for time as well. 

Mr. BEREUTER. The objection is heard. Mr. Secretary——

Mr. ACKERMAN. If I could just conclude. 

Mr. BEREUTER. I need to use the gavel, Mr. Ackerman, because 

your 30 seconds is over and an objection was heard. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. It is your gavel, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Secretary, you can respond. 

Secretary POWELL. If I could respond briefly—first, the truth was 

not murdered, Mr. Ackerman. The information that we were presented by the intelligence community was carefully examined. Nobody shaped it. Nobody told the intelligence community what to 

say. When I made my presentation to the U.N. last year, on FebVerDate Mar 21 2002 15:36 Jun 02, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\021104\91796 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
36

ruary the 5th, I knew that I was going before a world audience, 

and I knew that I had to have it right. And ‘‘right’’ meant I had 

the considered total views of the intelligence community, and 

where there was a difference of opinion or a difference of view, I 

had to take that into account and ask the DCI, Mr. Tenet, to resolve it. And if it wasn’t resolvable, I had to make note of it in my 

presentation, which I did. 

In my presentation, I laid out clearly the intent, the history of 

Mr. Saddam Hussein’s behavior. I laid out the programs that he 

had. I laid out all the gaps in knowledge that we had and asked 

him to answer those gaps, as he was required today to do under 

1441. I went into that briefing believing that there were stockpiles, 

that there were weapons there. We expected to find them. We all 

believed that, because all of the intelligence data we had suggested 

that there were stockpiles. It was derived from 12 years of examination, 8 years of which included U.N. inspectors on the ground. 

All the intelligence that was available to us was available to other 

agencies in other governments. 

There is not a question of whether we knew nothing was there 

and we lied about it; what we did was present the facts that our 

intelligence community provided to us. Nothing more, nothing less. 

And I did not go before the U.N. and tell anything but the truth, 

as we knew it at the time that we presented it. With respect to——

Mr. ACKERMAN. Your presentation was impeccable before the 

U.N., and I did not mean to impute that, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary POWELL. Beg your pardon. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. I said your presentation at the U.N. was impeccable. 

Secretary POWELL. It reflected the intelligence community’s view, 

and it reflected the information that was in the NIE that was presented to the Congress. And it was the definitive U.S. Government 

statement presented before the world body. On the aftermath, the 

information in the 13 volumes was made available to the Department of Defense which had responsibility, appropriately so, for the 

immediate aftermath. We were still at war. It was a war zone, and 

our experience in Japan and Germany and elsewhere is that the 

Defense Department has to run it. 

No other department has that kind of capacity. One can question 

the decisions and judgments that were made, but I think we are 

on a good track now with the Coalition Provisional Authority under 

the leadership of Ambassador Bremer. I have started a transition 

process in the department where State Department officials will, 

appropriately so, as we get closer to the transition take more and 

more responsibility until the transition comes. An Ambassador running a normal, but very large, Embassy will become responsible for 

our interests and presence in Iraq. 

Mr. BEREUTER. The gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, it is always a pleasure to see you. It is not a quickie, it is 

a little longer, but your performance is always great. I have a few 

questions on Cuba, human rights, Israel and the Middle East partnership initiative, all rolled into one. 

Just last night, I received a letter from the human rights activist 

that my colleague, Congressman Smith, was speaking about, Dr. 

37

Oscar Elias Biscet, one of the many prisoners of conscience languishing in Castro’s Gulag, and in that letter that I would like to 

submit for the record, Dr. Biscet says:

‘‘There is no doubt that existing evil and injustice in our country is made up of the structure well designed to repress.’’

Mr. Secretary, I would like to ask what your department is doing 

to underscore the threat of Fidel Castro internationally, what are 

we doing to try to secure the release of Dr. Biscet and, as Mr. 

Smith pointed out, almost 80 other human rights activists who 

were arrested and sentenced last spring, merely for speaking out 

on behalf of democracy. Are we getting international support calling for their release? 

And on the subject of human rights, we have the upcoming session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, and I 

would like to ask you what is the department’s strategy regarding 

country-specific resolutions? Which oppressive regimes will the 

U.S. be focusing on at this year’s session? Of particular interest is 

a response from you on efforts to prevent anti-Semitic, slanderous 

attacks against one of our staunchest allies, our friend and partner, 

Israel. What are we doing to prevent the Commission from being 

hijacked as it has so many times by extremist elements? 

Similarly, could you update us on the department’s efforts concerning the International Court of Justice and Israel’s security 

fence? I am very pleased that the Administration chose to file a 

brief with the court on the U.S. views. Just this morning, Mr. Secretary, I received a response regarding Israel from your department, and I thank you for that, and the letter states the Administration’s strong support for Israel. It says:

‘‘The United States has always supported Israel’s security 

needs and its right to defend itself. We believe that there can 

be no excuse for the violence and terrorist attacks against the 

Israeli people, that they have been forced to endure, and we 

have made it clear to the Palestinians that a Palestinian state 

will not be established on a foundation of terror.’’

We thank you and President Bush for your strong stand. 

So lastly, how would you assess the performance of the Palestinian Prime Minister to date? Do you believe that he has succeeded in limiting the ability of Arafat to run the show and control 

terrorist attacks against Israel? And if you have a minute to spare, 

elaborate on the programs of the countries that will be the focus 

of the Middle East Partnership Initiative. We thank you for your 

progress on that great program. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary POWELL. Thank you very much, Congresswoman. I will 

run down some of these very briefly. With respect to the Doctor, 

we share your concern for him and for the other 80 who were incarcerated in that manner, and we raise this issue with our European 

Union friends at every opportunity. I wish I could snap a finger 

and free them all, but that is, of course, not possible. 

I think by these terrible actions, Fidel Castro has isolated himself more and more, and there are fewer and fewer people willing 

to stand up and defend him or his regime. 

38

With respect to the Human Rights Commission and what we are 

looking at, we are still examining the various resolutions that 

might be put forward, but certainly the Cuban resolution will be 

one of those that we would put forward to try to generate support. 

We will work with our European Union colleagues. 

With respect to anti-Semitic actions, we participated in an antiSemitic conference last year under the auspices of the OSCE, and 

we are going to do so again this year. I am pleased that a number 

of my European Union colleagues realize that this is an issue that 

they can’t just ignore and pretend it isn’t real. It is real, and they 

have to deal with it. We are participating in the conferences that 

are dealing with it. 

With respect to the ICJ, we were pleased to file a brief that said 

we don’t believe this issue has standing before the ICJ. I am not 

satisfied with everything that Prime Minister Abu Ala has done. I 

have conveyed to the Palestinian side repeatedly that they have to 

do more with respect to security, and we won’t be able to get anywhere until they do do more and wrest control of these security 

forces from Yasser Arafat. There is just no question about that. 

With respect to the Middle East Partnership Initiative, which 

will grow into the Greater Middle East Initiative, we are examining now how far that should extend. Should it stop at the Gulf? 

Should it continue over to Afghanistan and Pakistan? How wide 

should we consider the Middle East region to be as we think about 

this for the G–8, NATO and EU meetings that are coming up later 

this year? 

The Middle East Partnership Initiative was essentially for the 

western part of that wide region. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. BEREUTER. The gentleman from American Samoa, Mr. 

Faleomavaega, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I 

want to offer my compliments to you for your outstanding leadership and commitment, and especially for the tremendous services 

that you are rendering to our country. 

It is not easy to be constantly faced with serious events and conflicts that might either require that we instantly respond or that 

we do nothing. Our Nation is now in the middle of a highly politically-charged atmosphere, where the people of our Nation will decide who should represent their interests, both domestically and to 

the world. 

As our Chairman has stated clearly, truth becomes the first casualty of war in an atmosphere where partisan politics consumes 

our appetite. As human nature would have it, we want not only to 

be heard, but to be given the power to make decisions that will control the lives of the people of our country. 

Mr. Secretary, 30 years ago, India exploded its first nuclear device in 1974 and thereby immediately, as I recall, Prime Minister 

Rajiv Gandhi pleaded before the United Nations General Assembly 

that there should be a worldwide ban of nuclear weapons altogether, and that India would be among the first to voluntarily submit to the destruction of nuclear weapons. 

The reaction of France, Great Britain, China, our country, and 

Russia, the 5 permanent members of the Security Council who posVerDate Mar 21 2002 15:36 Jun 02, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\021104\91796 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
39

sesses to this day nuclear weapons, was that we did nothing. The 

point that India has been advocating for the past 30 years, Mr. Secretary, is simply this. What gives our Nation, Russia, the United 

Kingdom, China and France the right to tell the rest of the world 

not to produce nuclear weapons, or even prevent third world countries from producing nuclear weapons, when these 5 nations should 

be setting the example by destroying their own supply of nuclear 

weapons? 

Common sense would dictate that Pakistan, which borders India, 

has every right as a Nation to also produce nuclear weapons to protect itself from possible threat of a nuclear attack by India. 

Mr. Secretary, that is the best example of proliferation. Pakistan’s security is threatened by India, and India’s security is 

threatened by Pakistan and China. And it goes on and on, and all 

this because 5 nuclear nations refuse to set the example by getting 

rid of their nuclear weapons themselves. And with the recent pardoning by President Musharraf of Pakistan of Mr. Khan for his 

charges of exportation of nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and 

North Korea, how will this impact again the issue of nonproliferation of nuclear weapons among countries who have them and other 

countries that do not have them, but maybe hope to possess them? 

And of course, there is the question of nuclear testings in the 

Marshall Islands. In our own nuclear testing program in the Marshall Islands, hundreds of Marshallese were directly affected, and 

thousands of Tahitians were directly affected by nuclear contamination, by the French nuclear testing program that took place for 

some 30 years in the South Pacific. And some 2 million people in 

Kazakhstan were also exposed to nuclear testing by the Soviet 

Union. 

So there is nothing pretty about the whole question of nuclear 

weapons, and I just wanted to ask where we are now. It just makes 

the whole question of nonproliferation irrelevant if countries that 

do possess these weapons are not committed to nonproliferation. A 

commitment to retaining one’s nuclear weapons invites terrorists 

and rogue nations to obtain nuclear weapons of their own. 

So I wonder, Mr. Secretary, if you would respond to that. 

Secretary POWELL. I would love to see the day when there are 

no nuclear weapons anywhere, but they are there, and history produced those first five, from the aftermath of the end of World War 

II and the few years after the World War. Since then other nations 

have joined that party, but I think we now have the opportunity 

to keep the club from growing. We certainly have gotten Iraq out 

of the club. Libya said, ‘‘We don’t know why we asked for membership in the first place.’’ I hope we can convince Korea—and frankly 

Korea says it is willing to give them up—but it is placing conditions with a price tag on it. Hopefully they can be persuaded not 

to become a member of the club. 

I think with the breaking up of the A.Q. Khan network, we have 

succeeded in making it less likely for this kind of material going 

to nonstate actors and terrorist organizations. I am less worried 

about it getting out of our inventory or British or French or Chinese or even Russian inventories. But A.Q. Khan was another matter, and now we have dealt with that. 

40

Our proliferation activities are bearing fruit. We have had nations who have forgotten about it altogether—South Africa, Argentina, Brazil, and others that were looking at it over the years. Forget it. 

With respect to our own Nation, I have often told the story, and 

I have probably done so here before, that when I became Chairman 

of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in October 1989, while the cold war was 

still on, I had responsibility for the stockpile that had 28,000 nuclear weapons. When I left 4 years later, it was heading down to 

under 15,000, and we have just concluded yet another treaty with 

Moscow that will bring it to an even lower number. I hope we can 

find ways to make that even lower, until a point is reached where 

both sides say enough, and get rid of them and set an example for 

the rest of the world. 

I think we are moving in the right direction now. There is no 

testing taking place to expose people, on the Islands or anywhere 

else to this kind of danger. I think we have got it moving in the 

right direction, and we have to stay on it until we reach that day 

when there are no nuclear weapons left on the face of the earth. 

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. We have a vote on the 

Floor and we need to go, and without objection, the entire statements of Mr. Ackerman and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen will be made a part 

of the record. That will be the order, as we are only recessing. 

Mr. Wexler? 

Mr. WEXLER. If some of us are willing to stay, is that amenable 

to the Chair? 

Mr. BEREUTER. We are going to have a very brief recess, and so 

I would say perhaps as little as 5 minutes, perhaps as much as 10, 

but we need to recess. The Committee is in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman HYDE [presiding]. Mr. Rohrabacher of California. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First 

and foremost, let me congratulate you, Mr. Secretary, and our 

President for doing a magnificent job making this world a safer 

place and making sure that the United States of America is more 

secure than it was when you took over. 

Three years ago when this Administration took over, radical 

Islam was on a course that looked like it was going to basically 

threaten the entire planet, and radical Islam and other forces of 

evil on this planet had not been dealt with by the last Administration in a way to alleviate that threat. And today you sit here before 

us, as our President is before us, and yes, you have had to take 

arrows and slings that often have political motivation. But you 

have made our country safer and you have made the world a better 

place, and you have opened up new avenues for people around the 

world, especially new options for young people to who grow up in 

Muslim countries, so that now radical Islam is not just the option, 

but instead democracy and freedom are the option, whether it is in 

Iraq or Iran or Afghanistan. 

So thank you very much. This rhetoric that you have seen as an 

intelligence disaster and bait and switch and cut and run, this is 

so much political nonsense that it does not reflect at all the gratitude the American people will have once your time in office is over 

41

and they can analyze the historic changes that have been made for 

the betterment of this world. So thank you very much. 

I have a couple of issues that I would like to bring up. First of 

all, I would like to compliment you on something that I am sure 

is not at your attention. There is a family in my Congressional district in Orange County, a well-thought-of family that is an immigrant family from Africa, the Brahami family. They had their property confiscated by the Ethiopian government, which is still refusing to give it back, and OPEC under your leadership, Mr. Secretary, has decided to cut off business with Ethiopia until these 

American citizens are dealt with fairly. I think that it is a wonderful thing that finally some of the financial decisions that are being 

made are taking the American citizens into consideration like this, 

and I congratulate you for that. And I hope if Ethiopia doesn’t 

reach some sort of a just compensation or give back these people’s 

property, that they will face some more pressure from the Administration. But thanks for what you have already done. 

A note of disagreement here, and that is in your remarks you 

noted, as I just pointed out, what is in America’s interest is certainly part of the decision-making process, but human rights are 

also an important part of the decision-making process. 

I have noted that in your material, it says that Burma is eligible 

to receive up to $30 million in a program, the Economic Support 

Fund. I do not understand why we would ever want to give money 

to Burma while they are under the current dictatorship. And that 

is my first question. 

The second one is, didn’t China have something to do with Pakistan’s acquisition of its nuclear capability and thus has to share 

some of the responsibility for the proliferation? 

Secretary POWELL. I am glad we were able to help with the family, and I will follow up with our folks to make sure we are watching carefully to see that it plays out the way it is supposed to play 

out, Mr. Rohrabacher. 

On human rights, as you know, we have been very tough on 

Burma, to make it clear that we find their political and human 

rights actions to be deplorable, especially with respect to Aung San 

Suu Kyi, and we will continue to say so. 

I will look into the specific item you mentioned about the ESF 

funding. It may relate to some humanitarian or other programs 

that are in our interest to fund. But I will get you a detailed answer for the record on that if I may. 

With respect to Chinese and Pakistani cooperation, I would have 

to yield to my intelligence colleagues to see what substance there 

might be to the question you raise, and I would prefer for them to 

answer it than me. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. 

Secretary POWELL. My staff has handed me a note—Burma, regarding the $7 million—it is information technology. It is for democracy building. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. That is good. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Menendez. 

42

Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, thank 

you for coming before us today. I have two sets of issues to raise 

with you. 

First, as the Ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on the 

Western Hemisphere, I am outraged that the Latin American budget has been slashed. I hear the President say that Latin America 

is a priority, but when we look at the facts it is different. In this 

budget Latin American development programs are cut by nearly 11 

percent as compared to 2004 in active levels. Child survival and 

health programs are cut by almost 12 percent. Latin America is the 

only region in the world, the only region to be cut in both total economic and development aid and total narcotics and military aid. 

And if one tries to make the argument that the NCA will take 

care of Latin America, I think we need to get our facts straight, 

because even if we include all the five countries eligible based on 

income levels, for which there of course is no guarantee, a maximum 7.2 percent of Latin America’s poor would benefit from the 

NCA. So so much for us being ‘‘un amigo.’’

And then I would like to turn to Iraq. It is clear now to me and 

to many Americans that we went into this war under false premises. And Mr. Secretary, I respect loyalty to the President. I even 

respect more your loyalty to the American people when you have 

made comments that sometimes were honest and out of what may 

be seen as the mainstream, when in that Washington Post article 

you honestly said that you are not sure you would have recommended going to war if you knew that Saddam did not have 

stockpiles of banned weapons. And it is also clear to many of us 

that Saddam’s actual stockpiles that have not been found were not 

expanding but they were contracting, and that was not the case 

made to the American people. 

If one looks at, for example, the report by the Carnegie Endowment For International Peace, Weapons of Mass Destruction in 

Iraq, and looks at the key to their findings where they say with respect to nuclear and chemical weapons, the threat was largely 

known, and it says Iraq’s nuclear program had been dismantled 

and there was no convincing evidence of its reconstitution; that regarding chemical weapons, UNSCOM discovered that Iraq’s nerve 

agents had lost most of their lethality as early as 1991, and all of 

the subsequent operations, Desert Storm and Desert Fox and U.N. 

Inspections and sanctions effectively destroyed Iraq’s large scale 

chemical weapon production capabilities. 

When they say that it is unlikely that Iraq could have destroyed, 

hidden, or sent out of the country the hundreds of tons of chemical 

and biological weapons, dozens of SCUD missiles and facilities engaged in the ongoing production of chemical and biological weapons 

that officials claimed were present without the United States detecting some sign of this activity before, during, or after the major 

combat period of war. That prior to 2002, the intelligence community appears to have overestimated the chemical and biological 

weapons in Iraq. That the dramatic shift between prior intelligence 

assessments and the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate 

together with the creation of an independent intelligence entity at 

the Pentagon and other steps suggest that the intelligence community began to be unduly influenced by policymakers’ views some 

43

time in 2002. That there was and is no solid evidence of a cooperative relationship between Saddam’s government and al-Qaeda. 

That there was no evidence to support the claim that Iraq would 

have transferred weapons of mass destruction to al-Qaeda, and 

much evidence to counter it. And to their conclusion that Administration officials systematically misrepresented the threat from 

Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programs 

beyond the intelligence failures noted above, and they say that by 

treating nuclear, chemical and biological weapons as a single weapons of mass destruction threat, that the conflation of these three 

threats, very different in the danger that they posed, distorted the 

cost-benefit analysis of the war. That insisting without evidence, 

yet treating as a given truth, that Saddam Hussein would give 

whatever weapons of mass destruction he possessed to terrorists. 

That routinely dropping caveats, probabilities and expressions of 

uncertainty present in intelligence assessments from public statements, and by misrepresenting inspectors’ findings in ways that 

turned threats from minor to dire. 

That is the nature of where we find ourselves. So I simply close 

by saying I don’t understand how we still to this day can have a 

process where we have no exit strategy, where we are nation building, which I have heard my colleagues oppose, where we want to 

have an election in a way in which the majority of the Iraqi population says they are not supportive of, and we have made this timetable without seeing if it will in fact work. 

And lastly our status of forces agreement. How is it that we are 

going to keep our troops there under what set of circumstances? 

We do not have negotiations with the Iraqis on this issue. When 

will they be resumed and with whom? What will be the purpose of 

those troops that will stay there? When will they be home? When 

will they be—where will be their mission? Will they be there to 

deter an invasion from outside forces? Will they be there at the 

service of a new Iraqi government? How long are they staying in 

power after? Those are all questions that we would like to have answered. 

Chairman HYDE. The gentleman’s time has long since expired. 

Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank the Chairman. 

Secretary POWELL. Thank you, Mr. Menendez. With respect to 

Latin America, we have reduced the overall amount of funding 

there because we had higher priorities that we had to deal with of 

a more serious nature than some of these programs in other parts 

of the world. It is one of those tradeoffs that we make that I wish 

we did not have to do, but with a limited funding stream these are 

the kinds of choices that we do have to make. I hope it will be offset, to some extent, by the Millennium Challenge Account funding 

as it starts to flow, but recognizing it will probably not make up 

the complete difference. But we will not know until we actually do 

the Millennium Challenge Account funding. 

With respect to Iraq and what you attribute to be my difference 

of opinion in The Washington Post interview, let me say that the 

information that the President based his decision upon and the information that I used to make my presentation to the United Nations reflected the judgment of the intelligence community. It 

wasn’t shaped. I did not spin it. I did not add anything to it. Every 

44

word in that presentation reflected the decision of the Director of 

Central Intelligence, after examining all of the information available to him and the different points of view. We sat at the CIA for 

several nights debating and arguing every point in that presentation. 

It wasn’t that we did not present the truth. We presented what 

we believed the truth to be at that time and we had every basis 

for believing that it was the case. 

As I said, intent, there is no question. Delivery systems? I did 

not linger on that earlier in my presentation, but Saddam Hussein 

was developing longer range delivery systems and not to deliver 

popcorn. Delivery systems were under development. There was 

clearly an intention to keep these programs alive. The part of the 

equation that is still an unknown, because the research continues 

and the work of the Iraqi Survey Group continues, has to do with 

stockpiles. In the 30 minutes that I discussed this issue with The 

Washington Post and all of their reporters, I spent 291⁄2 minutes 

describing how we came to the conclusion that we came to, and 

why this was the right conclusion. And then I was asked, ‘‘Well, 

suppose the CIA had said something entirely different about this 

for that whole period of time? What would the recommendations 

have been?’’ And I said, ‘‘Well, that changes the equation, so I don’t 

know what I would have recommended.’’ But based on everything 

else that was in the equation at the time, I would have recommended or said to the President, we have got to go anyway. I 

was giving an honest answer at that time. I did not duck the answer. I didn’t hide behind ‘‘It is a hypothetical question.’’ I told the 

truth, as I always did to the best of my knowledge and belief—not 

shaping, not spinning. But it caused some members of the press to 

go hysterical over the answer, and so be it. That is the way it is 

in this town. 

The President had the correct basis upon which to make the decision that he made. He got solid intelligence information that reflected the judgment of the intelligence community, and the intelligence communities of many other nations. It reflected our best estimate of what Iraq had. It has been established that they had the 

intent, and they had the capability in a variety of areas. It remains 

to be seen whether or not we come across any stockpiles or not. Dr. 

Kay says he does not think we will. Dr. Kay also said they were 

clearly in material breach of their obligations and the President did 

the right thing, as Dr. Kay said, even in the absence of information 

at this point with respect to the stockpiles. 

I don’t think we have anything to be apologetic about, and under 

no set of circumstances do I believe that anybody in America 

should think that the President cooked the books or in some way 

tried to mislead them. The President took this to the United Nations and said to the United Nations here is a problem we are trying to solve. It could have been solved peacefully. Saddam Hussein 

was given the opportunity to resolve it peacefully. If the President 

did not intend that he would not have taken it to the United Nations. Saddam Hussein did not take the opportunity that was given 

to him. He demonstrated that he continued to have the intent. He 

demonstrated that he continued to keep the capability to play hide 

and seek with us on. He paid the consequences. 

45

The American people are going to see that in this difficult process ahead of putting in place a government, of putting in place a 

democracy, there will be challenges ahead. Regrettably, lives will 

be lost. It will cost us a great deal of money. But when we are 

through, we will not have to worry about weapons of mass destruction and we will not have to worry about dictators. We will have 

a country that we can be proud of. 

We are working on all the issues that you mentioned with respect to timetables and with respect to the security agreement with 

the new transitional government and the permanent government 

that will follow. We understand those challenges, and we do not 

think we have seen a challenge that we do not know how to deal 

with or meet. It will be difficult, but what we need is the support 

of the Congress and the continued support of the American people 

to get this job done. 

Chairman HYDE. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. Mr. 

Chabot. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank you for 

your leadership on the issue of international child abduction. You 

are very familiar with one of the most egregious cases involving 

Carina Sylvester, an American citizen who when barely a year old 

was kidnapped by her mother and taken to Austria, where she 

lives today. She is now 9 years old and during the last 8 years, her 

American father, Tom Sylvester of my district, Cincinnati, has seen 

his daughter only occasionally and under strict supervision. 

During that period, the child’s mother has refused to comply with 

American and Austrian court orders. She has ignored appellate decisions and has lived in a continual violation of the Hague Convention. All the while, the Austrian government has failed to enforce 

the Hague Convention return order. 

In April of last year, the European Court of Human Rights ruled 

that Austria violated the human rights of both Tom and his daughter, Carina, when it failed to enforce an order entered by the Austrian courts that Carina be returned to the United States under 

the Hague Convention in 1995. The decision of the seven-judge 

panel was unanimous. 

Mr. Secretary, you have been a great ally in this case and you 

have been willing to help us whenever we have asked, and Ambassador Harty has been steadfast in her efforts to bring about a resolution of this case and we very much appreciate her help. As I understand it, whenever a meeting involving representatives of our 

government and the government of Austria takes place, the Sylvester case is raised. Unfortunately, the Austrian government remains unwilling to cooperate. It is clear that they have allowed the 

mother of the child, the kidnapper, to flout the law and deny the 

American father the right to have a life with his daughter. As you 

can understand, this case continues to frustrate all of us. 

At this point I am wondering what further steps we can take to 

bring a resolution to this unbelievably painful situation. I am considering bringing a resolution before the House that would spell 

out the intransigence of the Austrian government in this fundamental human rights case, but I would hope that would not be necessary. It would be unfortunate because, unlike some other countries whom we would consider to be at least nominal allies, AusVerDate Mar 21 2002 15:36 Jun 02, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\021104\91796 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
46

trian’s record on Hague Convention cases has been for the most 

part good. That is why it is so frustrating to deal with this particular case and why it is so hard to understand why the Austrian 

government would not want to resolve this case before emotional 

damage is done to the father and the child. 

I know we can count on you and your good offices, Mr. Secretary, 

to continue to help us in this fight. And you have my thanks and 

also the thanks of this left-behind parent. 

Now, at risk of offending another European country, let me move 

for a moment to France. Please keep in mind that I am a legislator 

and I am not a diplomat, so I am going to be very frank with you. 

Secretary POWELL. They are not always inconsistent. 

Mr. CHABOT. Certainly not in your case. Last year, when you 

were here, we were discussing French opposition to our efforts to 

bring to an end the brutal murderous regime of Saddam Hussein 

and liberate the Iraqi people. I made the comment that as one with 

a French surname, Chabot, or as the French pronounce it, 

Chabeau, I was troubled that the French of all people seem to forget about the high price of appeasement. 

The next day a Paris newspaper reported that I was ashamed of 

my name, which then caused the leader of the French Senate 

named Chabot, or Chabeau as he pronounces it, to engage me in 

a spirited trans-Atlantic colloquy. I told him I was not the least bit 

ashamed of my name; it was the French Government that I was 

ashamed of. That went over really big in France. 

Now the French are at it again. It is widely known that they are 

willing to sell military components to just about anybody with a 

checkbook. Last month France led an effort within the European 

Union to lift a 14-year ban on weapons sales to China. This comes 

at a time when China has nearly 500 missiles aimed at Taiwan, 

less than 100 miles away. After actually turning the lights on Eiffel 

Tower a fitting red in honor of a visit by Chinese President Hu, 

President Chirac curried further favor with the Communist dictator by calling Taiwan’s March referendum on cross-strait relations ‘‘a grave mistake.’’ Although it is uncertain whether his comments while in the company of Asia’s biggest neighborhood bully 

were of interest to anybody else, including the Taiwanese, as 

schoolchildren we all learned about the special relationship between France and the United States, and the battles against tyranny——

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Chabot, your time is——

Mr. CHABOT. Unanimous consent for an additional minute, I will 

wrap up, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HYDE. Oui, oui. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection. 

Mr. CHABOT. Our children, too, have learned about that history. 

My concern is that our grandchildren will grow up with a different 

view, not of the Revolutionary War and the Statue of Liberty and 

the battle of Normandy, but of a nation that no longer shares our 

values and continually works to undermine our interests and those 

of free countries around the world. Mr. Secretary, I know that time 

is limited here today, but is there any future? What should we be 

concerned about our relationships with France at this time? 

47

Secretary POWELL. Forgive me, Steve. The Chairman and I were 

having a private inside joke for a moment that only he and I understand. 

Regarding the Sylvester case, it is tragic and, as you know, I 

have spent a lot of time on the case. I have met with Mr. Sylvester, 

and I know how difficult this one is for him. We are working on 

it. And as is the case with so many of these child abduction cases, 

they are not easy to resolve. Our laws are sometimes different from 

the laws of the other country. We cannot impose our decrees there. 

They have their own set of decrees. We have a family that just 

finds ways to hide within the law of the other country, and that 

really brings us to a gridlock. 

All I can say, sir, is that we are trying very hard. Assistant Secretary Maura Harty is doing a tremendous job. She has resolved 

180 cases in the last year and a half. We have been able to solve 

the problem for parents and for the benefit of the child. She has 

been holding hometown meetings with people all the around the 

country who are in this situation. As a programmatic and policy 

matter, we are working as hard as we can on this. And I will never 

ignore the Sylvester case until they get it resolved to the satisfaction of the child principally. 

Mr. CHABOT. I appreciate that very much, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary POWELL. With respect to France, I raised the issue of 

European Union sales to China and sales of military equipment 

with the French Foreign Minister last Friday at lunch. He understands the sensitivity with which we feel about this issue, in light 

of the missiles arrayed against Taiwan and the Taiwan referendum 

that is coming up. It is a very sensitive time. Why start changing 

this policy? China’s human rights activity. Why start thinking 

about changing this policy? 

I had the same conversation this morning with the Foreign Minister of Ireland, Mr. Brian Cowen, who is also the President of the 

European Union. I have been talking to all of my European Union 

colleagues—Mr. Straw of the United Kingdom last week, Mr. Fischer of Germany—to say that this is something they really need to 

give long and hard thought about and not do. 

As you know, the EU met on it about 2 weeks ago and have tabled it for the time being, but it will be coming back up. We will 

be pressing our European Union colleagues not to abandon this policy. 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Brown. 

Mr. BROWN. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, thank 

you for the work that you are doing on international HIV/AIDS and 

TB. I wish the rest of the Administration were as committed as you 

are, and I thank you for that. 

I sent you a dated January 20th letter about Haiti, the situation 

there, which you have not answered yet, and I would ask that you 

ask your staff to answer as quickly as possible. It is certainly a 

complicated issue, but especially about our involvement there. 

One quick question and then I want to talk about something else. 

The Taiwanese President Chen Shiu-bien is moving forward with 

plans for two national referenda to take place the same day as the 

presidential election. Is the Administration supporting either or 

both of those referenda? 

48

Secretary POWELL. Forgive me, Mr. Brown? I was distracted. 

Mr. BROWN. Chen Shiu-bien is, the day of his election for President, reelection or defeat, there are two referenda. 

Secretary POWELL. Right. 

Mr. BROWN. Is the Administration supporting one or both of 

those referenda? 

Secretary POWELL. On the first point of Haiti, I believe that Assistant Secretary Kelly has answered your letter. Haiti is a very 

difficult issue right now. We are monitoring it very closely. If I 

could just talk about the overall——

Mr. BROWN. Briefly, because I really want to get to another 

issue. Let’s put Haiti aside. Just what are we doing to the 

referenda? 

Secretary POWELL. With respect to the referenda, we don’t really 

see a need for these referenda, but Taiwan is a democratic place 

and if they choose to have referenda, they can have referenda. We 

made it clear to them, however, that we do not want to see these 

actions lead in any way to a change in the situation. 

We still are fully supportive and totally committed to our oneChina policy based on the three communiques and the Taiwan Relations Act, which gives us certain obligations with respect to the 

security of Taiwan. We do not believe any action should be taken 

in the region that would unilaterally change the situation. Both 

sides have to work together to eventually find a way of reconciling 

their different points of views and interests. We are not expressing 

support for either of the referenda. 

Mr. BROWN. Okay. Thank you for that. Americans are still very 

confused about President Bush’s reasons to launch a preemptive 

strike about Iraq, and I think the media is certainly showing that 

now. I hope you can clear it up. I want to recount a bit of history. 

Maybe that can enable you to clear it up for us better than the 

media have and Administration officials have in the past. 

In February 2001, you said of Saddam Hussein: I think we ought 

to declare our policy a success. We have kept him contained, kept 

him in his box. Saddam is unable to project conventional power 

against his neighbors. He threatens not the United States. 

Condoleezza Rice said in July 2001, again, before September 

11th: We are able to keep arms from Saddam. His military forces 

have not been rebuilt. 

Right after September 11th, the Vice President said: Saddam 

Hussein is bottled up. On January 2003, the Bureau of Intelligence 

and Research, the State Department’s in-house analysis unit, 

warned that during the preparation for your U.N. speech some analysts were not persuaded that the aluminum tubes the Administration was citing could be used to enrich uranium. 

In February 2003, you testified: Our conservative estimate is 

that Iraq today has a stockpile between 100and 500 tons of chemical weapons. You then stated that Saddam has chemical weapons, 

that Iraq’s weapons posed a real and present danger to the region 

and the world. 

On May 4th, 2003, you were asked by Meet the Press if the rationale to go to war was to find weapons of mass destruction, when 

we have not found them yet. You answered:

49

‘‘We will, I am absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass 

destruction. The evidence will be forthcoming.’’

A report since then has stated Iraq’s nuclear program has really 

been dismantled. There is no convincing evidence of its reconstitution. Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox and U.N. inspections 

effectively destroyed Iraq’s large scale chemical weapons production 

capabilities. The War College stated in its report:

‘‘The Administration unnecessarily expanded the war on terror 

by launching a preemptive war against a state that was not at 

war with the United States. It posed no direct or imminent 

threat to the United States.’’

‘‘Imminent,’’ a word that the Vice President had used several time 

as the Secretary of Defense did. 

Former weapons inspector and presidential appointee, David 

Kay, now says Iraq probably did not have WMD before the war. 

The Administration’s case was predicated on the supposed threat 

Iraq’s WMD posed to Americans. On February 3rd, the interview 

you have talked about, the Post reported you did not know whether 

you would have recommended an invasion of Iraq. When they 

asked a specific question, if you would have recommended an invasion knowing Iraq had no prohibited weapons, you replied:

‘‘I don’t know because it was the stockpile that presented the 

final little piece that made it more of a real and present danger 

and threat to the region and to the world. The absence . . .’’

still your words,

‘‘. . . of a stockpile changes the political calculus. It changes 

the answer you get.’’

The next day, after remarks coordinated with the White House, 

you quickly retreated and said that the President made the right 

decision. Now, Mr. Secretary, we count on you. You are one of the 

very few people in this Administration who understands war. We 

have a President who may have been AWOL. A Vice President 

who——

Chairman HYDE. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. BROWN. May I have an additional minute as Mr. Chabot did, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HYDE. Pardon? 

Mr. BROWN. May I have an additional minute as Mr. Chabot did. 

Chairman HYDE. You certainly may, by unanimous consent. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We count on you. The 

President may have been AWOL. The Vice President said he had 

other priorities during Vietnam. Other high Administration officials never served. You understand war. We absolutely count on 

you and I think a lot of us wonder what happened between that 

Post interview and your statement the next day when you said the 

President made the right decision. 

Secretary POWELL. First of all, Mr. Brown, I will not dignify your 

comments about the President because you don’t know what you 

are talking about. Second, let me get to the points that you were 

raising. 

50

Mr. BROWN. I’m sorry? I don’t know what you mean, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary POWELL. You made reference to the President——

Mr. BROWN. I said he may have been AWOL. 

Secretary POWELL. Mr. Brown, let’s not go there. Let’s just not 

go there. Let’s not go there in this hearing. If you want to have a 

political fight on this matter that is very controversial, and I think 

is being dealt with by the White House, fine. But let’s not go there. 

Let’s talk about what is the guts of your question with respect to 

what I said on weapons of mass destruction. 

What I presented in 2001, at the very beginning of this Administration, was the view that at that time, based on what we knew, 

Saddam Hussein was contained. What I was working hard at this 

time to do was to get the sanctions reaffirmed and made into smart 

sanctions so that we could keep control of the money that he was 

getting at that point. Everybody was working to bust out of those 

sanctions, so Saddam Hussein could get more money to do anything he wanted to do, and not funnel through the Oil for Food program. 

That was a fair statement, but things changed. Things changed 

with 9/11. Things changed as we learned more and more from our 

intelligence community as to what their belief was with respect to 

what he was doing. And when I made my presentation last February, it was based on the best intelligence available to me, to the 

President, to Secretary Rumsfeld, to the Vice President, and to 

Condoleezza Rice—to all of us. We did not make it up. It was information that reflected the views of the analysts in all of our various 

agencies. 

Were there different points of view? Regarding aluminum tubes? 

Yes, there were. But it was the Director of Central Intelligence’s 

judgment—and he is the one who has to make these calls—that the 

tubes were for centrifuge purposes and that is why I presented 

them that way. 

When I was at The Washington Post, I spoke for almost 281⁄2

minutes or so about why the case was right, and why what we did 

was right. And if you read the whole story, most of the story is 

about that. When I was asked a hypothetical question, I did not 

duck it. I said if the facts were different, I would have to consider 

whether I would make the same recommendation. I do not find 

that startling. I find that admission a fairly candid admission. 

The next day I went out to make sure people did not forget what 

I said for most of the time in that interview: That the President 

did the right thing and he made the right decision based on the information he had and based on the intelligence community’s view 

and the intelligence community’s judgment. If the intelligence community had said something entirely different about intent and the 

various levels of capability, then everybody would have had to take 

a look at what we were doing. But they did not. 

The information that was given to the President and that was 

available to me I used to make sure that I had the best, most objective presentation I could give to the world at the United Nations. 

I went and lived at the CIA for about 4 days to make sure that 

nothing was being—are you shaking your head for something, 

51

young man? Back there? Are you part of these proceedings? Thank 

you. 

I wanted to make sure that I had the very best information I 

had. I sat there with the Director of Central Intelligence and his 

people and went over all of these items one by one by one and 

every word was cleared, not by political people, but by the Central 

Intelligence Agency, representing the views of the community. 

With respect to the Army War College report, it is a report by 

an individual that does not represent the views of the Army War 

College, but represents the views of the individual, who had it published in a document at the Army War College, where they allow 

lots of points of view to exist. 

Mr. Kay, yes, he said based on his analysis, they did not have 

any stockpiles. But when Mr. Kay went into the job 8 months ago 

to begin his work, he thought they did have stockpiles, and he was 

no rookie. He had the same access to intelligence all the rest of us 

did, and he thought the stockpiles were there. He does not know 

what happened to them, but he does not think they are there now. 

He was also convinced that the intent and capability never went 

away and that the President did absolutely the right thing; that 

Saddam Hussein and his regime were probably a greater problem 

and a greater threat than even we had anticipated before we went 

in, and that he was in total and material breach of his obligations 

to the U.N. Dr. Kay has no second guesses, no second questions, 

no doubt that the President did the right thing. The question is 

why were we off, if we were off. The work continues to see if we 

were off with respect to the stockpiles. 

That is why Mr. Duelfer has been appointed to replace Dr. Kay 

and to finish the work that Dr. Kay was undertaking. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you for your candor. Mr. Chairman, I have 

never heard a witness reprimand a staff person in the middle of 

a question. 

Secretary POWELL. I seldom come to a meeting where I am talking to Congressmen and I have people aligned behind you giving 

editorial comment by head shakes. 

Mr. BROWN. I think people have opinions. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I think the Secretary is owed an apology for 

that. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. Has that gentleman who is speaking been recognized? 

Chairman HYDE. The Chair will announce that we have been 

doing swimmingly until now and we are on a very emotional subject, and I think it is in the interest of truth and getting to the end 

of the Secretary’s testimony—his time is valuable—that we calm 

down and that I ask Mr. Royce for his questions. 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope we can all agree 

that we have a critical interest in having America succeed in Iraq. 

I wanted to open up on another front, because our Secretary of 

State has been the architect of an innovative plan, maybe not that 

original since Theodore Roosevelt set up and helped enact the National Parks Systems in the United States. But the Secretary has 

been one of the architects of a system to develop in Africa a national parks system which would save the white rhino, the silver 

backed gorilla, and many species that are in danger of extinction. 

52

Last week this Congress sent to the President’s desk an authorization bill for the Congo Basin Forest Partnership, which I managed in the House, and I know that our Secretary of State has visited this program to conserve critical forests and wildlife in Central 

Africa. I think the Administration and I think you, Mr. Secretary, 

deserve kudos for this conservation effort. It is my understanding 

that this program is fully funded in this budget. 

I also wanted to take an opportunity to speak briefly on the African Growth and Opportunity Act. As you know, this has been a 

great success. In a very few short years it has attracted hundreds 

of millions of dollars of investment to a continent in a desperate 

fight to join the global economy. I have had the opportunity to visit 

several of these investment sites which are giving needed employment to tens of thousands of Africans. It has been a win for Africa 

and America. 

Much of this progress is in jeopardy because there is an expiration of a key provision in this bill, the third country fabric provision, which runs out in September. We are informed that many of 

these jobs could leave Africa and go to China; that is what my office is hearing from United States retailers doing business in Africa. Several of us, including Congressman Payne, are working on 

AGOA III, which extends this provision and has many other provisions to promote trade and investment in Africa. We do not have 

much time to act on this bill. So the Administration’s vigorous support here would be appreciated. 

I just wanted to mention Liberia. Reports suggest that you are 

pressing the U.N. Security Council at this point, Mr. Secretary, to 

impose an asset freeze on Charles Taylor, who is the former Liberian President now exiled in Nigeria. I was going to ask you if that 

is accurate and what is the Administration’s position on bringing 

Taylor before the United States-backed special court in Sierra 

Leone, where he has been indicted for war crimes for the forced 

amputations on civilians in Sierra Leone. 

Secretary POWELL. First, on the Congo Basin Initiative, sir, you 

know how proud we are of that initiative, and it will be fully funded. I will never forget the memorable afternoon I spent in Gabon 

seeing what we could do in that part of the world to preserve that 

gift that has been given to us by the Almighty. This is one that we 

are proud of and behind. 

With respect to AGOA, we certainly support the extension, 

AGOA III. Anything we can do to help it along, we would certainly 

do so. With respect to Liberia and Mr. Taylor, we are pleased with 

the progress we have made in Liberia. As I mentioned, Chairman 

Bryant was in to see the President and we had a very successful 

donors conference in New York on Friday, raising over $500 million. I am proud of the United States contributing $200 million out 

of the supplemental that the Congress gave us for 2004. We have 

another $245 million for peacekeeping activities in Liberia from the 

United Nations. 

With respect to Charles Taylor, I think he is safely ensconced in 

Nigeria and not a factor. Anything that could be done to recover 

his ill-gotten assets, we should support. With respect to the international tribunal, the deal that was struck to get him out of the 

country was that if he went to Nigeria there would not be pressure 

53

on Nigeria to turn him over. It is still a matter between Charles 

Taylor and the tribunal. We believe he is still answerable to that 

tribunal, and we hope that circumstances will one day have him 

stand before the tribunal to give the answers, but we are not pressuring Nigeria on that matter right now. It was one of those compromises that was necessary to end the killing and end the horrible 

situation that existed in Liberia at the time. 

Mr. ROYCE. I hope justice will not be delayed too long and that 

Charles Taylor does not go back to Liberia as a consequence. 

Chairman HYDE. I am sorry to announce that the Secretary must 

leave at 3 o’clock, and so if we can be a little more concise with 

our questions, maybe we can get to more Members before the Secretary must leave. 

Mr. Sherman. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Secretary, I have got some questions I will 

submit for the record, but I will focus on the fact that, given that 

Azerbaijan walked away from the Key West peace talks, is it really 

a good idea to have Azerbaijan getting a lot more military foreign 

aid than Armenia when our practice in the past has been to keep 

parity in military aid. 

But knowing your time is scarce, I would like to focus on the 

fence that Israel is building. We are the country of Robert Frost, 

who said that good fences made good neighbors. We have the largest barrier in the world manned by American forces; namely, the 

DMZ. Whether that saved only dozens of American lives or whether it has prevented a war that would have saved hundreds of thousands of deaths, we can only conjecture. But DMZ, good idea. 

India is building a barrier and it is my understanding that we 

support that barrier. They are of course subject to cross-border terrorism. Putting aside the exact route that Israel is building this 

fence, and knowing that in fact there will be several routes for several different barriers, why wouldn’t we strongly support the idea 

of having something to impede terrorists moving into Israel from 

the West Bank? 

It is my understanding that we never opposed the building of a 

barrier between Israel and the Gaza Strip and that that barrier 

has been successful in deterring terrorism. 

Secretary POWELL. I don’t think, sir, we have never said that we 

oppose the building of the fence. The expression the President 

used, when he spoke about this with Mr. Sharon some time ago, 

is that we have a problem with the fence, and the problem is the 

route of the fence. It is an insignificant issue if the fence follows 

along, generally, what is accepted to be the green line. But when 

the fence started to go deeply into territories occupied by Palestinians, and disrupted communities, disrupted access to go back and 

forth to jobs and other places, that is what caused the problem. We 

wish there was not a need for the fence. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I thank you for that clarification, and I would 

point out that if the fence saves one life, that more than counterbalances a few diplomatic or even economic problems caused by the 

fence. 

Secretary POWELL. Sir, these are not just a few diplomatic problems. This is a significant——

Mr. SHERMAN. Weigh that against one life. 

54

Secretary POWELL. I have to weigh these things all the time. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I would like to shift to another area of the world. 

We are all concerned about Iran developing nuclear weapons. We 

see that many people in Iran are pressing their government to do 

what is in that country’s economic interest, and yet we have ignored opportunities to impose economic pressure on this government to prevent them from developing nuclear weapons. 

Today, we import their caviar and their carpets, things that we 

might be able to survive without. Why do we continue the Clinton 

Administration policy of opening our markets to Iran’s non-energy 

exports? And why did we do so little to prevent the loan of about 

a quarter billion dollars from the World Bank to the Iranian regime? I mean if this was all in return for really stopping their nuclear program, I would understand, but I don’t think you or I believe that Iran’s nuclear ambitions are blocked at the present time. 

Secretary POWELL. No, I wouldn’t agree that they have been 

blocked. I would have to say, however, that in light of their signing 

of an additional protocol and some of the progress that has been 

made by European foreign ministers, we have seen some change in 

attitude. But we have no reason to believe that their ambitions 

have suddenly, totally disappeared or gone away. 

Our European friends and other friends in the international community do not have the same policy toward Iran that we do and 

do not see it in the same terms that we do. We try to persuade 

them they should, but it is not the case. 

With respect to the items of import that are allowed, I would 

have to go back and review that for the record with my colleagues 

elsewhere in the Administration. 

[The information referred to follows:]

55

COPY OF LETTER FROM THE HONORABLE PAUL V. KELLY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, 

LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, ADDRESSED TO THE HONORABLE BRAD SHERMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECEIVED BY THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS ON FEBRUARY 27, 2004, IN RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS DIRECTED TO SECRETARY COLIN POW- ELL DURING THE HEARING


91796a.eps
56


91796b.eps
57

Mr. SHERMAN. I would point out that the Clinton Administration 

announced in 2000 that they were going to let these in and they 

were hoping for a rapprochement with Iran, and instead the Foreign Minister of Iran figuratively kicked your predecessor in her 

teeth as a ‘‘thank you’’ for this $150 million market for goods that 

they would have difficulty exporting to another country. So it was 

a failed opening that has been allowed to be open, I believe, because of some economic and political pressures on your department 

that hopefully will be overridden by good policy. 

Secretary POWELL. Thank you, Mr. Sherman. 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Tancredo. 

Mr. TANCREDO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, certainly there have been times that I have been in disagreement even 

with the President and with you on various issues. That has never 

stopped me, and my affiliation with the Republican Party has 

never stopped me from expressing those differences of opinion. But 

at some time in this business, as you are certainly well aware, 

there comes a point at which you look at all of the information, all 

the empirical evidence that is available to you and then you make 

a decision based on that and what you believe to be the integrity 

of the people making the case. And I have got to tell you, sir, with 

all of my heart that to a great extent, the case for me was made 

to cast my vote as I did based upon what I believed to be the comment you made, the testimony you provided here and to the world 

in the United Nations, because I believe with all my heart that you 

are a man of great integrity, as I do the President of the United 

States, and I do not believe that he or you would mislead us to 

take us into a war for some frivolous reason. I believe it was done 

with every amount of deliberation necessary to make a decision of 

that nature. 

So I just want to assure you that I feel that way, and I know 

a majority of my colleagues do and I believe that a majority of 

Americans do, and I want to thank you for helping restore that degree of integrity to the office that I think may have not been 

present in past Administrations. 

Secretary POWELL. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. TANCREDO. I notice in the bill that you are putting forward, 

in the operations bill, actually it was in the supplemental, there 

was a significant amount of money, $1.15 billion, appropriated for 

Pakistan, Jordan and other key cooperating nations to compensate 

them for logistical and military support in United States efforts in 

Afghanistan. 

There is a great deal of money also in the President’s budget to 

continue this activity, and I am just thinking that is an enormous 

amount of money. I am wondering first of all how we are monitoring that expenditure, how we know that when—especially because we know a great deal of it, $900 million of it, I believe, went 

to Pakistan, how we know how that money is being spent. And also 

if you think we can use it if we have any greater leverage now in 

talking to Pakistan about some other issues. The madrasas that 

they support or that they allow to actually exist—I will not say 

support, necessarily, but allow to exist. Treatment of the Sindhi 

people is another issue that I have also had some concern about for 

58

some time. And I wonder if we could leverage that in any way, and 

if you think it is advisable to do so. 

Secondly, I know I have communicated with you in the past 

about another issue, and that is something I find very disconcerting about what keeps happening on our southern border. As 

recently as the 24th of January, according to reports in the Arizona 

newspapers, we had another incursion into the United States of 

Mexican military forces. Contingencies of the Mexican military 

crossed into the United States. There were pictures on the front 

page of the newspaper there. 

Shortly thereafter, as I understand it, a drug shipment came 

through in an area relatively close to where this happened. We 

know that these incursions happen as a result of the fact that the 

Mexican military is providing some cover essentially for the movement of drugs across the line. And I just wonder—I see also in your 

budget $71.5 million for Mexico, and I wonder if we can’t use some 

leverage to get them to do something about the fact that we have 

had, in the last 5 years, over 200 incursions into the United States 

by Mexican military forces that were not simply because they got 

lost and just wandered in. It was purposeful and sometimes shots 

were fired. This is very, very dangerous stuff. 

Secretary POWELL. Once again, sir, thank you for your earlier 

words of support. With respect to Pakistan, the amount you mentioned is really reimbursement for services they have provided to 

our military. DoD gets a bill from them and DoD responds to that 

bill—then DoD audits the bill and makes sure they are paying for 

services that were received, fuel or other support for the operation 

of our forces. I think we are in pretty good shape there. 

With respect to other funds that might go to Pakistan through 

my accounts, they flow through our Embassy and our chief of mission there, and we do everything that we can to make sure that 

the funds are going to the intended purposes, and that they are accounted for. My own Inspector General and financial people, as 

well as those in USAID, follow up on that. 

We do have, I think, leverage over Pakistan as a result of not 

just financial support, but the relationship we have been able to develop with President Musharraf over the last several years. As a 

result, I think the A.Q. Khan outcome that we have seen in recent 

days is evidence of that. President Bush and President Musharraf 

have spoken a number of times about the madrasas, and the evidence is that President Musharraf has under way to make sure 

that these schools start to return to a public school format where 

they are teaching youngsters and not indoctrinating youngsters. 

That is going to be a long-term process that President Musharraf 

is committed to, and we are committed to help with funding as 

these schools are converted back to their real purposes. 

I am not that familiar with this particular newspaper article, but 

I am concerned about any incursions on our southern border. We 

certainly should use the $71.5 million as leverage to make it clear 

to the Mexicans that this kind of activity is unacceptable. 

Mr. TANCREDO. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Wexler. 

Mr. WEXLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, on each 

of the occasions that you have come before this Committee, I have 

59

tried to always express my heartfelt belief that the men and 

women that make up the State Department are in fact America’s 

unsung heroes. They are our finest Ambassadors in the world, and 

the morale in the State Department since you and your leadership 

team have taken over the State Department I think has been remarkably tremendous and that is a credit to you and your leadership team. Although you are probably way too humble to acknowledge it, for me, I will speak for myself, but I think there are probably several Members on this side of the aisle that would concur, 

and I know an overwhelming number of my constituents feel as I 

do, you are the credible voice in this Administration. 

When you reached the conclusion that Iraq presented a clear and 

present danger to America, that was important to me. Extremely 

important. And I not only take you at your word, I believe you. I 

do not question your credibility or your integrity or your honestly 

held belief that everything you said reflected the best evidence 

given to you. I do not question that. 

But the facts as we now know them suggest that there was a 

part of the story that was in fact not told. You have referred to Dr. 

Kay on several occasions today. Fairly so. But what has not been 

stated today is that Dr. Kay said we were all wrong. We were all 

wrong for the basis of why we went to war. 

And taking the emotions, as the Chairman I think referred to it 

earlier, out of it, I know you have to agree that it is not only fair 

for Members of this Committee and this Congress, but it is our obligation to as strictly as we possibly can question the basis of why 

we went to war. And today you presented an argument regarding 

the intent of Saddam Hussein. And as persuasive as that argument 

may be regarding the intent, I find a remarkably low threshold 

that we are now talking about a dictator’s intent relative to America’s veracity and ability and credibility in going to war. 

So the question I would like to ask you, which I believe and I 

hope you feel is a fair one—and it is not a hypothetical question 

like The Washington Post asked you—but knowing what you know 

today, do you believe that Iraq presented a real and present danger? Do you believe that Iraq presented an imminent threat? 

Secretary POWELL. Iraq presented a real and present danger. The 

President never used the specific word ‘‘imminent,’’ nor did I. Intent is important. Capability is important. We examine capability 

at every level. Did he have the wherewithal? Did he have dual use 

programs? Did he have dual use facilities that could make chemical 

and biological weapons? Yes, yes, yes, yes. Did he have delivery 

systems and was he trying to improve them? Yes. Did he have 

stockpiles? Our belief, based on the evidence that was available to 

us, was yes. It was also Dr. Kay’s belief. 

It is not a question of, gee, if there are no stockpiles now, why 

did you tell us there were stockpiles then? The reason is because 

we believed there were stockpiles then. We believed there were 

stockpiles then, when I said so before the United Nations on the 

5th of February last year. We believed there were stockpiles when 

Dr. Kay went in. We believed there were stockpiles when our forces 

went in, and we were surprised that they did not find them right 

away. We were surprised Dr. Kay did not find them. 

60

It was not because we knew they were not there, and now we are 

pulling a bait and switch. We believed it at the time, and we believed it not just because we wanted to believe it to start a war. 

We believed it because the intelligence information available to us 

said the stockpiles were there. 

You can roll up all of these elements—intent, delivery systems, 

infrastructure, previous use, belief in other intelligence organizations in other countries that were going on the same basis that we 

were, the National Intelligence Estimate that was presented to 

Members of Congress, presented to a broad community, the work 

of the U.N., my own experience knowing that they had them and 

had used them before, and they had stockpiles after the war. 

Should we suddenly believe they have all gone? The preponderance 

of evidence was that they had stockpiles, and that was the basis 

upon which all other elements of evidence—intent, delivery systems, infrastructure hiding—all suggested that the case was 

clear—that there was a clear violation of international obligation, 

and a clear material breach of their obligation under the U.N. resolution. Dr. Kay said that we were wrong. Dr. Kay said we were 

wrong with respect to the stockpiles. That is his right. We will let 

Mr. Duelfer finish the work and see if any other evidence comes 

forward. The work is not done yet. 

But what Dr. Kay also said, I have to say in context. He also said 

we were right in taking out this threat because all of these elements were present. There was no doubt in Dr. Kay’s mind that 

the President acted correctly in the presence of Iraq’s failure to 

meet its obligation to the U.N. and Iraq’s ability to have these 

weapons at a time and place of their choosing once they got rid of 

the problem of international pressure and international sanctions. 

And the one thing that has always tossed me over the line so 

that I believed in what I was saying and I believed in the evidence 

that I was being presented—I would ask myself the question—if 

the U.N. did not act now or we did not act now and he was released from the pressure of sanctions, and there was no other pressure on him and he had gotten away with it—and he would have 

gotten away with it if he had gone through another year of U.N. 

meetings and resolutions and nothing happening—would he have 

said at that point, gee, I got away with it, so I will give up all of 

this infrastructure, and I will no longer pursue this? The only answer I could come to is, no, he would not have done that. Since he 

would not have done that, the President decided this was the time 

to act. He decided properly. He decided correctly, and we are better 

off without Saddam Hussein. 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Paul. 

Mr. PAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have two brief comments 

and then a question dealing with the Intelligence Committee investigation. First off, I found it interesting that there is a change in 

policy in Libya and a movement toward normalization, which is 

something that I could support, but it also raises questions—because you know here we have had a bad guy and he was a friend 

one time and then he became an enemy and there were sanctions 

against him, now he is going to be a good guy again. I just wonder 

what is going on, and in asking some around here what it was, 

61

somebody suggested that it might have something to do with natural gas. 

But, anyway, I would suggest that in the eighties we did this 

with Saddam Hussein. He was on the terrorist list. We remove him 

and we gave him subsidies disguised as loans. He became an ally 

and we helped him fight a war and look what became of it. Normalization to me means we should trade with them, but not giving 

them subsidies and not paying them so much of our taxpayers’ 

money to benefit. 

My other comment has to do with the casualties. Along with Senator Hagel, I have been anxious to find out how much this war is 

really costing us. And we really don’t get the answers. I know this 

is probably more in the Department of Defense, but we do not get 

it from Defense. There was an Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Health Affairs in January who said there were probably 10,000, 

and qualified it by saying this was the worst casualty rate ever in 

our history. Our official numbers that you get on occasion are 

lower, but the other numbers are much higher, so we really do not 

have that answer, and I hope some day that we will. 

But the question I want to ask is dealing with how politicized 

this investigation has become. I am in favor of the investigation. 

There was a failure; and we need to look into it and I am all for 

that. I like to think of myself as a nonpartisan, and sometimes not 

partisan enough. But the nonpartisan approach to me would be 

that we set ourselves up for the fingerpointing. All of the sudden, 

the way we went into this mess meant that it was decided in a way 

that I challenged at the time. 

In 2002, in October I came to the conclusion that we were not 

threatened by Saddam Hussein. I felt strongly about that. And also 

that the al-Qaeda was not involved. I think so far the facts have 

borne that out to be correct. But I argued that going to war is a 

very, very solemn decision-making process, and we went to war the 

wrong way. And we cannot argue that this was not a war—130,000 

troops, 500 men killed and thousands wounded. We occupy a land. 

We went to war by this Congress giving the authority and power 

to the President to decide when and if he goes to war, and we all 

know that it was to enforce U.N. resolutions. My suggestion is why 

should we have given up on the constitutional approach to war 

where this body would have been doing the debating back in October, not now, sorting out all of these facts and then the country 

coming together, the people coming together, making a decision instead of transferring the power and saying, Mr. President, make 

your decision any way you want. And, then, it does not go well and 

they jump on him. 

I think it is unfair to have given him the authority, then all the 

sudden say, oh, now we are going to get you for political reasons. 

I think we could have prevented a lot of problems by having this 

debate that we are having now in the media and in these Committee investigations a long time ago. And I would ask you, is there 

any reason why we cannot consider going to war in a more precise 

manner rather than allowing our Executive Branch to make the 

final decision? 

Secretary POWELL. War should always be considered in all seriousness. It should be a matter that is discussed if it is not a sudVerDate Mar 21 2002 15:36 Jun 02, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\021104\91796 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
62

den attack that you have to respond to, time permitting, between 

the Congress and the President and the American people. 

I think that discussion was held over a period of time in the fall 

of 2002, and Members of Congress were asking for an opportunity 

to hear from the President and the intelligence community, and to 

express a view through a resolution. 

It could be done other ways with the Congress determining that 

a resolution for war at the time of the war is required. It has been 

done in different ways over the course of our history, Mr. Paul, and 

I would not presume to tell the Congress how to discharge its constitutional obligations. But I would certainly agree with you that 

as one is approaching the possibility of war, there should be the 

broadest national conversation between the people, the President, 

and the Congress in its collective and individual capacities with the 

citizens of the United States. 

Mr. PAUL. Do you think this process might have prevented this 

politicizing that is going on and the fingerpointing? I think that is 

what it would have prevented. 

Secretary POWELL. It could well be the case. The intelligence information that was available to the Congress as they were considering that resolution was the same intelligence information that 

was available to the President and was available to me. There was 

no other body of intelligence that I was using. It was what was 

made available to the Congress for its deliberation. 

Mr. PAUL. Thank you. 

Secretary POWELL. I cannot comment on the issue of casualties, 

Mr. Paul. 

Mr. PAUL. On what? 

Secretary POWELL. You made reference to casualties. That is beyond my competence to talk about. 

Chairman HYDE. The last questioner, Mr. Engel. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I should say last but not 

least, I hope. Mr. Secretary, I have a couple of questions. As you 

know, I was the author and main sponsor of the Syria Accountability Act, which has strong bipartisan support in both Houses of 

Congress, passed overwhelmingly, and the President signed into 

law; and yet the Administration has not yet implemented the Syria 

Accountability Act. In the newspapers we have accounts, foreign 

fighters continue to come into Iraq, most of them from Syria, military officials said. 

Syria is supplying Hizballah, the terrorist group in the south of 

Lebanon, Israel’s northern border. There are all kinds of credible 

reports that when the Syrians went into Iran to give earthquake 

aid, the planes that came back were resupplying Hizballah. 

So I would like to ask you in light of all that, they still occupy 

Lebanon, they still obviously have weapons of mass destruction. 

There are a lot of people who say that the weapons of mass destruction that Iraq once had might be buried in Syria. When is the 

Administration going to implement the Syria Accountability Act? 

And then I would like to ask you about Northern Ireland. We 

have the Good Friday Accords, yet Ian Paisley is spewing forth 

some of the most vicious, virulent anti-Catholic rhetoric, and that 

is disgraceful. What can we do to get the Good Friday Accords back 

on track. 

63

Also, jumping to the other side of Europe, Kosovo. I CHAIR the 

Albanian Issues Caucus and I know you met with Prime Minister 

Rexhepi of Kosovo last week. I want to know the standards before 

status, I think it is merely a formula for delaying discussions of 

Kosovo’s future. And I would hope that we could move so that 

those people could move toward independence if that is what they 

desire. 

Secretary POWELL. With respect to the Syria Accountability Act, 

I used the prospect of that act with President Assad last year, and 

I told him you have to perform on the list of things I gave you to 

perform on because your strategic situation has changed in light of 

what has happened in Iraq. You have to respond. And I also said 

the American Congress is watching, and they are going to pass the 

Syrian Accountability Act, which you did overwhelmingly. And I intend to use it. 

You give us options within the act, and we are in the process of 

examining those options now to see how to use the leverage—the 

tools that you have given us inside of the act. 

With respect to Northern Ireland, we now have a new emissary, 

Mr. Mitchell Reiss, who has replaced Richard Haas as our man. He 

just visited and made his first calls on all the leaders in Northern 

Ireland as well as in the United Kingdom and Ireland, and I will 

be meeting with Mr. Reiss over the next several days to get a full 

report on the situation and how to move forward. 

It is going to be difficult moving forward, but at least, at the moment, the violence is not starting up again. That is the good news. 

With respect to Kosovo, I did meet with the Prime Minister last 

week, and I encouraged him to move in the direction of standards 

before status by early 2005. I sensed he understands that this is 

the proper approach to take. 

Mr. ENGEL. Can you give me a timetable with regard to the 

Syria Accountability Act? Are we looking at a couple of weeks with 

the Administration? 

Secretary POWELL. I don’t think it is any longer than that. I don’t 

think I can be any more precise than that, but it is in the near future, Mr. Engel. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Secretary, we want to thank you for a most 

instructive, illuminating, and somewhat contentious hearing. We 

commend, at least most us commend you for a superb job and very 

straightforward recital of the path to war that is logical and—politics aside—makes sense, at least in my opinion, and some others 

very close to me up here too. Thank you and good luck. 

Secretary POWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HYDE. The Committee stands adjourned. 

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, if we have other questions can we 

submit them to the Secretary for comment and answer? 

Chairman HYDE. Without objection, Members have 2 days to submit questions and you will obtain a written response. 

Ms. BERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HYDE. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 3:10 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(65)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

FRAGMENT OF THE LAST LETTER CLANDESTINELY DELIVERED FROM PRISON TO THE

WIFE OF CUBAN PRISONER OF CONSCIENCE, DR. OSCAR E. BISCET

Pinar del Rio, Cuba. December 26, 2003

3:20 p.m.- Kilo 8 Prison, Cell # 3 ( without electricity, or water) 

Happy New Year

Then you will call upon me and . . . pray to me, and I will listen to you. You 

will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart. 

Jeremiah 29:12–13

I’m in high spirits in spite of the continuous harassment aimed against me. 

I do not follow the order given by the Cuban correctional officers of ‘‘standing-up’’. 

They must know that their use of force cannot make us go against our moral principles. In light of this unjust measure, we had to respond with non-violent resistance. Together with other prisoners we sat on the floor, crossing our arms and legs 

in the style of a fakir. The military personnel applied force to coerce us to stand 

up but we would sit down immediately crying out loud: Long live human rights!, 

Freedom for all Cubans! etc. 

Four times they applied upon us this arbitrary measure. 

Now they pass inspection three times a day during the prisoners’ roll call. Passing 

inspection is not against my principles, although I believe these searches are unfair. 

We will not stand up as a way of protesting our unjustified imprisonment. I am not 

afraid, since God is with us. He is my rock. 

I’m strongly convinced of my moral principles . . . I have made my own the pain 

and sorrow of my fellow man . . . I can’t accept ‘‘evil’’ ways because if I did, it would 

destroy my soul and being, and I would never have peace of mind. 

I oppose injustice, so that it will not prevail. Non-violent struggle against evil dignifies the human spirit and at the same time strengthens me. Therefore, I will be 

in prison as long as God wills it . . . Who says that a man should abandon history?.. 

Remember, I never intended to attain prominence but, instead, history stumbled 

upon me. To those who feel disappointed with this, I ask them to question God Himself, responsible of man’s history. Sometimes, I delight in hearing malicious criticism. So often have judicious men been taken for mad. Criticism is necessary to 

make me a better person and it also contributes to my spiritual growth. If these 

criticisms are ill intended and possess half-truths, then I cast malice aside and 

thrive on truth. 

There is no doubt that existing evil and injustice in our country is made up of 

a structure well designed to repress, nevertheless, the apathy of individuals has prolonged its enduring presence. Merit goes to those individuals who, on their own, oppose evil with tenacity. 

God is love, and in the name of His love, I proceed. Far from imposing His will, 

I chose my own path, because He is freedom, and His freedom flows onto all human 

beings. It is very important for me that God’s will is in harmony with mine, I am 

not alone in my course since my guide is God’s absolute wisdom. 

There are no contradictions between my political, religious and social beliefs. My 

moral creed influences the political and social realms. I believe in separating religion as an institution from the political powers. I am secular and, although reason 

directs me towards religion, I try to think logically without the influence of religion. 

However, I believe that the greatest purpose of our lives is to praise God as well 

as human life. 

Since my youth, I have always considered myself a political individual as well as 

a humanist. In politics I have always wanted to carry out a revolution to eradicate 

66

evil from power and fulfill humanist precepts. Humanism is the essence of man and 

consequently of God. There is only one way to accomplish a just political balance: 

by fully implementing man’s dignity to oppose evil. 

Now is the right time for us to conquer our rights and freedom, nonexistent in 

this regime of terror, a regime that has demoralized its citizens. Terror and corruption are both used as weapons to manipulate the individual, making them weak, 

afraid and indifferent, unable to stand against the dramatic events which control 

and affect their daily lives. 

I wish to live to accomplish pending projects; I’m aware that God is my pillar and 

guardian who has protected me since birth, more than 60 times since 1997. Therefore, I’m well aware of the Lord’s purpose for my country and for myself. This information will be made public at an opportune time.

Fragment of a letter written to and read live via telephone from Havana by Elsa 

Morejon, wife of Oscar E. Biscet Gonzalez on January 9, 2004 during the radio program ‘‘Mesa Redonda’’ on Radio Mambi 710 am in Miami, USA. The letter was 

taken out clandestinely from Prison Kilo 8 in the province of Pinar del Rio, Cuba 

where Dr. Biscet is suffering cruel and inhumane punishments for refusing to obey 

any prison rules applied to common prisoners. 

Recorded, transcribed and translated: Coalition of Cuban-American Women/ 

MARIA ANTONIETA LIMA

ADDRESSES: 

Dr. Oscar E. Biscet Gonzalez 

Prision Kilo Ocho 

Kilometro 8 a Carretera Luis Lazo 

Pinar del Rio, Cuba 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, A REPRESENTA- TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, AND VICE CHAIRMAN, COM- MITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Mr. Secretary, thank you so much for your testimony today and for the strong and 

bold leadership you’ve shown in promoting America’s message throughout the world. 

I wanted to offer a few comments on a variety of topics which will be the basis for 

my follow-up questions. 

Mr. Secretary, I know you share my passion on the issue of slavery—and especially the trafficking of persons. The President has rightly spoken out against this 

horrible human rights abuse and correctly urged the international community to 

join our fight. While many countries—including our own—have major problems either as a destination, transit, or source country for trafficked persons, the issue is 

especially serious when it involves state-sponsorship, or state complicity, in the 

international sex trade. 

Specifically, I am interested in Uzbekistan. As you may know, we have received 

disturbing reports that Ms. Gulnora Karimova, the daughter of the President of 

Uzbekistan, is allegedly involved in the trafficking of women. The reports are based 

on information that she owns and controls a travel agency which organizes trips 

from Uzbekistan to Dubai and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). If these allegations 

are proven to be true, it would be very worrisome for our efforts to shut down the 

human trafficking networks in Uzbekistan. 

As I understand the allegations, Gulnora Karimova owns and controls a travel 

agency (Unitrend) that apparently has been granted a government monopoly by the 

UAE on all travel to and from Uzbekistan to the UAE. Numerous open source materials have documented the flow of trafficked women from Uzbekistan to the UAE. 

Some of the information indicates that many Uzbek women arrive to the UAE on 

phony tourist visas and are quickly forced into prostitution. If Ms. Karimova owns 

the only tourist and travel agency in this market, it certainly seems possible that 

her agency could be involved in this trade, either knowingly or unknowingly. Some 

of the open source materials I have reviewed are listed below. 

The Protection Project’s 2002 country report on the UAE notes: ‘‘The prostitution 

of foreigners is a significant phenomenon in the UAE. In 1997, government officials 

reported a large influx of Azeri, Kazakh, Russian, Turkmen, Ukrainian, and Uzbek 

women who came to the UAE on tourist visas and remained when they were forced 

into prostitution. In 1998, UAE police arrested 675 women in prostitution as part 

of a crackdown on the practice. The women were from Azerbaijan, Russia, 

Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan. As a consequence, Russian and other CIS 

women accounted for more than 60 percent of the total population of female prisoners in the UAE.’’ [Emphasis added] 

67

Further evidence that tourism offices are involved in smuggling persons into the 

UAE was noted in The Protection Project’s 2002 report: ‘‘In 1998, UAE security officials announced that they had shut down more than 60 tourism offices because 

those offices were involved in illegally providing visas to foreigners.’’

The State Department’s 2003 Trafficking in Persons (TIP) report for the UAE 

stated: ‘‘Women from Central Asia and Eastern Europe have reported being lured 

with the promise of legitimate jobs and then forced into commercial sexual exploitation.’’

In addition, the State Department TIP report for Uzbekistan in 2003 stated: 

‘‘Uzbekistan is primarily a source and, to a lesser extent, a transit country for the 

purposes of prostitution and labor. Confirmed information on the extent of trafficking from Uzbekistan only recently emerged, and there is a concern that the deterioration in the economy may lead to a growing problem. Known destinations are 

Kazakhstan, UAE, South Korea, Malaysia, Thailand, Kosovo, and Israel.’’

Clearly, Mr. Secretary, Uzbekistan has earned its Tier III designation under the 

Trafficking Law which I authored. The question is, have their top-level leadership 

moved beyond active neglect of the problem and into the realm of outright complicity? I think it is worth knowing that answer, and I look forward to continuing 

our partnership on the issue of human trafficking. 

I wanted to make a few other comments on efforts to combat trafficking in general. First, I am very pleased that the President pledged to spend $50 million additional funding to fight the war on trafficking at his UN speech last year. The new 

trafficking law signed by the President in December has several key components I 

will inquire about later. As you know, Mr. Secretary, it raises the bar for countries 

to meet minimum standards to combat trafficking, as it measures improvements 

they’ve made with respect to past reports, focuses on successes and not just efforts, 

and requires countries that can collect data to do so. The new law also creates the 

position of Ambassador-at-Large for the head of the Trafficking in Persons Office 

(TIP). 

I also wanted to make a few comments on the historic $15 billion initiative to 

combat AIDS the President signed into law last summer. As you know, this legislation contained important provisions making abstinence a priority in our education 

and prevention efforts. Many members of this Committee were amazed by research 

provided by Dr. Edward Greene from Harvard detailing how Uganda lowered their 

HIV/AIDS rate from 21 percent to 6 percent through focusing on abstinence. 

In addition, this Committee voted for a very important amendment to the AIDS 

bill that said, ‘‘No funds made available to carry out this Act, or any amendment 

made by this Act, may be used to provide assistance to any group or organization 

that does not have a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking.’’ This 

amendment is now law, making it an important component of our AIDS policy. 

My view is that this provision of law is critical to the success of our successful 

HIV programs, because it boils down to making sure our surrogates in these countries are not giving contradictory messages to the victims of prostitution and sextrafficking. The brothel owner and pimp should never be able to say to their victims, 

‘‘See the U.S. government’s representatives came through here and saw you 

enslaved and they don’t have any problem with it. There is no hope for you because 

no one cares what happens to you.’’ Shame on us if we allow that to happen to these 

girls and boys. 

I think it is worth clarifying that this law does not prevent groups from providing 

treatment or any other interventions to girls who are trapped in prostitution—it 

simply says that our representatives helping those girls have to have a policy that 

does not send a dangerous mixed message about prostitution and sex-trafficking. 

I know the Administration is working to get programs running for the new Millennium Challenge Account and select eligible countries. I was dismayed by assessments conducted by several NGO’s which concluded that, based on the criteria set 

forth thus far, rogue regimes such as communist Vietnam and the People’s Republic 

of China (PRC) might qualify for MCA funding. Apparently, these two dictatorships 

score well on the development of an open economy and investment in their people 

with regard to education and health care. However, both regimes have deplorable 

and horrendous human rights records, as well as extremely serious corruption problems. It is my strong hope that neither of these countries will be considered for the 

MCA unless they make dramatic improvements in human rights. 

I know the President’s budget request reflects a desire for the Administration to 

continue our refugee resettlement program, which reaches out to some the world’s 

most vulnerable who have been persecuted because of their religion, ethnicity, or political beliefs. As you know, the President authorized a ceiling of 70,000 admissions 

for FY 2004. 

68

I am aware of the fact that Deputy Secretary Armitage has notified the Vietnamese government of our desire to reopen access to the HO resettlement program 

for allies of America who suffered in re-education camps and various forms of persecution. The program was shut-down in 1994, but many who would have been eligible were not aware of the program or missed the deadline. Also, there are a significant number of Vietnamese living in the Philippines who have not been given legal 

status there, have ties to the United States and would have been eligible for prior 

resettlement programs. I know the Administration is considering resettlement opportunities for this community. 

Moving to the former Soviet States, I would like to note Ukraine faces critically 

important presidential elections later this year. The current leaders in Ukraine are 

trying to neutralize the popular democratic, pro-Western opposition candidate Victor 

Yushchenko in order to maintain their power. I hope that the Administration is 

monitoring this situation very closely. 

In Belarus, democratic activists and civil society are under pressure by a regime 

that is an anomaly in today’s Europe. There are parliamentary elections planned 

for this Fall. Yet the President’s budget request for Belarus indicates a decrease in 

funding, which I am concerned about. The FSA account shows a 9,045 FY 2003 Actual; a 6,850 FY 2004 Estimate; and a 6,500 FY 2005 Request. 

I wanted to comment on one additional specific budget issue. After reviewing the 

budget request, I am very concerned by the Broadcasting Board of Governors’ intention to shut down Radio Free Asia’s Cantonese service. Our focus on the Middle 

East, though eminently justifiable, is apparently diverting resources away from 

countries and regions that we cannot afford to ignore. This strategy of siphoning 

funds from one sensitive region to another may seem sensible in the short run, but 

our experience in Afghanistan, East Africa, and elsewhere has demonstrated that 

such cutbacks can entail enormous future costs. 

We all know that China does not tolerate a free press or respect the freedom of 

assembly. If anything, the rights and liberties of Chinese citizens are under heightened attack due to the government’s new practice of imprisoning Internet essayists. 

These problems are increasingly apparent in Cantonese-speaking Hong Kong, where 

proposed legislation under Article 23 would have further curtailed civil liberties. 

Congress has directed Radio Free Asia (RFA) to broadcast to China 24 hours a day. 

The Chinese government works relentlessly to jam RFA, but our broadcasts still 

reach every province of China, including many of the nation’s 45 million Cantonese 

speakers. I fear that a cutback in our Chinese-language services will be viewed as 

a victory by Beijing and a sign that the United States is losing interest in the region. 

Finally, I just wanted to note that I am horrified by recent reports that North 

Korea is carrying out chemical and biological weapons’ experiments on political prisoners. Recently, a BBC documentary reported that North Korean defector Kwon 

Hyok had witnessed the extermination of families, including children, in gas chambers. Additionally, reports from a second witness have emerged. This man, the chief 

electrical engineer at one of North Korea’s largest chemical complexes, has testified 

that prisoners arrived in trucks twice a month and disappeared into a neighboring 

compound. At one time, while working, the engineer came across a chamber about 

the size of a freezer, in which he ‘‘saw human hands scratching a round glass window inside a chamber that was locked with a heavy metal door.’’ The engineer then 

risked his life to smuggle out documentary evidence that these crimes against humanity were occurring. These documents are letters of transfer of inmates for ‘‘the 

purpose of human experimentation for liquid gas.’’ Tragically, this brave engineer, 

his wife, and his son were recently seized in China while trying to escape to Thailand. I hope that the administration is following this topic closely. 

Mr. Secretary, I do thank you for your time with us and look forward to working 

with you and administration officials on these and other important topics in world 

affairs. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE GARY L. ACKERMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for appearing before us today. 

Mr. Secretary, a year ago you appeared before the UN Security Council and detailed the case against Saddam Hussein and his regime for your diplomatic colleagues. Your presentation that day was the apogee of a larger campaign by the 

President, and his senior advisers to make the public case for going to war and removing Saddam Hussein and his government from power. 

69

I want to be clear, Mr. Secretary, I supported the decision to go to war, I voted 

for the resolution authorizing the use of force, I believed the case that you and the 

rest of the Administration were making. But in the aftermath of the war, not having 

found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, and with shifting justifications for 

the war coming from the President, I can’t help but feel the same unease my constituent feel that we were sold a bill of goods. 

While no one in a policy-making position in the Administration ever said the word 

‘‘imminent’’ everything that was said to convince the public, and the Congress, suggested that we needed to take action immediately if not sooner. The President said 

we would not live at the mercy of Iraq’s dictator. Dr. Rice said, ‘‘we don’t want the 

smoking gun to turn out to be a mushroom cloud.’’ And the Vice President said 

‘‘simply put, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.’’

That kind of language amounts to a case for imminence, even if no one actually 

said the word. Now, unable to discover the stockpiles of weapons that Vice President 

Cheney asserted were there and that Secretary Rumsfeld claimed to know the exact 

location of, we find ourselves with a problem. Not that we can’t find the weapons, 

or that al-Qaeda forces are sneaking into Iraq to attack our troops, or that we’re 

now responsible for rebuilding a nation the size of California. No our real problem 

is much bigger: the problem is an utter lack of credibility. It’s gone. Having not just 

cried wolf, but rabid wolf , this Administration has lost credibility with the Congress, with the American people and with the international community. 

And the credibility gap is not just about the reasons we went to war in Iraq, but 

extends to the plans for what we would do after the war. I remember clearly being 

among those voices in the Congress who agreed that winning the war would be relatively easy and that winning the peace after the war would be much harder. We 

were assured, the American people were assured, that there was a plan. And, in 

fact there was a plan. It was produced by your department, I suspect at your direction. 

It fills thirteen volumes and occupies a shelf in the committee office. It’s very detailed and discusses all the issues we’ve confronted since the first day of the occupation. Yet this plan was deliberately shoved aside and it’s chief architect summarily 

removed from our reconstruction efforts in Iraq. 

How are the American people to believe that the current plan to hand over power 

to Iraqis on June 30 will actually work, when all the expertise the United States 

government could muster has been summarily ignored? As I have said before this 

plan looks more like cut and run than it does dig in and make it work. 

Finally, I’m deeply concerned that the war against Iraq has undermined our stated national security doctrine on preemption. I agree that we face a new and different world in the wake of September 11 and that we must think differently and 

find creative ways to win the war on terror. But, preemption as a valid and legal 

doctrine for self-defense depends on imminence, that a preemptive strike is justified 

if we know that there is an immediate threat to our national security. What we’ve 

discovered in Iraq is that there was no imminent threat and that our intelligence 

assessment of the nature and scope of Saddam’s weapons programs was far from 

the mark. The case that was made to go to war in Iraq twisted preemption doctrine 

beyond recognition making it virtually useless as a key component of U.S. national 

security policy. And if by our actions, we have created the precedent for transforming preemptive war into preventive war, then in destroying the real but manageable threat from Iraq, tragically, we will have made the world a more dangerous 

place in the long run. 

Mr. Chairman, I’m glad Saddam is gone, and Iraq is free, but how we got there 

leaves a bad taste in my mouth. America’s foreign policy has always demanded legitimacy in both our ends and in the means we choose to achieve them. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOSEPH CROWLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Chairman Hyde and Ranking Member Lantos, thank you for conducting this important hearing on the President’s international affairs budget request. I also would 

like to thank Secretary Powell for coming in this afternoon to brief the Committee 

and answer our questions. 

There is some here to celebrate and much to question, and I appreciate you appearing here before us today. After reviewing the President’s budget, I am deeply 

troubled by the cuts being made to the development and humanitarian assistance 

accounts outside of the HIV/AIDS and Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) funding. 

70

While I am pleased to see that HIV/AIDS and the Millennium Challenge Account 

(MCA) are being funded, I am disappointed to see that the President’s two major 

priorities outside of the war on terrorism are not funded at the authorizing level. 

This seems to be a continuing problem with this Administration. 

These are two bold initiatives, which I have strongly supported, but after the big 

press announcement by this President it seems to me that little has been done to 

follow through with full support of these initiatives. 

Is all the Administration interested in is a big press hit? Because, after looking 

at this budget they don’t seem too interested in helping the worlds neediest people. 

However, I am pleased to see the increases for democracy building in the Middle 

East. I would like to see more funding going to our more moderate friends in the 

Middle East like Jordan, which has continued on the path of economic development 

and reform despite the still turbulent regional political situation. 

Jordan is building a model of social, political and economic reform in the region, 

it needs the support of the United States to ensure the implementation of its bold 

reform agenda. Jordan deserves more of a helping hand from the U.S. Outside of 

the Middle East, other nations with a majority of Muslims must receive its fair 

sharing of US assistance for democracy building as well. 

One such country is Bangladesh. I was in Bangladesh this past January, and I 

would like to commend the work Ambassador Harry Thomas and the diplomatic 

core in Dhaka. They are doing great work but could do so much more if they had 

the necessary assistance to open, for example, more American corners to do outreach. 

Mr. Secretary—as you know, Bangladesh is a struggling democracy that needs 

more of our attention. One of the questions I kept getting asked when I was in 

Dhaka was, what does Bangladesh need to do to get the attention of the United 

States? 

One person I met with in Dhaka suggested that if Bangladesh became a haven 

for terrorists like Pakistan, U.S. assistance would flow in. This is not the message 

the United States should be sending out to our friends—we should help those in 

need before problems emerge—not after. 

Mr. Secretary, the press is reporting that you are expected to visit Pakistan in 

the next few weeks to discuss the country’s nuclear proliferation investigations with 

President Pervez Musharraf. 

I fear that, by the U.S. accepting President Musharraf’s decision to pardon Dr. 

Khan, the message we are sending to people in similar situations is that sharing 

and assisting in the proliferation of nuclear secrets and weapons is acceptable. 

While I am sure you will stress the need for Pakistan to better secure it’s nuclear 

technology and weapons, I would ask that you urge President Musharraf to sign the 

Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. 

Mr. Secretary, I look forward to hearing you discuss the upcoming budget and 

what you see as the United States priorities for fiscal year 2005. Thank you. 

RESPONSE FROM THE HONORABLE COLIN L. POWELL, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT

OF STATE, TO QUESTION SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE JAMES

A. LEACH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA

Mr. Leach’s Question: 

In a profoundly disturbing development, we understand that over a period of years 

A.Q. Khan and perhaps other elements of Pakistan’s elite turned the country’s highly 

classified atomic weapons program into a kind of nuclear bazaar, with sophisticated 

technologies and designs having apparently been transferred to Iran, Libya and very 

likely North Korea. Whether other state or non-state actors also received this technology remains unclear. In this circumstance, understanding that Pakistan remains 

a critical ally in the campaign against terrorism and a linchpin for stability in South 

Asia, my question is three-fold: is the Pakistani government fully cooperating with 

U.S. and other investigators seeking to unravel the chain of proliferation associated 

with A.Q. Khan; what steps is the U.S. prepared to take individually, jointly with 

Pakistan, or in concert with other countries and relevant international institutions 

to reassure the American people that Pakistan will not permit this kind of proliferation to occur again; and will the Department commit to providing to this Committee 

a timely, complete and appropriately classified accounting of this affair, including 

the possible transfer of nuclear technologies from Pakistan to North Korea? Please 

provide a classified response if necessary. 

71

Secretary Powell’s Response: 

President Musharraf understands the importance of shutting down the A.Q. Khan 

proliferation network. Pakistan has said it will share all relevant information from 

its investigation with us as well as with the IAEA, and we are working with Pakistan toward that end. 

We are urging Pakistan to take steps to ensure that such activity cannot take 

place again from Pakistan, and we have an ongoing program to help Pakistan bring 

its export controls in line with accepted international standards. We have also 

stressed that A.Q. Khan and his collaborators must not be allowed to resume their 

operations. In that connection, it is notable that Khan’s pardon is conditioned on 

his continued cooperation and that his alleged co-conspirators in Pakistan remain 

in detention. 

We are taking many other steps, individually and in concert with other countries, 

to roll up the network worldwide, and to ensure that this sort of activity can never 

happen again. We will also be working to strengthen the international nonproliferation regime by closing the loopholes that permitted the network to operate and taking the steps necessary to ensure that we can stop such proliferation in the future. 

Such actions will include:

• encouraging all NPT parties to adhere to the Additional Protocol that 

strengthens IAEA safeguards by giving the agency the tools it needs to better 

uncover, track, and investigate clandestine nuclear programs;

• working with the Nuclear Suppliers Group to tighten controls on the export 

of nuclear technology worldwide;

• urging that countries that are not NSG members adopt NSG control lists and 

standards;

• calling for a UN nonproliferation resolution that will call on nations to criminalize the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; and

• pursuing our Proliferation Security Initiative designed to interdict shipments 

of WMD, missiles and related materials.

The Department of State can provide appropriately classified briefings on this 

matter to the House International Relations Committee. 

RESPONSES FROM THE HONORABLE COLIN L. POWELL, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT

OF STATE, TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE GREGORY W. MEEKS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. Meeks’ Question: 

The Bush administration sent the former Secretary of State, James Baker, as a 

special envoy to impress upon some G–7 nations to cancel all Iraqi debt since the 

administration perceives these debts as odious. Odious in the sense that the debts are 

as a result of Saddam Hussein’s unruly borrowing to entrench himself in power to 

the detriment of his people’s socio-economic development. Would it not also be fair 

to cancel debts contracted by dictators like Mobutu, Abacha and others by the same 

token of odiousness? 

Secretary Powell’s Response: 

Iraq’s situation is unique. As the President said when he appointed Secretary 

Baker as his personal envoy on the issue of Iraq debt, ‘‘The future of the Iraqi people should not be mortgaged to the enormous burden of debt incurred to enrich Saddam Hussein’s regime. This debt endangers Iraq’s long-term prospects for political 

health and economic prosperity.’’ Not only has Iraq suffered from two decades of 

brutal dictatorship, a decade of international sanctions, and three wars fought on 

its soil, but it has an extraordinarily high debt burden. Iraq’s debt is approximately 

$120 billion, over 600 percent of its GDP and 1000 percent of its exports, and it 

faces a heavy reparations burden. All these factors call for cancellation of at least 

the vast majority of Iraq’s debt so that it can resume growth and become a stable, 

prosperous partner in a strategic part of the world. Secretary Baker, in seeking reduction of at least the vast majority of Iraq’s debt, has stressed these unique factors, 

instead of relying on the odious debt argument. 

Our engagement with Iraq does not mean that we are neglecting the needs of 

other countries, including countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) 

and Nigeria that have suffered under dictators. As part of the Heavily Indebted 

Poor Country (HIPC) Initiative, the U.S. forgives 100 percent of participating countries’ eligible debt. The DRC is currently benefiting from 90 percent reduction of its 

debt service flows under the HIPC initiative; most of its remaining stock of debt will 

72

be reduced when it reaches completion point. The U.S. is working with Congress to 

obtain the funds necessary to provide our portion of DRC’s debt reduction. The U.S. 

helped Nigeria obtain a very generous debt rescheduling from the Paris Club in 

2000, with a promise to consider further relief if Nigeria maintained good economic 

policies. Unfortunately, Nigeria subsequently fell out of compliance with its IMF 

program and has not been able to avail itself of all the debt relief offered by the 

Club. 

Mr. Meeks’ Question: 

With violence spreading so close to our borders in Haiti, it is imperative that our 

government openly embrace the CARICOM proposal offered by the Caribbean community. The proposal calls for a democratic and peaceful solution to the conflict. Mr. 

Secretary, can you help prevent further deaths in Haiti by assuring all of us here 

today that the Administration supports the CARICOM proposal, supports an evenhanded approach to ending the conflict, and is still willing to fund an end to the 

conflict in light of the OAS Special Mission in Haiti budget being reduced from almost $5 million to zero this year, and NED’s lack of programs and financing for 

Haiti? 

Secretary Powell’s Response: 

The United States fully supports the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) proposal. 

We participated with the OAS as an observer at the CARICOM meetings in The 

Bahamas (January 21) and in Kingston (January 31) during which the plan was created. On February 13, I will meet with OAS Secretary General Cesar Gaviria and 

the foreign ministers of Canada, The Bahamas, and Jamaica. I anticipate that after 

the meeting, the U.S., CARICOM, Canada, and the OAS will issue a statement formally endorsing the CARICOM plan. President Aristide accepted the plan at the 

January 31 meeting in Kingston. With the full weight of the international community behind the plan, we will work with opposition and civil society leaders to gain 

their acceptance. An agreement based on the CARICOM plan, signed by President 

Aristide and the political opposition, should help to quell the violence that has broken out in the north. 

The United States continues to support the OAS Special Mission for Strengthening Democracy in Haiti. The United States contributed $1 million on February 

11, and in addition to the $4.975 million earmark for the Special Mission, our overall assistance to Haiti is estimated to be $55M for FY 2004. Funding will support 

programs designed to increase political party professionalism, strengthen independent media and civil society organizations, and promote judicial reform and 

human rights, as well as help provide security and humanitarian assistance. 

Mr. Meeks’ Question: 

I see that we have launched a new $4 million program on anti-terrorism in Kenya, 

but have almost zeroed a budget related to border security and straight lined other 

budgets that address some of the root causes of terrorism, such as poverty. With our 

travel advisory aiding in the crippling of their tourism industry and economy, do you 

think our assistance to Kenya is sufficient given Kenya’s history with terrorism such 

as the bombing of one of our embassies? 

Secretary Powell’s Response: 

Our assistance to Kenya is sufficient to address our principal interests there: national security, improved governance and economic growth, reduction of disease and 

poverty, and protection of human rights. 

In particular, Kenya will receive about $33 million in two-year funds under the 

President’s East Africa Counter-terrorism Initiative (EACTI) and will participate 

with other regional countries in programs valued at an additional $7 million. These 

programs include efforts to assist Kenya with border and coastal security and to 

combat terrorism. 

We will also assist the Kenyan government with its initiatives to fight corruption, 

improve transparency, strengthen the operations of parliament, and enhance Kenya’s legal system. These efforts are key portions of President Kibaki’s reform program. 

As a focus country, Kenya will also receive $76 million in FY 04 for bilateral assistance under the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief to combat the growing scourge of HIV/AIDS there through prevention, care, and treatment, in harmony 

with President Kibaki’s decision to ‘‘declare war’’ on HIV/AIDS. 

While we are increasing our help to Kenya in these areas, we intend to maintain 

our assistance for development as well as to provide substantial humanitarian food 

assistance. 

73

Although some sectors of the Kenyan tourist industry have had problems, overall 

tourism to Kenya as well as income to Kenya from tourism has increased since the 

Travel Warning was issued in May 2003—in part because Americans make up only 

seven percent of all tourists there. 

At the same time, we are working closely with Kenya to address the problem of 

terrorism that makes the Travel Warning necessary. 

RESPONSES FROM THE HONORABLE COLIN L. POWELL, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT

OF STATE, TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE CHRIS- TOPHER H. SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JER- SEY, AND VICE CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Mr. Chris Smith’s Question: 

With regard to support to Belarus through the FSA, shouldn’t we be increasing—

not decreasing—pro-democracy assistance to Belarus? What can be done to broaden 

and expand our country’s support for democratic forces inside Belarus? 

Secretary Powell’s Response: 

U.S. assistance programs in Belarus focus on sustaining democratic political parties, media, trade unions, and other independent civil society groups struggling to 

operate under President Lukashenko’s authoritarian regime. The U.S. funds programs that promote the rule of law, civic education, electoral reform and election 

monitoring. We also work with the next generation of leaders, exposing them to 

democratic principles and practices through Internet access programs and training 

provided by U.S. political party institutes. 

We look for ways to ensure that funds for Belarus have a maximum multiplier 

effect and, through such programs, lay the foundation for the day when Belarusian 

norms and practices are no longer out of step with Europe. The State Department’s 

Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DLR) has agreed to provide a onetime supplement to the funds now being devoted to political process-related programs on the understanding that there will be no reduction in existing funds. 

Our investments in political party development have borne fruit with Belarusian 

pro-democracy parties’ and organizations’ decision to form a coalition, launch a common and responsive electoral platform, cooperate in fielding candidates and implement a common electoral strategy in the run-up to the October parliamentary elections. We will encourage greater consolidation among pro-democracy forces over the 

coming months. 

While such achievements are heartening, we have to balance allocation of assistance for Belarus against competing priorities across the region. One avenue that we 

are exploring is to further refine the coordination of our assistance with that of 

other countries and organizations, such as the European Union and the new accession states bordering Belarus. 

MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION

Mr. Chris Smith’s Question: 

Can you give us any guarantees that Vietnam and China will not be made eligible 

for Millennium Challenge Account funds unless they dramatically improve their 

abysmal human rights records? 

Secretary Powell’s Response: 

On February 2, 2004, the Millennium Challenge Corporation’s Board released a 

list of 63 countries that under the requirements of the Millennium Challenge Act 

must be considered ‘‘candidates’’ for the MCA in FY 2004. China is not a candidate 

country in FY 2004, although it is potentially a candidate country in FY 2005. Vietnam is a candidate country this fiscal year. 

On March 3, 2004, the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) will send to 

Congress a report on ‘‘Criteria and Methodology for Determining the Eligibility of 

Candidate Countries for MCA Assistance in FY 2004’’. Under the proposed Criteria, 

the MCC Board will consider a candidate country’s performance on 16 indicators included in three broad policy categories—Ruling Justly, Investing in People, and Encouraging Economic Freedom, supplemented with additional information as needed, 

for example, to fill in lags and gaps in the data. Being a candidate country, in and 

of itself, does not guarantee that the country will obtain MCA funds. 

Respect for democratic governance and human rights are key components of the 

Criteria. Three of the six indicators used in the Ruling Justly category are directly 

related to political freedom—the World Bank Institute’s survey of Voice and Vote 

and Freedom House’ surveys of Civil Liberties and Political Rights. The Board may 

74

also deem a country ineligible if it performs substantially below average on any indicator and has not taken steps to address the shortcoming. 

On or soon after May 6, 2004, the MCC Board will meet and determine which 

of the statutorily determined candidate countries will be eligible to be considered 

for MCA assistance in FY 2004. It would not be appropriate to prejudge the Board’s 

decision. I should emphasize, however, that this will be a competitive process. The 

Board will be closely evaluating the candidate countries in light of their performance on the above-described Criteria, which requires an evaluation of performance 

on all of the indicators, including those related to democracy and human rights. 

Mr. Chris Smith’s Question: 

Can you discuss how the new AIDS office is working to make abstinence a priority 

in our prevention efforts? Also, I would like to know specifically how the provision 

prohibiting funding from going to organizations unless they have a clear policy prohibiting prostitution and sex trafficking is being implemented. What information is 

being given to grantees, and what policy documents have been created to explain this 

law? 

Secretary Powell’s Response: 

The success of the comprehensive ABC model of HIV/AIDS prevention in countries 

such as Uganda, Zambia, and Ethiopia, among others, has demonstrated that promoting behavior change and healthy lifestyles, including abstinence and delayed 

sexual initiation, faithfulness and fidelity in marriage and reduction in the number 

of partners, consistent and correct use of condoms by high-risk groups, and avoidance of substance abuse, has been and can be successful in preventing the spread 

of HIV/AIDS, and it is an approach we are employing. 

As the Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator makes grants under the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, precedence will include awards for abstinence for youth 

prevention in addition to other priority prevention areas such as safe medical transmission. 

Section 301(f) of the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, 

and Malaria Act of 2003 (P.L. 108–25) states that ‘‘No funds made available to carry 

out this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, may be used to provide assistance 

to any group or organization that does not have a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking.’’ Also of note is Section 301(e), which expressly prohibits 

funds from being used to promote or advocate the legalization or practice of prostitution or sex trafficking; yet does allow for the provision of HIV/AIDS prevention, 

treatment and care services to victims of prostitution or sex trafficking. 

We agree that proper implementation of these two provisions is critical, and the 

Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator intends to implement the law consistent 

with the U.S. Government’s opposition to prostitution and related activities, especially those that contribute to trafficking in persons. To this end, Congress’s views, 

including the legislative history, report language and floor statements, will be informative and helpful. 

To ensure that the relevant provisions of P.L. 108–25 are met, both the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) are expected to require that primary grantees affirmatively certify their compliance with the applicable restrictions regarding prostitution and related activities prior to the receipt of any federal funds. 

In addition, under the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, HHS and USAID are expected to include the limitation on funds expressed in Section 301(e) in HIV/AIDS 

funded grants and require that primary recipients include the funding limitation in 

all subagreements. USAID is expected to apply this same process for all HIV/AIDS 

funded contracts. 

The Fiscal Year 2004 Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Appropriations Act amends Section 301(f) of P.L. 108–25 by exempting the 

Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (Global Fund), the World 

Health Organization (WHO), the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI) and 

United Nations agencies from that section. Awards to these organizations are expected to include the limitation on funds expressed in Section 301(e). 

Mr. Chris Smith’s Question: 

What is the Administration doing to follow-up on the gruesome reports that North 

Korea is carrying out chemical and biological weapons’ experiments on political prisoners. Also, is the Administration trying to learn the whereabouts of North Korean 

defector Kwon Hyok, the brave North Korean engineer and his family, who notified 

the world about these experiments? 

75

Secretary Powell’s Response: 

We are extremely concerned about the egregious human rights abuses taking 

place in the DPRK, including a horrifying report that political prisoners have been 

subjected to chemical weapons testing in North Korea. We would support a UN investigation into the deplorable human rights situation in North Korea, including the 

mistreatment of political prisoners in general. 

The DPRK has an extensive prison camp system that detains thousands of North 

Korean people under extremely harsh conditions. Due to our concern about the 

grave human rights situation, including the lack of religious freedom in North 

Korea, we have designated the DPRK a Country of Particular Concern under the 

International Religious Freedom Act and supported a resolution critical of North Korea’s human rights practices at last year’s session of the UNHCR. 

To the best of our knowledge, Kwon Hyok is in the DPRK, but the extremely 

closed and secretive nature of the DPRK severely limits information to the outside 

world, including the whereabouts of Kwon Hyok. 

Mr. Chris Smith’s Question: 

What is the Administration doing to ensure that we reach the ceiling of 70,000 admissions announced by the President last fall? Can you comment on the progress of 

efforts to reopen the HO resettlement program in Vietnam? Will the administration 

move forward with plans to resettle the stateless Vietnamese in the Philippines? 

Secretary Powell’s Response: 

The State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration (PRM) 

continues to have reasonable expectations of offering resettlement to 50,000 refugees 

allocated by region. PRM continues aggressive efforts to identify and process additional caseloads for possible use of the 20,000 unallocated refugee numbers. To that 

end, it has assembled Targeted Response Teams composed of colleagues from the 

bureau of Population, Refugee and Migration (PRM), the Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS), the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), the 

International Organization for Migration (IOM), Refugee Council USA and InterAction to assess resettlement possibilities. The first teams have been deployed to 

West and East Africa. PRM has contributed significant financial support to expand 

UNHCR’s resettlement capacity. In addition, PRM will continue efforts to encourage 

a new source of refugee referrals of prospective cases by NGOs working with refugee 

populations in West Africa. 

Late March talks are scheduled with the government of Vietnam on the subject 

of our initiative to reopen components of the Orderly Departure Program for qualified applicants who were unable, through no fault of their own, to apply before the 

programs closed in September 1994. 

Also in late March, an official of the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration will travel to Manila to meet with Philippine Government officials and other 

involved parties to discuss our interest in offering resettlement interviews to certain 

Vietnamese who have resided in the Philippines for many years. 

We will be pleased to brief the Committee on our progress in these discussions. 

Mr. Chris Smith’s Question: 

What steps are we taking to help ensure that these elections are free, fair, open, 

transparent, and consistent with Ukraine’s OSCE and other international commitments? 

Secretary Powell’s Response: 

This is one of our highest priorities in our relations with Ukraine. We have approached Ukrainian officials repeatedly at the highest levels to reinforce our message that Ukraine must hold free and fair elections that fully meet OSCE and international standards. I relayed this on January 21 through an ‘‘oral message’’ delivered by Ambassador Herbst to Foreign Minister Hryshchenko, who then passed it 

to President Kuchma. Deputy Secretary Armitage will likewise deliver a similar 

statement when he visits with President Kuchma on March 25. 

Many other high level U.S. visitors to Ukraine, both from the U.S. government 

and the private sector, will or already have expressed the importance we place on 

free, fair and transparent elections. Among them are: Undersecretary Dobriansky, 

Department of Energy Deputy Secretary McSlarrow, former Secretary of State 

Albright, and former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski. 

In addition to bilaterally addressing this issue with the Ukrainians, we have coordinated actions with our European partners in Washington, in European capitals, 

and in Kiev, including joint demarches and the creation of a diplomatic elections 

working group. We strongly support the OSCE mission in Kiev, which is headed by 

76

Ambassador David Nicholas, an American citizen. We have sent demarches to various European capitals and other allies to coordinate our message to Mr. Kuchma. 

Promoting free and fair presidential elections is an important focus for U.S. de- mocracy assistance programs this year. We are funding over $9.5 million in assistance for the election, and we are coordinating with other bilateral and multilateral 

donors on assistance programs. Our elections programs focus on: improving the regulatory framework and administration for elections; strengthening political parties 

and organizations; supporting monitoring of the electoral process; supporting election-related civic activism and research; providing voter education; providing legal 

aid; and organizing get-out-the-vote campaigns. 

Mr. Chris Smith’s Question: 

Along with many of my colleagues, I think John Miller is doing an excellent job 

at the TIP Office and hope he will be nominated for the position of ambassador at 

large. Can you comment on this topic? 

Secretary Powell’s Response: 

I agree with you that Director Miller is doing an excellent job in the Office to 

Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, and I would be glad to share your recommendation with the White House. 

RESPONSE FROM THE HONORABLE COLIN L. POWELL, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT

OF STATE, TO QUESTION SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE CHRIS- TOPHER H. SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JER- SEY, AND VICE CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, AND THE

HONORABLE SHELLEY BERKLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE

OF NEVADA

Mr. Chris Smith’s and Ms. Berkley’s Question: 

What has the State Department done, and/or is planning to do, to confirm or disprove evidence of possible sex trafficking by Ms. Gulnora Karimova, the daughter of 

Uzbek President Karimov, who is reported to operate a travel agency that transports 

young women from Tashkent to Dubai for the purposes of prostitution? Has the Department sent, or considered sending, investigators to the airports as Uzbek women 

arrive at Dubai, spoken with airport security officials about the concerns, or spoken 

with the Dubai police officials who are detaining Uzbek and Central Asian trafficking victims who fill the UAE’s female jails? Have any detained Uzbek trafficking 

victims been interviewed in Dubai or elsewhere by our people to ascertain how they 

were smuggled and trafficked into the UAE? What have our intelligence agencies and 

sources indicated about the mechanisms by which the Uzbek human trafficking networks operate? In light of President Bush’s speech to the United Nations last fall that 

was highly critical of sex slave trafficking, what specific steps has the Administration 

taken to stop the sex slave trafficking between Tashkent and Dubai? 

Secretary Powell’s Response: 

Both our Consulate in Dubai and our Embassy in Abu Dhabi have contacted the 

Government of the UAE and UAE law enforcement agencies regarding the trafficking charges against Ms. Karimova’s travel agency. So far, nothing has been uncovered to support the allegations. Due to the weakness of the allegations, the State 

Department has not considered sending investigators to Dubai. 

Due to our initial placement of the Government of Uzbekistan in Tier Three in 

2003 and the information that we provided from destination countries, Uzbekistan 

has taken concrete actions against trafficking in persons and is reported to be cooperating directly with UAE law enforcement officials through the Uzbek Consulate 

in Dubai. 

Thanks to strong U.S. interventions, the Government of Uzbekistan has made significant efforts to comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking. Based on specific recommendations we provided, and ongoing advice and assistance through our Resident Legal Advisor in Tashkent, the government drafted 

and submitted to the parliament comprehensive trafficking legislation. Police in 

Uzbekistan interview victims of trafficking to gather more detailed information 

about trafficking operations, and provided airport access to a well-respected antitrafficking NGO. The Government of Uzbekistan works with this NGO to train border guards and customs officials to identify and assist victims of trafficking. 

Uzbekistan has agreements in place with a number of other governments for joint 

investigations of trafficking-related crimes. 

The UAE has an active program of outreach to foreign embassies and other countries’ foreign ministries to advise them of support and services available to potential 

77

trafficking victims in the UAE. The Dubai Tourist Security Department operates a 

hotline to assist visitors with problems. The UAE provides assistance and protection 

to victims of trafficking. Counselors and specially trained police officers are available at each police station to counsel victims and obtain further information of use 

to law enforcement agencies. 

RESPONSE FROM THE HONORABLE COLIN L. POWELL, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT

OF STATE, TO QUESTION SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE JOSEPH

CROWLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. Crowley’s Question: 

The foreign operations section of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 (P.L. 

108–199) mandates that a contribution of up to $34 million be provided to the UN 

Population Fund unless the President determines UNFPA to be ineligible under the 

provisions of the Kemp-Kasten amendment that prohibits assistance to an organization that ‘‘supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.’’ What process will the executive branch employ to 

evaluate and to make a legal determination on the eligibility of UNFPA for U.S. financial support this fiscal year? When do you expect a formal determination to make 

a UNFPA contribution? 

How much of the money in the 150 account is going to be spent on population assistance programs? 

Secretary Powell’s Response: 

The Department of State will make a decision this year, consistent with U.S. law, 

concerning funding for UNFPA. Since the Secretary’s determination in July 2002 

not to fund UNFPA, the Department has held a series of consultations with Chinese 

officials and with UNFPA in Washington, New York and Beijing, with the objective 

of eliminating the coercive elements of Chinese policy and practice. Our Embassy 

continues to follow and report on developments in the People’s Republic of China 

(PRC). Following a review of UNFPA’s program in China as well as Chinese law, 

policy and practices, including further consultations with UNFPA and the PRC, a 

decision on funding for UNFPA will be made as soon as possible. Please be assured 

that in making this decision we will thoroughly review the facts relevant to UNFPA 

funding. 

In FY 2004, USAID has obligated $432 million for family planning and reproductive health in developing countries, excluding funding for UNFPA. An additional 

$50 million will be used to prevent maternal mortality and reduce maternal morbidity. 

RESPONSES FROM THE HONORABLE COLIN L. POWELL, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT

OF STATE, TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE DAN

BURTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA

Mr. Burton’s Question: 

Secretary Powell, for the last few years you have been working with me on international child abduction issues, whereby American citizens are taken against their 

will and held captive in foreign lands. Are any additional resources going to be allocated for these purposes in the FY2005 Budget? 

Secretary Powell’s Response: 

Yes. Our plans for the FY2005 budget include increased resources for outreach, 

training, and information related to international parental child abduction. We recognize the importance of enhancing public awareness of this tragic issue and the 

resources that we and other agencies can bring to bear in assisting parents whose 

children have been abducted or wrongfully retained overseas. Increased public 

awareness also bolsters our efforts to help parents prevent abductions. We want to 

continue our work with the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private 

International Law and with other Hague member states to address problems in how 

countries implement and comply with the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects 

of International Child Abduction. This includes training for judges from countries 

that are signatory to the Hague Abduction Convention, as well as preparation of the 

Permanent Bureau’s ‘‘Good Practices’’ Guide. We have taken such plans into account 

when preparing our FY2005 Budget request. 

78

Mr. Burton’s Question: 

As you may know, the American children who are abducted across international 

lines every year are taken from the United States by non-custodial parents violating 

direct court orders. In an effort to stifle these occurrences, is the State Department 

willing to work with concerned parents and foreign dignitaries to prevent foreign 

visas from being issued in the names of their children? 

Secretary Powell’s Response: 

We work energetically with foreign governments and parents to prevent cases of 

international parental child abduction. The United States Government can help parents and local authorities inform foreign embassies of court orders related to a visa 

application, and can request that they not issue a visa or passport when such documents would likely be used to circumvent a U.S. custody order. While we have no 

authority to prevent a foreign government from issuing a visa, or passport, to a 

child, we hope that the information that such documents might be used in a child 

abduction case would give these governments pause and encourage their cooperation 

with our efforts. 

Mr. Burton’s Question: 

During my tenure as Chairman of the full committee on Government Reform, the 

Committee investigated international child abduction to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. In Saudi Arabia, American women held against their will are unable to leave 

the country without the consent of their closest male relative, usually the person who 

abducted her in the first place. How will the U.S. Department of State work with 

the Saudi government to ensure that the rights of all American citizens wanting to 

leave the country will be upheld? 

Secretary Powell’s Response: 

We are holding the Government of Saudi Arabia to its September 2002 commitment that all adult American women would be free to travel out of Saudi Arabia. 

In written testimony before the Subcommittee on Human Rights and Wellness on 

July 9, 2003, the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia stated: ‘‘The Kingdom now guarantees that all adults (men and women who are 18 years or older) have the freedom 

to choose in which country they wish to reside and maintain the right to travel to 

and from Saudi Arabia for purposes of visitation or relocation.’’

In nearly every case we have raised with the Foreign Minister since his government made this commitment, Saudi authorities have granted permission for the 

American citizen woman to depart. After delays in the Saudi Government issuance 

of an exit permit, one woman withdrew her request for exit permission. We are also 

pressing the Government of Saudi Arabia to formalize the process of issuing exit 

permits, to increase the speed and ease of issuance. 

Mr. Burton’s Question: 

Secretary Powell, in an effort to assist abducted Americans who seek refuge in the 

United States Embassies and Consulates return home safely, will the Administration 

promulgate guidelines as to how Embassy staff member handle specific needs of these 

individuals? 

Secretary Powell’s Response: 

In October 2003, the Department issued clear, detailed instructions to all diplomatic and consular posts worldwide on responding to American citizens seeking 

temporary refuge in Embassies and Consulates. 

Mr. Burton’s Question: 

There have been notable cases of international child abduction that the Government Reform Committee has worked on during the 107th and 108th Congresses, including Pat Roush, Samiah Seramur, Monica Stowers, Joanna Stephenson Tonetti, 

Margaret McClain, Debra Docekal, Maureen Dabbah, and Michael Rives. Could you 

please have your staff provide a detailed update on how the Department of State has 

assisted in each of these cases since July 2003? 

Secretary Powell’s Response: 

Pat Roush: The Department of State and our Embassy in Riyadh have been actively involved in this case since 1986 when their father abducted her daughters to 

Saudi Arabia. The Department continually monitored the girls’ well being and, 

when they were children, sought their return to the United States. 

Since Ms. Roush’s daughters are now adults, their wishes are paramount. Since 

the August 31, 2002 meeting with a consular officer in London, when the women 

79

said that they did not wish to travel to the U.S. at that time, we remain ready to 

provide any assistance we can, should the women request it. 

As U.S. citizens, Ms. Roush’s daughters can be issued U.S. passports by applying 

at our Embassy in Riyadh. They do not require visas to enter the United States. 

If we learn from the women that they wish to return to the United States, we will 

assist them to obtain the necessary Saudi Government exit permissions for them to 

do so. The Government of Saudi Arabia has assured us that no American women 

will be prevented from leaving the country if they wish to do so. 

Monica Stowers: We are holding the Government of Saudi Arabia to a commitment made in September 2002 that adult American women would be free to travel 

out of Saudi Arabia to the U.S. The government of Saudi Arabia issued Ms. Stowers’ 

daughter, Amjad Radwan, an exit visa to travel to the U.S. in September 2002, but 

she chose not to travel at that time. In February 2003, Ms. Radwan attempted to 

travel with her uncle to Bahrain, but Saudi border officials prevented her departure. 

The Embassy has repeatedly tried to contact Ms. Radwan and her mother by telephone and in writing to see if she needs further assistance. Ms. Radwan has not 

returned our messages. We stand ready to offer any and all consular services to her, 

including assistance in departing Saudi Arabia if she wishes to do so. 

Samiah Seramur: We are working with Ms. Seramur and the Saudi Government 

to seek consular access to Ms. Seramur’s son Faisal, who remains in Saudi Arabia. 

The father has refused us any access to Faisal until Ms. Seramur grants him reciprocal access to their daughter Maha. 

Margaret McClain: We are working with Ms. McClain and the Saudi Government on her next visit to Saudi Arabia. We continue to emphasize to the Saudi Government that our goal is the return of Ms. McClain’s daughter, Heidi Al-Omary, to 

the United States. 

Debra Docekal: As we reported in July 2003, Ms. Dokecal has requested that 

Consulate General Jeddah take no further action at this time with regards to her 

daughter Suzanne. We have respected her wishes, but are ready to provide assistance should she desire it. 

Maureen Dabbagh: We continue to work with Ms. Dabbagh and other USG 

agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to seek access to Ms. 

Dabbagh’s daughter Nadia in accordance with Ms. Dabbagh’s wishes. In August 

2003, the U.S. Embassy in Damascus submitted documents issued by the FBI to the 

Syrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and has repeatedly requested assistance in gaining consular access to Nadia. The Syrian Government has advised us that U.S. consular access to Nadia will be permitted ‘‘provided that permission from the Syrian 

judicial authorities is approved in accordance with Syrian law.’’ We have asked the 

Syrian Government formally for clarification on how such permission may be obtained, since there appears to be no provision in Syrian law allowing for third party 

visitation in custody cases. In the interim, we are exploring avenues to facilitate 

communication between Ms. Dabbagh and her daughter. 

Michael Rives: Since July 2003, the Department has worked with Mr. Rives concerning his wish to visit Saudi Arabia. At the same time, we have maintained pressure on the taking parent’s family through the use of U.S. visa ineligibilities, and 

continue to raise the case with the Saudi Government. Ms. Al-Adel has left her family’s home, apparently due to pressures exerted by family members who have been 

restricted from travel to the U.S. because of these ineligibilities. In September 2003, 

U.S. Embassy officials in Riyadh spoke to Ms. Al-Adel about options for returning 

to the U.S. with the children. On November 24, 2003, and again on January 12, 

2004, U.S. Embassy Riyadh sent diplomatic notes to the Ministry related to Mr. 

Rives’ plans for a Spring 2004 visit to Saudi Arabia. The U.S. Embassy has worked 

with the Interministerial Committee to receive permission for his visit and arrange 

scheduled visitation of 3 hours daily with his children. On February 24, 2004, U.S. 

Embassy officials reported that a Saudi visa was granted to Mr. Rives for his Spring 

visit. While this is no substitute for the return of the children, the Department supports this visit as an opportunity for the parents to reach an agreement on the children’s return. Post has arranged for Mr. Rives to meet with the Interministerial 

Committee during his next visit to Saudi Arabia. 

Mr. Burton’s Question: 

What is the Department of State doing to convince the daughter of the President 

of Uzbekistan, Ms. Gulnora Karimova, to stop defying a custody order and an arrest 

warrant from an American court and allow her two children—both of whom are 

American citizens—to visit their father, Mr. Mansur Maqsudi, who is also an American citizen? 

80

Secretary Powell’s Response: 

Since Mr. Maqsudi contacted the Department in 2002 for assistance, we have actively pursued parental and consular access to the children, in keeping with Mr. 

Maqsudi’s wishes. This has involved engaging the Uzbek Government at senior levels and, more recently, seeking assistance from the Russian Government as well. 

Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs Maura Harty and Assistant Secretary for 

European Affairs Elizabeth Jones have raised the case with Uzbek officials, including Uzbek President Karimov and the Foreign Minister. Following Ms. Karimova’s 

assignment to the Uzbek Embassy in Moscow in 2003, we have also worked with 

the Russian Government to seek consular access. We will continue these efforts despite Ms. Karimova’s consistent refusal to allow us to visit the children or to allow 

Mr. Maqsudi direct contact with his children. 

RESPONSES FROM THE HONORABLE COLIN L. POWELL, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT

OF STATE, TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE SHELLEY BERKLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA

Ms. Berkley’s Question: 

The global-gag rule has barred U.S. funding to any overseas health clinic unless 

it agrees not to use its own, private, non-U.S. funds for abortion services or counseling. President Bush’s justification for this policy was to reduce the number of abortions. Last year, the Administration expanded this policy to cover the entire State Department budget. Is there any evidence that the gag-rule has reduced the number of 

abortions overseas? If not, why was the policy expanded to cover significantly more 

programs? If you believe the global gag rule has no harmful effects, why were the 

new global AIDS programs exempted? 

Secretary Powell’s Response: 

President Bush restored the Mexico City Policy in 2001 to clearly separate U.S. 

government support for family planning assistance from abortion-related activities. 

The President’s directive of August 29, 2003 extended the Mexico City Policy to 

cover all Department of State funding to foreign non-governmental organizations for 

family planning assistance. 

There are many foreign NGOs through which USAID and the Department of 

State can provide family planning information and services to people in developing 

countries. The President determined that assistance for family planning will be provided only to those foreign NGO recipients and subrecipients whose family planning 

programs are consistent with the values and principles the United States wants to 

promote as part of its foreign policy. 

President Bush has sustained funding for family planning assistance at levels between $425 and $446 million per year, compared to $372–$385 million per year during the four years preceding the President’s inauguration. The President is committed to maintaining these levels because he knows that one of the best ways to 

prevent abortion is by providing quality voluntary family planning services. The Administration believes that more abortions will be prevented as a result of higher 

funding levels for family planning assistance. 

Ms. Berkley’s Question: 

The International Court of Justice is due soon to issue a legal advisory on Israel’s 

security barrier. The U.S. was joined by nearly 40 other countries in submitting a 

brief expressing our opinion that the Court is ill-advised to rule on this matter. Is 

the State Department concerned about the politicalization of yet another UN body? 

If so, what is the Administration prepared to do once it issues its advisory ruling 

if that ruling is returned unfavorably? 

Secretary Powell’s Response: 

We have repeatedly stated that referral of the separation barrier to the ICJ risks 

politicizing the Court. It will not advance the Court’s ability to contribute to global 

security, nor will it advance the prospects for peace. We continue to engage intensively with both the Israelis and the Palestinians to try to move both parties forward towards realization of President Bush’s two-state vision, and we will continue 

those efforts no matter how the Court rules. 

Ms. Berkley’s Question: 

In light of recent statements made by Israeli Prime Minister Sharon regarding 

Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and parts of the West Bank, what plan does the Administration have to restart the diplomatic process and continue on the Road Map? 

81

Do you foresee a Palestinian readiness to dismantle terrorist infrastructure as a precursor to the resumption of the peace process anytime soon? 

Secretary Powell’s Response: 

We remain closely and consistently engaged with a wide range of Israelis and Palestinians at the senior levels both in Washington and in the region, and have repeatedly made the point that the Palestinians must take real, immediate action 

against terror. We are listening closely to Israeli proposals for unilateral disengagement. While we still believe that direct negotiations are necessary to achieve a just 

and lasting peace, these disengagement proposals may offer a moment of opportunity in the effort to bring peace to the Middle East. We are now working to ensure 

that any such actions are consistent with the roadmap and move us closer to realization of the President’s vision of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by 

side in peace and security. 

Ms. Berkley’s Question: 

During a year and a half internment at the Auschwitz death camp during World 

War II, Ms. Dina Babbitt was forced to paint watercolor portraits of doomed inmates 

by the infamous war criminal Dr. Josef Mengele. She assumed the paintings were 

destroyed, but was informed, 30 years ago, by the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum 

in Poland that her portraits had been located. Since then, Mrs. Babbit has been unable to secure the release of her portraits—which she considers personal property produced by slave labor. The FY2003 Department of Defense Appropriations Act (PL 

107–248) recognizes that Dina Babbitt is the rightful owner of the artwork and recognizes the moral right of Dina Babbitt to obtain the artwork she created. It also urges 

the President and Secretary of State to make immediate efforts to recover the paintings. I contacted your office on December 8, 2002 to request your assistance in this 

matter, have made several follow-up inquiries, and also contacted the Polish government (most recently on September 4, 2003) and received no response. What specific 

action(s) can your office take and what action(s) are you planning to take to help secure the release of these portraits? 

Secretary Powell’s Response: 

• We recognize and deplore the terrible circumstances under which Mrs. Babbitt 

was forced to produce these paintings.

• As stated in a January 31, 2003 response to your inquiry of December 8, 2002, 

we understand that an earlier, tentative agreement between Mrs. Babbitt and the 

museum did not prove fully satisfactory.

• While we have followed this issue for some time and have urged the parties in 

this matter to be flexible and creative in the spirit of the 1998 Washington Conference Principles, this is a sensitive matter best resolved by the two parties.

• Four of the seven Babbitt watercolors have been on display in the AuschwitzBirkenau State Museum as part of the permanent exhibit opened August 2001 to 

document the murder of the Roma and Sinti by the Nazis.

• The other three watercolors are also on public display in the Auschwitz-Birkenau 

State Museum for organized groups or on special request.

• The Roma community is respectful of Mrs. Babbitt’s rights, but believes that the 

paintings serve an educational purpose as the crimes committed against the Roma 

by the Nazis are not well known to the public. 

RESPONSES FROM THE HONORABLE COLIN L. POWELL, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT

OF STATE, TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE NICK

SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Mr. Nick Smith’s Question: 

With China’s emergence as a strong economic power, what effect will there be on 

our national security and international relations decision-making? To what extent is 

it having an influence now? Please explain with specific reference to events in Central 

Asia. 

Secretary Powell’s Response: 

The development of candid, constructive, and cooperative relations between the 

U.S. and China serves the interests of peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region. 

We encourage China’s continuing engagement with its neighbors, through the 

Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and in other regional fora, to address important economic development concerns and to find appropriate ways to work together to fight against terrorism activities that threaten to undermine the nations 

82

of Central Asia. Such engagement, where it enhances the prospects for people to live 

in peace and with dignity, also enhances America’s security. However, the U.S. is 

concerned that some of the counterterrorism measures used by China could erode 

the human rights and religious freedoms of Muslim ethnic groups in western China, 

including Uighurs. We continue to raise this issue with China during exchanges on 

human rights and counterterrorism. 

Mr. Nick Smith’s Question: 

Are the increases in foreign aid suggested in the President’s budget in effect attempting to buy friendship from our allies? 

Secretary Powell’s Response: 

No. The President’s request for increases in foreign assistance supports allies that 

are already helping the United States fight the war on terrorism, including the improvement of military, counter-terrorism, and other security capabilities. The President’s request also supports programs to respond to humanitarian crises, support 

economic growth and democratic governance, respond to conflict situations, and 

stem narcotics trafficking. 

RESPONSES FROM THE HONORABLE COLIN L. POWELL, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT

OF STATE, TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE GRACE

F. NAPOLITANO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Ms. Napolitano’s Question: 

A delegation from Armenia’s Ministry of Defense, heading to Azerbaijan for a 

NATO Cooperative Best Effort (CBE) 2004 conference, was barred in January 2004 

from participating. The conference held in Baku January 13–15 was in preparation 

for major annual exercises for NATO Partnership for Peace (PfP) partner countries 

planned for September 2004 in Azerbaijan. What steps is the Administration taking 

to ensure that Azerbaijan fulfills its responsibility to be a nondiscriminatory host? 

Secretary Powell’s Response: 

We are aware that the Armenian delegation was unable to attend the Cooperative 

Best Effort (CBE) ’04 planning conference in January. After an initial difficulty, the 

Government of Azerbaijan authorized the Armenian delegation to come to Baku to 

receive airport visas. However, the Armenian participants were apparently refused 

boarding by airline personnel on their Istanbul-Baku flight for lack of valid visas 

in their passports. We have emphasized to both countries the importance of upholding Partnership for Peace principles in this exercise, including Azerbaijan’s obligations to ensure prompt visa processing for all participants. 

Ms. Napolitano’s Question: 

Last week, the Administration released its Fiscal Year 2005 budget requesting 

$8.75 million in military assistance for Azerbaijan and only $2.75 million for Armenia. As you are aware, Congress heeded the Administration’s request in the aftermath 

of September 11th and granted the President limited and conditional authority to 

waive Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act. Given the agreement made between 

the Administration and Congress to ensure military parity between Armenia and 

Azerbaijan, how does this budget request not undermine that understanding? 

Finally, would not the Administration’s action only serve to legitimize Azerbaijan’s 

ongoing blockades against Armenia and Karabakh and its periodic threats to renew 

military aggression, thereby subverting the short- and long-term U.S. policy goals of 

regional cooperation and security for the South Caucasus? 

Secretary Powell’s Response: 

The administration has requested almost $5 billion in FY05 in the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) account. FMF granted to friendly countries is used to purchase U.S. military equipment and services, such as training. Changes in country 

requests reflect normal priority adjustments. 

FMF improves capabilities of allies and other friendly nations to contribute to 

international crisis response operations and also promotes interoperability of their 

militaries with U.S. armed forces. 

Specific increases for Azerbaijan are linked to U.S. priorities in fighting terror, 

peacekeeping, and maritime security, particularly regarding proliferation and drug 

trafficking on the Caspian Sea. The Administration believes that building up the capacity of Azerbaijan and other Caspian littoral states is important in order to prevent the transit of destabilizing items and to secure the oil flow that is critical to 

U.S. national security interests. This proposed increase for Azerbaijan does not sigVerDate Mar 21 2002 15:36 Jun 02, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\FULL\021104\91796 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
83

nal change in our position on Nagorno-Karabakh. We judge that increased FMF for 

Azerbaijan will not alter the military capability or offensive posture of Azerbaijan 

in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, nor will it alter the military balance between 

Azerbaijan and Armenia. We do not have a policy that requires FMF funding levels 

for Armenia and Azerbaijan to be identical. 

Overall assistance to Armenia will remain considerably higher than that to Azerbaijan. The Administration’s overall assistance budget request for FY05 includes 

$67 million for Armenia and $51.2 million for Azerbaijan. 

RESPONSES FROM THE HONORABLE COLIN L. POWELL, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT

OF STATE, TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE ADAM

B. SCHIFF, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. Schiff’s Question: 

Given the fact that Azerbaijan has a poor human rights record and that the Government of Azerbaijan walked away from the OSCE’s Key West peace talks aimed 

at resolving the Nagorno Karabagh conflict, why has the Administration submitted 

a request for $8 million in Foreign Military Financing (FMF) for Azerbaijan and 

only $2 million in FMF for Armenia (an even greater disparity than last year’s request of $5 million in FMF for Azerbaijan and $3 million for Armenia)? Doesn’t this 

send the wrong signal to Azerbaijan about their behavior over the past year? 

Secretary Powell’s Response: 

Our 2003 Human Rights Report concluded that both Armenia’s and Azerbaijan’s 

human rights records ‘‘remained poor.’’ At Key West, the clear understanding of the 

negotiations was that ‘‘nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.’’ The two sides 

together failed to reach a comprehensive settlement. 

Our Azerbaijan FMF funding request is aimed at U.S. priorities for addressing 

unmet security needs in the Caspian Sea region, especially to create maritime capabilities to detect and interdict potential trafficking of WMD, narcotics, and terrorist 

transit through the sea zone. Consequently, our planned increase in military assistance to Azerbaijan will not increase the offensive capability of Azerbaijan’s armed 

forces, nor will it disturb the military balance between Azerbaijan and Armenia. 

Mr. Schiff’s Question: 

If our best intelligence last year indicated that Iraq had neither any stockpiles of 

chemical or biological munitions, nor any active programs to produce either of these 

weapons or nuclear weapons, would you have still advocated going to war? 

Secretary Powell’s Response: 

Our best intelligence, and that of our allies, indicated that Iraq had significant 

weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs. Similarly, the United Nations Security Council unanimously found Iraq in violation of its obligation to account for its 

WMD programs under UN resolutions and Iraq’s obligations to multilateral weapons treaties. Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) eliminated the threat posed to the 

United States, our friends and allies, and the international community by the 

former Iraqi regime’s pursuit of WMD. 

OIF also eliminated the threat to the international community posed by Iraq’s 

large conventional military and Saddam Hussein’s ruthless pursuit of power—demonstrated by his attacks on Iran and Kuwait. It ended the regime’s support for 

international terrorism. 

Finally, OIF eliminated the threat posed to the Iraq people—hundreds of thousands of whom were murdered by the Ba’ath regime. It closed the rape rooms and 

torture chambers of Iraq. It ended a brutal era of political imprisonment, ‘‘disappearances,’’ and gross violations of human rights. As a result of OIF, the United 

States, Iraq, the region and the international community are more secure. 

Mr. Schiff’s Question: 

If one accepts the premise that President Bush stated in his interview with Tim 

Russert on Meet the Press that the invasion of Iraq was justified because Saddam 

Hussein ‘‘had the capacity to make a weapon and then let that weapon fall into the 

hands of a shadowy terrorist network,’’ does this become the new threshold for preemptive military action by the United States? 

Secretary Powell’s Response: 

The President made clear in his National Security Strategy that, ‘‘given the goals 

of rogue states and terrorists, the United States can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past.’’ The United States will continue to maintain 

84

the right to take actions the President deems necessary to protect itself from threats 

to its national security. 

Mr. Schiff’s Question: 

Given President Bush’s statement above, is this seemingly lower threshold for preemptive military action likely to help or hinder our counterproliferation efforts? You 

and other Administration officials, including the President, have pointed to Libya as 

an example of a rogue state choosing to disgorge its WMD programs, in part because 

of fear that the United States might attack. On the other hand, North Korea publicly 

stated last April that it has nuclear weapons. Charles Pritchard, a former State Department official, recently visited Yongbyon, the county’s main nuclear site, where he 

was shown a cooling pond that had been emptied of canisters filled with 8,000 nuclear reactor fuel rods containing plutonium. The implication was that the rods had 

been reprocessed to extract the plutonium for use in nuclear weapons. Pritchard and 

other members of his delegation were also shown what the North Koreans said was 

reprocessed plutonium. Has the invasion of Iraq had the opposite effect on North 

Korea of accelerating their desire to build a bomb to avoid Iraq’s fate? 

Secretary Powell’s Response: 

The DPRK has engaged in the clandestine pursuit of nuclear weapons for years. 

When the United States discovered in 2002 that the DPRK was pursuing covertly 

a uranium enrichment program for nuclear weapons, we confronted the DPRK with 

that knowledge and underscored that progress in relations would depend in the 

DPRK addressing our concerns. President Bush, however, made clear as early as 

February 2003 that the United States has no intention of invading or attacking 

North Korea. 

The United States is committed to achieving a peaceful end to North Korea’s nuclear programs through multilateral diplomacy. However, we will take no options 

off the table. North Korea’s nuclear programs threaten all of East Asia and the global nuclear nonproliferation regime. Through the Six-Party Talks, the United States, 

China, South Korea, Japan and Russia are urging the DPRK to choose a new path—

to make the strategic decision that ending all of its nuclear programs is in its interest and would open the door to transformed relations with the international community. 

Mr. Schiff’s Question: 

In January, I was joined by thirty-two of my colleagues in sending a letter to President Bush asking him to raise the issue of Mexico’s extradition policies when he met 

with President Vicente Fox at the Summit of the Americas in Monterrey. Because 

many states have laws calling for indeterminate life sentences for all murders and 

certain other serious crimes, Mexico has refused to extradite its citizens who commit 

crimes in the United States and who will face these penalties unless American authorities make assurances that such a sentence would not be sought. Do you know 

whether the President raised the issue during his meeting with President Fox? Have 

you, or other members of the State Department raised it with your Mexican counterparts? 

Secretary Powell’s Response: 

The law enforcement relationship between the United States and Mexico is critically important to both our countries. Overall, this relationship is very positive and 

has improved markedly over the last decade. During the past two years the United 

States Government has successfully extradited 56 fugitives from Mexico. These fugitives have been charged with a range of crimes including: homicide, rape, and kidnapping. Of the 56 fugitives, 30 are Mexican nationals. Nonetheless, the extradition 

issue is one that continues to concern us. The 2001 Mexican Supreme Court ban 

on extraditing fugitives facing a potential life sentence has hampered our efforts to 

extradite some of the most serious offenders. 

We continue to work to improve the existing extradition regime and to ensure 

that the interests of the United States and justice are best served. Attorney General 

Ashcroft and I discussed the issue with our Mexican counterparts during the U.S.-

Mexico Binational Commission, a meeting of U.S. and Mexican cabinet members, 

held on November 13, 2003. At the technical level, there are continuous, ongoing 

consultations on a variety of issues, including improving the efficiency of the extradition process, resolving legal issues and limiting the impact of the Mexican Supreme Court decision. 

Mr. Schiff’s Question: 

In testimony before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, State, 

Judiciary and Related Agencies on February 4, 2004, Undersecretary of State MarVerDate Mar 21 2002 15:36 Jun 02, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\FULL\021104\91796 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
85

garet Tutwiler said that she agreed with the main findings of an independent panel 

that American public diplomacy has suffered from budget cuts and neglect since the 

end of the Cold War and that ‘‘it will take us many years of hard, focused work’’ 

to restore our image overseas. At the same hearing, former Ambassador Edward P. 

Djerejian, who chaired the Department’s Advisory Group on Public Diplomacy for the 

Arab and Muslim World, presented a report to Congress that concluded that our 

‘‘public diplomacy requires a new strategic direction.’’ The report also noted that the 

number of public diplomacy officers has declined from 2,500 in 1991 to 1,200 in 

2003. 

In fact, as Ambassador Djerejian pointed out, ‘‘the bottom has indeed fallen out 

of support for the United States.’’ What steps have you and the State Department 

taken to address this critical issue? 

Secretary Powell’s Response: 

While we appreciate the work and agree with many of the findings of Ambassador 

Djerejian and the Public Diplomacy Advisory Group for the Arab and Muslim World, 

the ‘‘bottom has not fallen out’’ with respect to support for public diplomacy. Integration of the former U.S. Information Agency with the Department of State has 

actually strengthened this vital mission by bringing it more directly into the foreign 

policy process. 

Since coming to the Department, Secretary Powell has made public diplomacy a 

top priority for the entire department. Last year, the Secretary wrote, ‘‘In times of 

war and of peace, our public diplomacy and public affairs efforts are crucial to the 

success of American foreign policy, and they must be integral to its conduct. They 

are essential to conveying our story to the world and to securing the support of the 

American people for sustained international engagement . . . Beyond Iraq and the 

Middle East, it is equally crucial that publics understand how the United States is 

working throughout the international community to shape a freer, more prosperous 

world.’’

This emphasis on public diplomacy has been reflected in the Department’s Diplomatic Readiness Initiative. In fact, a total of 211 new public diplomacy personnel 

have been hired under this initiative. In FY 2002, 103 public diplomacy officers 

were hired out of a total of 467 new foreign service officers, which represented 22% 

of the total Junior Officer hiring during that fiscal year, making it the largest single 

career track. In FY 2003, 108 of 469 were hired, which is 23% of the total Junior 

Officers hired that year; again the highest single career track. In FY 2004, we again 

plan to hire more public diplomacy officers than any other track, though the exact 

numbers have not been finalized. 

The Department considers an effective program evaluation process to be a necessary component for the strategic planning and direction of public diplomacy. To 

make our public diplomacy efforts more effective, we are expanding on the successful efforts of the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) to measure the 

impact of our public diplomacy activities and initiatives. ECA budgets $1.5 million 

annually to evaluate the impact and costs of its exchange and international visitor 

programs. The Bureau of Public Affairs (PA) has hired Newsmarket, a private company, to monitor and report on the distribution of PA’s video materials to media outlets around the world. The Bureau of International Information Programs is creating an office dedicated to evaluating their programs, and is working with a private 

company to provide more detailed feedback about the use of all our foreign web 

products. 

The Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs recently created the 

PD Global Forum, for all public diplomacy personnel overseas and in Washington 

to share best practices, in an effort to strengthen communication and a sense of 

common purpose. Further steps, including the creation of a formal strategic planning office within the Office of the Under Secretary, are also under consideration. 

Mr. Schiff’s Question: 

I am concerned about the need to balance our security interests and human rights. 

As an example, let me refer you to the case of Mansur Maqsudi, an American citizen, 

who was married to Gulnora Karimova, the daughter of the president of Uzbekistan. 

After Mr. Maqsudi filed for divorce in New Jersey in 2001, several of his relatives 

in Tashkent were arbitrarily imprisoned. His company was nationalized, and he has 

been refused any visitation with his children despite a favorable New Jersey Court 

Order mandating such visitation. 

More recently, Mr. Maqsudi and his brother and father were put on the Interpol 

red flag list by the Uzbek government so that they are unable to travel and carry 

out their livelihoods as international businessmen. For a country to which we provide 

millions of dollars in aid, this is unacceptable behavior. Have you personally brought 

86

this matter up with senior Uzbek officials and what is the State Department specifically doing to rectify this situation? 

Secretary Powell’s Response: 

We have been very active in working with Mr. Maqsudi to help resolve the dispute with his ex-wife, Ms. Karimova, over custody of their two children. We have 

raised these issues frequently with the highest levels of the government of 

Uzbekistan. Our Ambassador in Tashkent regularly raises these issues during his 

meetings with Uzbek officials. Ms. Karimova currently has diplomatic status in 

Moscow, and we have discussed gaining consular access to the Maqsudi children 

with the Government of the Russian Federation. 

Citing financial malfeasance, the Uzbek government submitted red notices on Mr. 

Maqsudi and his family to Interpol for alleged illegal business practices. Our belief 

that he may be the subject of selective prosecution led us to recommend that the 

U.S. National Central Bureau remove the red notice from U.S. immigration and law 

enforcement databases. We have also been in close contact with Mr. Maqsudi’s attorneys and strongly encouraged them to petition the Interpol General Secretariat 

in Lyon, France, to have the Red Notice removed from the Interpol system.

RESPONSES FROM THE HONORABLE COLIN L. POWELL, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT

OF STATE, TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE BETTY

MCCOLLUM, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

Ms. McCollum’s Question: 

What is the Administration’s position regarding normalized trade relations (NTR) 

with Laos? And, as we fight a global war on terrorism, what is our government’s 

position on U.S. citizens financing armed insurgents who use violence against civilians in their attempt to overthrow the government of Laos? 

Secretary Powell’s Response: 

The Bush Administration strongly supports granting NTR status to Laos and putting into effect the bilateral trade agreement (BTA) signed in September 2003, first 

negotiated in 1997. We believe that granting NTR status to Laos will benefit the 

Lao people, and will create a more cooperative environment in which the U.S. can 

effectively pursue key human rights and democratization objectives. We continue to 

closely monitor human rights conditions and press for adherence to international 

standards. 

We remain concerned about reports of American citizen involvement in violent, 

anti-government activities in Laos, which could violate U.S. law. The USG maintains diplomatic relations with and recognizes the current government in Laos as 

the sole, legitimate government. We categorically oppose any efforts to overthrow 

the Lao government by force as well as any violent measures against the Lao people. We are aware of continued fighting between insurgent groups and government 

forces, as well as attacks on public transportation and public gathering places in 

Laos over the past year which have specifically targeted innocent civilians. Such attacks on civilians are acts of terrorism. We have a humanitarian interest in peaceful 

resolution of this conflict. We continue to press the Lao Government to take a humanitarian approach, and would be willing to assist in resolving the issue peacefully. 

Ms. McCollum’s Question: 

Can you please explain to the Committee what actions, through the President’s 

FY05 budget and otherwise, the State Department is taking to provide treatment and 

counseling for Iraqi victims of torture? 

Secretary Powell’s Response: 

In response to a request from Administrator Paul Bremer, USAID has been asked 

to develop programs for the treatment and counseling of Iraqi Victims of the Conflict, based on the $10 Million allocated from the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction 

Fund (IRRF) II—Assistance to Iraqi families provisions in P.L. 108–11 and P.L. 

108–106. USAID, in consultation with the CPA (and later Chief of Mission), will implement this program through its Community Action Program (CAP). 

The USAID/Iraq Community Action Program fosters direct citizen involvement in 

the rehabilitation of Iraq, enabling Iraqis to address the local needs in their respective communities. CAP is a valuable tool for social mobilization and grassroots democratization. It is currently active in 16 governorates and will be active in all 18 

by the end of March 2004. 

The purpose of this program is to provide assistance to Iraqi civilians who have 

suffered losses as a result of military operations by Coalition forces. The assistance 

87

is not for ‘‘reparations’’ or ‘‘compensation.’’ In particular, the program will assist innocent Iraqi civilians and families who have directly suffered as a result of the military operations since March 20, 2003, leading to their liberation. The CAP program 

will use its existing, and new as necessary and appropriate, Community Action 

Groups (CAGs) to identify and determine the most appropriate means to best meet 

victims’ needs in their communities. 

Ms. McCollum’s Question: 

Although President Bush supported an authorization of $3 billion for Global AIDS 

initiatives, his FY 05 budget includes funding only $2.8 billion. I’m further concerned 

that the budget’s funding for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria reflects a reduction of $350 million from the final FY 04 funding. This on top 

of the proposed 10 percent cut in basic child survival and health programs begins 

a troubling trend of the Administration backing off from their commitments of working to improve the health of the world’s population. How does the President intend 

to make up for this shortfall and keep his commitment? 

Secretary Powell’s Response: 

The President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief begins in Fiscal Year 2004 with 

$2.4 billion in funding, rising to $2.8 billion in the 2005 budget request, and steadily 

increasing to reach a total of $15 billion over the 5 years—exactly what the President committed in his 2003 State of the Union address. 

These annual budget requests in the start-up years have been a source of contention. Some have divided $15 billion by five years and assumed the President had 

committed to $3 billion in each year. The President committed to $15 billion over 

5 years, to be deployed in a way that increases expenditures over time in order to 

spend the money efficiently and effectively. And that is exactly what we are on 

course to do. 

With respect to the Global Fund, the United States has always been and continues to be its single-largest donor to the Fund. President Bush has pledged nearly 

$2 billion to the Fund from its inception through 2008, and the U.S. Government 

has contributed $623 million to date. The U.S. pledges amount to 37% of the total 

pledges, and U.S. contributions totaled 31.1% of all contributions to the Fund as of 

January 30, 2004. By law, the U.S. contribution is limited to 33% of the total contributions to the fund each year beginning in FY 2004. 

While there has been a reduction in the Child Survival and Health Programs 

Fund appropriation, funding for basic child survival and maternal health programs 

have been maintained. These programs will fund interventions such as immunizations, oral rehydration, and nutrition. We have maintained our $425 million commitment to family planning, protected initiatives to fight against tuberculosis and 

malaria, and continued support for antimicrobial resistance and surveillance activities.

Æ