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

77–532PDF 2002

THE PRESIDENT’S INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

BUDGET REQUEST FOR FY 2003

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

FEBRUARY 6, 2002

Serial No. 107–72

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 

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York 

JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa 

DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

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 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana 

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado 

RON PAUL, Texas 

NICK SMITH, Michigan 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

ERIC CANTOR, Virginia 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

BRIAN D. KERNS, Indiana 

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia 

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 

CYNTHIA A. MCKINNEY, Georgia 

EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

JIM DAVIS, 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 NAPOLITANO, California 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

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

ROBERT R. KING, Democratic Staff Director 

KRISTEN GILLEY, Senior Professional Staff Member 

MARILYN C. OWEN, Staff Associate 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESS 

The Honorable Colin L. Powell, Secretary of State, U.S. Department of State . 5

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 .............................................................................................................. 3

The Honorable Colin L. Powell: Prepared statement ........................................... 16

Secretary Powell’s submitted response to question of the Honorable Edward 

R. Royce, a Representative in Congress from the State of California ............. 48

Secretary Powell’s submitted response to question of the Honorable Robert 

Menendez, a Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey ........ 50

APPENDIX 

The Honorable Tom Lantos, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California: Prepared statement ...................................................................... 53

The Honorable Robert Menendez, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of New Jersey: Prepared statement .......................................................... 54

The Honorable Steve Chabot, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Ohio: Prepared statement ............................................................................... 55

The Honorable Eliot L. Engel, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New York: Prepared statement ...................................................................... 56

The Honorable Barbara Lee, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California: Prepared statement ...................................................................... 57

The Honorable Ron Paul, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Texas: Prepared statement .................................................................................. 57

The Honorable Shelley Berkley, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Nevada: Prepared statement .......................................................................... 58

Questions for the record submitted to the Honorable Colin L. Powell by 

Chairman Henry Hyde and Members of the Committee, together with responses .................................................................................................................. 59

(1)

THE PRESIDENT’S INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS 

BUDGET REQUEST FOR FY 2003

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2002

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

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:18 a.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. Welcome, 

Mr. Secretary. We are pleased to have you back before us once 

again. 

There is universal acknowledgment that the Administration has 

done a masterful job in the first phase of what everyone understands will be a long and difficult struggle. Our success to date, 

however, should not blind us to the effort that lies ahead. Measuring progress in that struggle will be difficult, for it will be waged 

on many fronts and often out of public view. Failures will be painfully evident while successes may be unheralded and be measured 

by the invisible tally of horrors that did not happen. 

Faced with the tragedy of September 11, one is impelled to 

search for something positive to salvage from the smoldering ruins 

of Ground Zero. If there is anything at all that can be termed 

heartening, it must be the love of country that has emerged spontaneously from every corner of our society, transcending the many divisions which often loom so prominently in our daily concerns. 

Although a bipartisan approach to foreign policy has been the 

rule in American history, there have been many occasions when 

this consensus has been tested, at times even to the point of fraying. But can anyone doubt that we are united once again? In all 

of the images I witnessed in the tragedy and its aftermath, I saw 

no Republicans or Democrats among the victims or the heroic rescuers, nor have I seen any narrow partisans among the warriors 

defending our country so far from its shores. 

Although we have been jolted awake to the reality and danger 

of terrorism, it is also true that we can now identify enemies who 

have long gone unrecognized and therefore uncombatted. Stripped 

of their anonymity and the security of the shadows, those who plot 

our destruction can now themselves be targeted. In that effort, 

swift and decisive action will be a far more persuasive deterrent 

than words can be. 

President Bush’s declaration that the United States will make no 

distinction between terrorists and the states which harbor them 

must remain the bedrock on which our policy rests. If the cooperaVerDate Feb 1 2002 14:46 May 08, 2002 Jkt 078083 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\020602\77532 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
2

tion of suspect countries is not forthcoming, we must be prepared 

to induce their cooperation by threatening direct punishment of the 

regimes which rule them. Ambiguity on their part must be shown 

to have a fearsome cost. 

In so doing, we must, of course, take note of the views of our 

friends and others and actively seek their assistance, but the desire 

to secure this support cannot be allowed to override our primary 

duty of securing the safety of all Americans. The world will not be 

made a safer place by conditioning our actions on the approval of 

others. To the contrary, and not for the first time, the world has 

been made more secure by America’s demonstrated determination 

to act alone, and we must be prepared to do so again, if we determine that such a course is necessary. 

In the aftermath of September 11, we have heard much about 

how the world has changed and also of the need to refocus U.S. foreign policy on newly prominent threats. Of necessity, the war of 

terrorism must take precedence in our deliberations on foreign policy, including a resolution of the still unsettled situation in Afghanistan. But even as we acknowledge these priorities, we must take 

care to remember that the defense and promotion of America’s interests in other regions of the world remains as important after 

September 11 as before and that these interests can only suffer 

from a prolonged absence of attention. Our image of the world may 

have changed, but we must be careful not to make a new error by 

believing that everything has changed. 

I would also caution that although the expressions of support 

and offers from other countries to undertake a joint effort against 

terrorism have been gratifying, we cannot yet be confident that an 

effective and lasting alliance against terrorism has in fact been 

formed. Our willingness to assume a prominent role in this area 

may prompt some of our friends to resume their unfortunate habit 

of allowing the United States to carry the burden and run the risks 

of actions for the common good, with their contribution heavily 

weighted toward soft applause from the sidelines. 

I would also devote considerable scrutiny to any assertion that 

the joint threat of terrorism has magically transformed some 

former competitors and still thuggish regimes into reliable collaborators. Unfortunately, the world is such that others may see in our 

problems opportunities for the advancement of their own interests. 

Therefore, our standard must be, for friends and others alike, not 

mere pledges of cooperation but concrete actions in support of a 

global campaign against terrorism, including the independent initiation of their own efforts and the willing assumption of their own 

risks. 

No free people will ever resign themselves to living in a world 

of fear. I believe that the direction that you, the President, and the 

Administration have set for our country derives from that fundamental fact. But we must ensure that our focus on these new priorities does not lead us to neglect our interests elsewhere, nor can 

we allow the hope of assistance from others to distract us from our 

own responsibilities. 

These are not issues to be easily decided but, as always, Mr. Secretary, I can offer you this Committee’s full support in your efforts 

3

to advance our Nation’s agenda and to secure its enduring interests 

throughout the world. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hyde follows:]

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

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

Welcome, Mr. Secretary. We are pleased to have you back before us once again. 

There is universal acknowledgment that the Administration has done a masterful 

job in the first phase of what everyone understands will be a long and difficult 

struggle. Our success to date, however, should not blind us to the effort that lies 

ahead. Measuring progress in that struggle will be difficult, for it will be waged on 

many fronts and often out of public view. Failures will be painfully evident, while 

successes may be unheralded and be measured by the invisible tally of horrors that 

did not happen. 

Faced with the tragedy of September 11, one is compelled to search for something 

positive to pull from it. If there is anything at all that can be termed heartening, 

it must be the love of country that has emerged spontaneously from every corner 

of society, transcending the many divisions which often loom so prominently in our 

daily concerns. Although a bipartisan approach to foreign policy has been the rule 

in American history, there have been many occasions when this consensus has been 

tested, at times even to the point of fraying. But can anyone doubt that we are 

united once again? In all of the images I witnessed of the tragedy and its aftermath, 

I saw no Republicans or Democrats among the victims or the heroic rescuers, nor 

have I seen any narrow partisans among the warriors defending our country so far 

from its shores. 

Although we have been jolted awake to the reality and danger of terrorism, it is 

also true that we can now identify enemies who have long gone unrecognized and 

therefore uncombatted. Stripped of their anonymity and the security of the shadows, 

those who plot our destruction can now themselves be targeted. In that effort, swift 

and decisive action will be a far more persuasive deterrent than any words can be. 

President Bush’s declaration that the United States will make no distinction between terrorists and the states which harbor them must remain the bedrock on 

which our policy rests. If the cooperation of suspect countries is not forthcoming, we 

must be prepared to induce their cooperation by threatening direct punishment of 

the regimes which rule them. Ambiguity on their part must be shown to have a 

fearsome cost. 

In so doing, we must, of course, take note of the views of our friends and others 

and actively seek their assistance, but the desire to secure this support cannot be 

allowed to override our primary duty of securing the safety of all Americans. The 

world will not be made a safer place by conditioning our actions on the approval 

of others. To the contrary, and not for the first time, the world has been made more 

secure by America’s demonstrated determination to act alone, and we must be prepared to do so again, if we determine that such a course is necessary. 

In the aftermath of September 11, we have heard much about how the world has 

changed and also of the need to refocus U.S. foreign policy on newly prominent 

threats. Of necessity, the war on terrorism must take precedence in our deliberations on foreign policy, including a resolution of the still-unsettled situation in Afghanistan. But even as we acknowledge these priorities, we must take care to remember that the defense and promotion of America’s interests in other regions of 

the world remains as important after September 11 as before and that these interests can only suffer from a prolonged absence of attention. Our image of the world 

may have changed, but we must be careful not to make a new error by believing 

that everything has changed. 

I would also caution that, although the expressions of support and offers from 

other countries to undertake a joint effort against terrorism have been gratifying, 

we cannot yet be confident that an effective and lasting alliance against terrorism 

has in fact been formed. Our willingness to assume a prominent role in this area 

may prompt some of our friends to resume their unfortunate habit of allowing the 

United States to carry the burden and run the risks of actions for the common good, 

with their contribution heavily weighted toward soft applause from the sidelines. 

I would also devote considerable scrutiny to any assertion that the joint threat 

of terrorism has magically transformed some former competitors and still-thuggish 

regimes into reliable collaborators. Unfortunately, the world is such that others may 

see in our problems opportunities for the advancement of their own interests. Therefore, our standard must be, for friends and others alike, not mere pledges of coVerDate Feb 1 2002 14:46 May 08, 2002 Jkt 078083 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\FULL\020602\77532 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
4

operation but concrete actions in support of a global campaign against terrorism, including the independent initiation of their own efforts and the willing assumption 

of their own risks. 

No free people will ever resign themselves to living in a world of fear. I believe 

that the direction that you, the President, and the Administration have set for our 

country derives from that fundamental fact. But we must ensure that our focus on 

these new priorities does not lead us to neglect our interests elsewhere nor can we 

allow the hope of assistance from others to distract us from our own responsibilities. 

These are not issues to be easily decided but, as always, Mr. Secretary, I can offer 

you this Committee’s full support in your efforts to advance our nation’s agenda and 

to secure its enduring interests throughout the world.

Chairman HYDE. Before you begin, Mr. Secretary, I would like to 

ask our Ranking Member, Mr. Tom Lantos, for his comments. Mr. 

Lantos. 

Mr. LANTOS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Today marks 

the Committee’s inaugural hearing of this session and your presence, Mr. Secretary, underscores the importance of our upcoming 

work. Let me begin by echoing the Chairman’s praise. Since September 11 you have risen to the challenge, and in so doing you 

have elevated the Nation. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your extraordinary patriotic service during these very trying times. You 

make America proud. 

Secretary POWELL. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. LANTOS. Now, nearly 5 months after September 11, we have 

come to understand better the long-term impact of that fateful day. 

As the hijacked airliners slammed into the World Trade Center and 

the Pentagon, the kaleidoscope of international politics was violently shaken, scrambling the patterns of power. Today all of the 

great powers are united against the forces of barbarism. Not since 

the end of the Second World War have all the great nations of the 

civilized world, including China, India, Russia, Europe, Pakistan, 

joined in a common cause against a common enemy. 

But the new patterns of power are by no means permanent. Indeed with his State of the Union Address, the President has again 

shaken the kaleidoscope. He has widened our focus to encompass 

not only the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks and the regimes that protect them, but also the rogue states that develop the 

instruments of mass destruction that terrorize the civilized world. 

Preventing Iraq, Iran, and North Korea and other rogue states 

from developing and spreading weapons of mass destruction, however, will not pacify them. Ultimately we must seek to transform 

these states from outlaws to responsible members of the international community. We must use all the levers of powers that we 

possess to accomplish this historic mission. 

As you well know, Mr. Secretary, after the Second World War, 

the United States and our allies were the catalysts for regime 

change in Germany and Japan, leading to their democratic transformation. Now in the wake of September 11, we must again be the 

catalysts for regime change in Iraq and other states threatening 

our interests and values. 

Mr. Secretary, it is with this new mission in mind that I assess 

the Administration’s international affairs budget proposal, and I 

find it sorely lacking. The President proposes increasing our defense budget by nearly $50 billion, a proposal I strongly support. 

At the same time, however, his request for international affairs 

5

spending represents an actual decrease compared to the funds provided by Congress last year. 

To win the war against terrorism we need more than smart 

bombs. We need smart diplomats, secure embassies, and steppedup international broadcasting and foreign assistance that advances 

the world’s march toward democracy and freedom. 

Our chronically low level of international affairs spending is a 

national disgrace, only compounded by this new budget proposal. 

The United States spends less than 1⁄10 of 1 percent of our gross 

domestic product on international development assistance, while 

our friends in Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands spend proportionately 10 times as much. Ten times as much! 

Mr. Secretary, you have correctly called America’s diplomacy our 

first line of defense. By that measure this budget will leave America vulnerable and much too dependent on our military. There is 

no better example of the dangers of shortchanging diplomacy than 

is Afghanistan today. Had we invested only a fraction, only a fraction of what the international community now plans to spend in assistance to Afghanistan, after the Soviets withdrew in 1990, the 

Taliban would never have emerged. Osama bin Laden would never 

have found refuge and we would not be waging war in Afghanistan 

now. 

I am especially dismayed by the cuts this budget will force on our 

international broadcasting and public diplomacy programs. These 

initiatives are critical to broadening international understanding of 

the United States and the values that form our foreign policies. We 

cannot win the information war, and hence the war against terrorism, if we shortchange public diplomacy. 

Finally, Mr. Secretary, I am profoundly disturbed by the recent 

remarks of your Cabinet colleague, Secretary of the Treasury Paul 

O’Neill, who made clear his contempt for foreign assistance, dismissing it as ineffective and wasteful. The Administration and the 

country would do well to disown his irresponsible remarks and recommit itself to strengthening U.S. national security through increased and effective foreign assistance. 

Mr. Secretary, I am looking forward to hearing your testimony 

today, and I welcome your insights into these pressing issues. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman HYDE. Thank you, Mr. Lantos. Without objection, any 

Member who wishes to insert an opening statement into the record 

may do so at this point or subsequent point. 

Mr. Secretary, we look forward to hearing a summary of your 

statement. As your full statement has been made available to all 

our Members and will be made a part of the record, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE COLIN L. POWELL, 

SECRETARY OF STATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Secretary POWELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for 

making my full statement a part of the record, and I will give an 

abbreviated version of that statement to get our proceedings going. 

Let me begin by thanking you, Mr. Chairman, for your kind remarks and, Mr. Lantos, for your kind remarks as well and your sobering observations with respect to our foreign assistance accounts. 

Let me also thank the Committee for the solid support that you 

6

have provided to the Administration, to the President and all of us 

in the Administration over the last 4-plus months of the current 

crisis. And, as Secretary of State, let me thank the Committee for 

the support you have provided for my efforts to reinvigorate the 

Department of State, to make sure that we get the right people in 

the right place at the right time, that we let them know they are 

on the front line of offense in our national security efforts, and that 

you are going to give them the tools that they need to do that job 

well. 

Mr. Lantos, of course we would always welcome a larger budget, 

but in light of what the President had available to him and what 

he thought was appropriate for the Nation at this time, I am 

pleased that the budget I am here to defend this morning does 

show an increase of almost 5 percent, offset somewhat by the supplemental that you make reference to. It may well be that as we 

get into the course of this year another supplemental will be required. I still think that as a result of these actions we will see real 

growth in the State Department accounts in the year that unfolds 

in front of us. 

Chairman Hyde, you made the point that we all came together 

as a nation. We saw a love of country in a way that we hadn’t seen 

in a long time. It invigorated not only all of us, but I think it invigorated the world. It showed the world what America is all about. 

Our diversity is a source of strength, not weakness. 

We don’t all sit around watching television and scandals, but we 

can come together for a common purpose and a common cause. As 

a result of our coming together in this common purpose and cause, 

we provide a vision to the rest of the world as to what we have to 

do as a civilized world to deal with this new threat that came upon 

us in such a vivid way on the 11th of September last. 

We pulled together a great coalition, a coalition that we lead because that coalition wants us to lead it, a coalition that has done 

more than soft applause in support of the vision, a coalition which 

put British troops next to American troops in Afghanistan and German troops in combat operations on the right side and first time 

they have been in such operations in 50-odd years and with French 

troops and Jordanian troops and other troops, and many other nations that were willing to put their troops in harm’s way had we 

a need for those troops in the theater of operations. In some cases 

we got soft applause, but in most cases we got loud applause and 

we got positive acts on the part of our coalition members to be a 

part of this effort, and we applaud that action on their part. 

We also recognize that coalitions need leadership, and we also 

recognize that while we are pulling together a coalition we would 

like the coalition to move out all in the same manner and with the 

left foot forward all together. There may be some times when we 

have to act alone, but we can’t have our national interests constrained by the views of the coalition. 

My job, of course, as Secretary of State is to explain this vision, 

carry this vision forward, using the example given to us by President Bush, and to make sure that everybody understands that we 

want you to be with us, but if you can’t be we are going ahead any 

way. 

7

I think we have been successful in going forward with a vision 

that most people can support, and this coalition has stayed together. People have said, well, it is going to break apart. Well, it 

didn’t break apart. In fact with each passing week it is being 

strengthened as the President shows leadership and as we continue 

to put out that vision of what we have to do to defeat terrorists, 

deal with those nations that harbor terrorists and terrorist activities, and also deal with those nations that enable terrorists by the 

proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or the technology that 

could lead to the development of weapons of mass destruction. 

I think we do have newly prominent threats that we have to deal 

with that you mentioned, Mr. Chairman. But even more exciting 

and more interesting to me is we have newly prominent opportunities, opportunities that I will talk to as I go through my statement, 

that were not there 5 months ago, were not there a year ago, newly 

prominent opportunities that have been made possible by the leadership that President Bush and the United States has given to this 

coalition against terrorism. 

What I would like to do for the first part of my statement, however, Mr. Chairman, is to talk not about foreign policy but to say 

just a few words about how we have used the resources that the 

Congress has provided to us in my first year as chief steward of 

the Department of State to reinvigorate the State Department and 

to make sure that we are managing and running the Department 

in the most effective way possible. 

In my first testimony before this Committee last year, I said I 

was going to break that mold and talk about management and my 

stewardship of the Department. I did that because I felt I had to 

make the case for you that the resources challenge for the Department of State have become a serious impediment to the conduct of 

our foreign policy. You heard my testimony. You responded with 

the kind of support that I was hoping for, and I want to thank you 

for that. 

Because of your generosity and your understanding, we have already made significant progress and, in the remainder of fiscal 

year 2002, we will make more. In new hires for the Foreign Service, we have made great strides. We doubled the number of young 

Americans who have stepped forward to say I want to take the Foreign Service exam, I want to be part of this department. I want to 

be part of this front line of offense in our national security activities. We have tripled the number of minorities who have applied 

for the Foreign Service exam; 17 percent of those who applied for 

the last exam were minorities. We are going to give the exam twice 

this year in order to accommodate all the young Americans who are 

stepping forward in this time of crisis. 

We have also improved our Civil Service recruitment by putting 

out new web-based recruiting tools, and once we identify the best 

people out there we are trying to bring them in more rapidly. Last 

year it was taking us 27 months to bring somebody into the Foreign Service from the day they took the Foreign Service exam. We 

now have that under a year, and we will drive it to an even lower 

number. 

I want all of the men and women of the Department of State to 

have state-of-the-art information technology so they can be part of 

8

this rapidly changing world. I hope that as a result of this support 

you have provided to me, the funds that have been made available 

to me, we will have 30,000 State Department employees given access to the Internet within the very near future; over the next 2 

years is my goal. 

We have also done a lot with respect to the security of our buildings and the building of our embassies and making sure that we 

are giving our people around the world good places in which to 

work, good places in which to live and places that are secure, protecting them and their families. And General Chuck Williams, who 

I brought on board, a marvelous Army engineer, is doing a great 

job of that. I think we can satisfy the Committee and the other 

Committees of Congress that we are using the funds for embassy 

construction in the most effective way possible, and I think you will 

be very impressed with the work that General Williams’ colleagues 

have done. 

Morale is on the upswing. We are taking care of our families, we 

are taking care of our people. The President’s request for the Department of State and related agencies to operate us and operate 

our facilities is $8.1 billion, and these dollars will allow us to continue initiatives to recruit, hire, train and deploy and to upgrade 

our worldwide security readiness, but it also includes $553 million 

to build on the funding that had been provided earlier for the increased hiring of security agents and counterterrorism programs. 

The budget request has over $1.3 billion to improve physical security and correct serious deficiencies that still exist in our facilities 

around the world. 

As I noted earlier, the budget will support my efforts to provide 

state-of-the-art information technology to all of our personnel. To 

Mr. Lantos’ point about public diplomacy and broadcasting, this 

budget will enhance our public diplomacy efforts to eliminate support for terrorists and to make sure we are getting our message out 

that we are not against any ethnic group. We are not against any 

group of people. We are against terrorists and terrorists only, and 

I think we have to do a much better job of getting that message 

out. 

I have brought on a person, Under Secretary of State Charlotte 

Beers, who has a broad background in marketing and selling. People have said, well, is that what you really need to have? Didn’t 

she used to sell Uncle Ben’s rice? The answer is yes, she did. And 

didn’t you buy Uncle Ben’s rice? And that is exactly what I want, 

somebody who can market our value system, somebody who can get 

out there and mix it up in the kind of world we are living in. 

We are going to see a lot of exciting things happening, the right 

content, the right format to the right audience right now to explain 

our policies, to explain what our vision is all about. 

Mr. Chairman, all of these State Department and related action 

programs and initiatives are critical to the conduct of America’s 

foreign policy. It is to that foreign policy that I now want to turn 

my attention. 

Over the past year, Mr. Chairman, I believe the broader tapestry 

of our foreign policy has become clear. President Bush and all of 

us want to encourage the growth of democracy and market economies and to bring more nations to the understanding that the 

9

power of the individual is the power that counts, that despite the 

crises and troubles the world confronts the movement of freedom 

is inexorable, and when evil appears to threaten that movement, 

America will confront that evil head on and defeat it as we are 

doing in the war on terrorism. 

As I get into the specifics of our foreign policy, the different regions, the different countries, the different crises, let’s not forget 

the power of the whole, the power of democracy and the power of 

free enterprise system, and you can see how this is transforming 

the world. I have to make sure that every day while I am dealing 

with the crises of the day, while I may be, as I was this morning, 

talking to the President of Pakistan and the Foreign Minister of 

India and talking to the Chairman of the OSCE in dealing with the 

issues that come along and worrying about the Middle East, I have 

to stand back and realize there are wonderful opportunities out 

there and not be dragged into the mud by the crises, but to keep 

looking at that broader horizon that is out in front of us, the opportunity we have to reshape this world in a way that we couldn’t 

have thought about just a year ago. 

Let me now start to go through these various issues. I want to 

begin with Russia. President Bush has structured a very strong relationship with Russia, the meetings that he has had over the past 

year with President Putin and the dialogue that has taken place 

on a regular basis between Russian foreign Minister Igor Ivanov 

and me and Secretary Rumsfeld and his colleagues. In fact, as I 

was pulling into in front of the building a few moments ago Igor 

Ivanov was trying to reach me on the phone to tell me about his 

visit to Kabul day before yesterday. We talk one, two, three, four 

times a week now to make sure we stay in touch, to make sure we 

understand one another in a way that hadn’t been the case just a 

few months ago. 

As a result of this level of dialogue, I think it helped Russia understand that it had to make the right choice after September 11th, 

and President Putin does make the right choice. He decided that 

Russia would become a full and key member of the anti-terrorist 

coalition. Russia has played a crucial role in our success in Afghanistan by providing intelligence, bolstering the Northern Alliance 

and assisting our entry into Central Asia in a way that they would 

have found threatening just a few months ago. In fact, 2 weeks ago 

my colleague Mr. Ivanov was asked by a television interviewer, 

Comrade Igor, aren’t you worried about all of these Americans running around Central Asia? They are the enemy. And his answer 

was no, terrorism is the enemy. Smuggling is the enemy. Drug trafficking is the enemy. Those are the things that are now the enemies, and the United States and Russia are working together to 

defeat these new enemies. That is a new awareness that the Russians have that we can build on as we go forward. 

Similarly, the way we agree to disagree on the ABM Treaty reflects the intense dialogue that we had over the previous 11 

months, where we made it clear to them we have to go forward 

with missile defense. It is one of the threats we have to deal with. 

We know you have concerns about us leaving the ABM Treaty. Can 

we deal with those concerns? Can we find a way to go forward with 

the testing in a way that you would find acceptable under the treaVerDate Feb 1 2002 14:46 May 08, 2002 Jkt 078083 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\020602\77532 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
10

ty? And we had the most intense dialogue, the President is talking, 

Mr. Ivanov and I are, and our staffers trying to work it out. At the 

end of the day we couldn’t come to an agreement on this issue and 

we agreed to disagree, and we notified Russia that we were going 

to withdraw from the ABM Treaty. President Bush talked to President Putin, and sent me to discuss with President Putin how the 

announcements would be made in a way that does not rupture the 

relationship. Everybody was saying oh, my gosh, if you do that 

there is going to be an arms race that will break out immediately, 

and the relationship between the United States and the Russian 

Federation will go into crisis mode. None of that happened. We 

agreed to disagree as two mature nations speaking to one another, 

and now we are moving forward. The ABM Treaty disagreement is 

behind us. 

We are finding ways to cooperate with respect to the reduction 

of nuclear weapons. Offensive nuclear weapons are the things that 

kill people, not missile defense, which defends against the things 

that kill people. And Minister Ivanov and our staffers are hard at 

work to find a way to get all of this documented by the time of the 

Moscow summit in May so that we can put down at that time a 

legally binding agreement between the two sides on what we are 

going to do to reduce strategic offensive weaponry. 

It just shows that two mature nations can have positions of principle and find a way to move forward without either side abandoning its principle. We even managed to come to agreement on 

how we are going to work in NATO. We are now developing mechanisms for pursuing joint Russian-NATO consultations; ‘‘at 20,’’ it is 

called: NATO, its members and Russia, when it joins in our deliberations, as NATO-Russia Council at 20. I think this will go a long 

way to bringing Russia more toward the West and making them 

more comfortable with the likelihood of the expansion of NATO at 

the Prague summit in the fall of this year. I believe that the way 

we handled the war on terrorism, ABM Treaty, nuclear reductions 

in NATO is reflective of the way we will be working with Russia 

in the future. 

At the same time we have not forgotten about Russian abuse of 

human rights in Chechnya or about Moscow’s nuclear proliferation 

to countries such as Iran, or Russian intransigence, which I think 

is slowly dissipating, with respect to changing the sanctions policy 

on Iraq. We also speak candidly to them about the freedom of the 

media. And so even though we are getting along in a number of 

important areas, and I might also touch on economic cooperation 

and their desire to become a member of the WTO, we don’t shrink 

from pointing out where there are deficiencies in the relationship, 

where we think they have to take action. And we do it on the basis 

of mutual respect, open dialogue, and building up a level of confidence so we can talk candidly to one another, and the way we are 

approaching Central Asia is illustrative of that. 

Shifting to the other great nation which is of enormous interest 

to us, that is China, we have tried to move in the same direction. 

You recall earlier this year we had a potentially volatile situation 

in April when our reconnaissance aircraft was in a collision with 

a Chinese airplane and it landed on Hainan Island. Everybody 

thought this would be a crisis of long lasting duration and would 

11

fundamentally sour relations between the United States and 

China. But through careful diplomacy, both sides respecting one 

another’s point of view, trying to find a solution, we found a solution. We got our crew home safely, we eventually got our plane 

home. It also set up conditions that allowed me to go to China later 

that summer for successful meetings that set the stage for President Bush to visit Shanghai for the APEC summit last fall. 

He had good meetings with President Jiang Zemin, and we have 

discovered in recent months that the Chinese are anxious to move 

forward with us on a positive agenda. We have emphasized that 

there are shared interests that we have with China, and they are 

global and regionally shared interests, such as China’s access to 

the WTO, which has now occurred along with Taiwan’s access, and 

stability on the Korean Peninsula. We are with the Chinese on 

fighting the scourge of HIV/AIDS, which is going to be a problem 

for China in the years ahead. On such issues we can have a dialogue and we can make measurable progress. But we do not want 

the interests where we differ to constrain us from pursuing those 

where we share common goals. That is what we are trying to do. 

President Jiang Zemin was one of the first world leaders to call 

President Bush and offer his sorrow and condolences for the tragic 

events of September 11th. In the almost 5 months since that date, 

China has helped in the war against terrorism. Beijing has also 

helped in the reconstruction effort of Afghanistan and we hope will 

help even more in the future. 

Moreover, China has played a constructive role in helping the 

United States manage a very dangerous situation between India 

and Pakistan. I speak to my Chinese colleague and Foreign Minister Tang on a regular basis. Not too long ago when President 

Musharraf of Pakistan was going to China on his way to another 

meeting, I called Foreign Minister Tang and we coordinated our 

views and positions at that point so that all of us were in sync with 

one another. I think that has turned out to be a helpful way of 

dealing with these kinds of crises. 

All of this kind of cooperation between us and the Chinese came 

about as a result of our efforts to rebuild the relationship after the 

reconnaissance plane incident. At the same time, as with Russia, 

we don’t walk away from the tough issues. We talk to them about 

our commitment to human rights and why we believe it is important. We talk to them about religious freedom, why it is important 

that we respect universal standards of human rights, and why it 

is important that they not participate in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction technology. We don’t shrink from that. 

And we continue to tell the Chinese people that if their economic 

development continues at pace and the Chinese people see the benefits of being part of a world that rests on the rule of law, we can 

continue to work together constructively. A candid, constructive 

and cooperative relationship is what we are building with China, 

candid where we disagree, constructive where we can see some 

daylight, and cooperative where we have common regional or global 

interests. 

As we improved our relationship with China, we also reinvigorated our bilateral alliance with Japan, Korea and Australia, and 

nowhere has this been more visible than in the war on terrorism, 

12

where they and all of our other Asian Pacific friends have been so 

helpful. President Bush has a solid relationship with Prime Minister Koizumi of Japan, and Prime Minister Koizumi immediately 

offered Japan’s strong support within the confines of its constitution. And he is working to enhance Japan’s capability to contribute 

to such global and regional actions in the future. 

Always the linchpin of our security strategy in East Asia, the 

U.S.-Japan Security Alliance now is as strong a bond between our 

two countries as it has been in the half century of its existence. 

With respect to the Peninsula, our alliance with the Republica of 

Korea has also been strengthened by Korea’s response to the war 

on terrorism and by our careful analysis and our consultations with 

the South on where we need to take the dialogue with the North. 

President Bush has made it very clear, as clear as one could, that 

we are dissatisfied with the actions of North Korea in that they 

continue to develop and sell missiles that could carry weapons of 

mass destruction at the same time their people are starving to 

death. We are one of the biggest contributors of food to keep them 

from starving to death. 

When the President said that there is an axis of evil and that 

there are evil regimes, not evil people but evil regimes, and he 

identified North Korea as one of them, that does not mean that he 

is not willing to enter into a dialogue with North Korea. Our policy 

remains the same. As I enunciated with the President’s permission 

last summer, we are prepared to talk to the North Koreans any 

time, any place, anywhere, under any set of conditions and with no 

previously set agenda. Let’s start talking. But that does not mean 

we will not call it the way we see it. That is what the President 

did the other night. He did it with a firmness of purpose. It was 

not a rhetorical flourish. It was a considered statement that he was 

making, a statement that all of us had seen beforehand and were 

pleased that he was making. 

We will not shrink back that clarity of purpose that the President had in his State of the Union Address. Both we and the Republic of Korea are ready to resume dialogue with Pyongyang at 

any time they are ready to do so. 

As I look across the Pacific to East Asia, I see a much improved 

security scene. I believe that President Bush and his leadership deserves the credit for this success. 

Another foreign policy success that we don’t talk about enough 

is the improvement we have achieved in our relations with Europe. 

In waging war together on terrorism, our cooperation has grown 

stronger. NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time on September 

12th, the very day after the crisis. Since then the European Union 

has moved swiftly to round up terrorists, close down terrorist financing networks and improve law enforcement and aviation security cooperation. We share with the Europeans the desire for a Europe whole, free, and at peace. 

President Bush has communicated to Europe a solid vision. He 

did that in his speech in Warsaw last year. He has met with the 

European Union at the U.S.-EU summit and at the European summit. He is looking forward to the Prague summit later this year 

when we will, I am quite sure, enlarge NATO, offering invitations 

to aspirants to join. How many, still to be determined. 

13

But this suggestion that you sometimes see in intellectual circles 

that the United States is acting unilaterally and not consulting 

with our European partners couldn’t be further from the truth. If 

you look at my calendar, you will see how much consultation I do, 

beginning very early this morning with the Foreign Minister of 

Portugal and a steady stream of advisers that came through my office. President Bush spends an enormous amount of his time in direct consultations with our European friends as well as our friends 

around the world. 

So we believe in multilateralism, but when it is a matter of principle and when the multilateral community does not agree with us, 

we do not shrink from doing that which we think is right, which 

is in our interest, even if some of our friends disagree with us. And 

particularly in Europe we recognize that there are strong points of 

view in Europe and we always appreciate hearing these strong 

points of view. I hear them, whether I appreciate them or not. That 

is part of diplomacy. 

This is how friends work with each other, and I just want this 

Committee to know and Americans to know that we value the alliance that we are part of. We value the relations that we have with 

all of our European colleagues. I spend a lot of my time making 

sure that they understand our point of view, and we take into account their point of view. 

We are not ignoring the rest of the world by focusing on Europe 

and China, Russia and the countries around them. I am very concerned about Africa. We have worked hard to show that we do have 

an African agenda. President Bush chaired the forum that we had 

not too long ago implementing the African Growth and Opportunity 

Act. We are looking forward to the summit meeting in Johannesburg later this year on the World Summit on Sustainable Development, which will be one of the largest gatherings of foreign ministers and world leaders in many decades. 

We will do more to make sure that the African Growth and Opportunity Act achieves the purposes that Congress has intended. It 

is off to a good start. A number of countries have seen significant 

increases in their ability to trade with us, and I don’t want anyone 

to think that we are neglecting these other areas, particularly in 

Africa. 

With the HIV/AIDS crisis upon us in sub-Saharan Africa, I am 

proud that the United states was in the forefront of starting the 

Global Trust Fund. We are adding another $200 million to our 

other $300 million contribution for a $500 million contribution over 

2 years to the Global Trust Fund in addition to hundreds of millions of additional dollars that are dedicated to HIV/AIDS work and 

many more hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars that the 

Department of Health and Human Services invests in trying to find 

a cure for this terrible disease. 

Mr. Chairman, we also are concerned about the situation in our 

own hemisphere. We are pleased that the Summit of the Americas 

last year was such a success. I will leave this afternoon for the Caribbean, where I will participate with all the foreign ministers of 

CARICOM in a discussion of their needs, regional security, regional 

counterdrug and counterterrorist activities, but most importantly 

14

economic development in the CARICOM area. And we are anxious 

to move forward on our agenda for free trade area of the Americas. 

I think that we have demonstrated to the world that we start at 

home by making sure we take care of things in this hemisphere, 

and that is based on fundamentals of democracy and open and free 

trade. I think there are enormous opportunities in this new world 

of post-September the 11th, but there are still continuing tragedies 

that we have to deal with. And no crisis, no tragedy takes more of 

my time than the Middle East. I was working on this up till 8 at 

least in conversations with the Minister of Defense of Israel, Mr. 

Ben Eliezer, who is here. I spent a great deal of time in recent days 

with Palestinian delegations and with the Foreign Minister of 

Israel. We need an end of violence in the region. 

With the end of violence, then we can move forward into the 

Tenet work plan, into the Mitchell peace plan, into the vision that 

President Bush laid out at the U.N. last fall, a vision that includes 

the establishment of a Palestinian state called Palestine. President 

Bush was the first President to say that in an international forum. 

We moved quite a ways in the last year. The Palestinian state that 

will live side by side in peace with a Jewish state called Israel is 

our vision. We will not walk away from that vision. We will do everything we can to achieve that vision. 

I laid down a comprehensive view after the President’s statement 

in my speech at Louisville. General Zinni went over to try to get 

the process started. The process was stopped because of continued 

bombing, continued violence, and the presence of the ship, the 

Karine A, which showed that the Palestinians were not serious 

enough with respect to getting to a ceasefire. 

I made it clear to Chairman Arafat directly and to his associates 

that until the violence is ended, or comes as close to ending as is 

reasonable, and until the incitement ends, until there is an explanation for this ship and then an understanding that these kinds of 

activities cannot take place any longer, it is going to be difficult to 

move forward. Once that is dealt with, the violence is down, arrests 

are made, explanations for the ship, then the United States is 

ready to engage, and I am confident that Israel will reciprocate at 

that point so that we can move forward. 

These two peoples cannot continue to kill one another. They 

must find a way to move forward, and it begins with an end to the 

violence. Then there is a road map that will take us to negotiations 

that will lead us to the resolution of these most difficult issues that 

are yet ahead. The United States remains committed to that effort. 

We will do everything we can to make sure that the vision that all 

of the parties believe in is ultimately achieved. 

We also have continuing problems with those nations that the 

President identified on the axis of evil, and there are others that 

could have been tossed into this camp. With respect to Iraq, for example, the President made it clear—let the inspectors in. You have 

seen speculation in the press lately that the Iraqis want to discuss 

this. As I said yesterday to some of your Senate colleagues, there 

isn’t much to discuss. We know what the resolution calls for. You 

let the inspectors in. You are the ones who claim you don’t have 

these weapons of mass destruction. Let the inspectors in. You are 

the ones who say that we are denying food and goods for your peoVerDate Feb 1 2002 14:46 May 08, 2002 Jkt 078083 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\020602\77532 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
15

ple. Smart sanctions will take care of that; let the inspectors in. 

But without conditions, we don’t trust you. That is why we need 

inspectors and that is why they have to be free to do it in any way 

that they think is appropriate to establish that you are not conducting the kinds of activities that we suspect of you, which you 

claim you are not doing. 

I just might touch finally on Afghanistan, Mr. Chairman, before 

turning it over to your questions. We should be very proud of what 

we have accomplished in Afghanistan in the last 4-plus months. 

We should be enormously proud of the wonderful young men and 

women in uniform who went and did such a brilliant job with the 

Northern Alliance and toppled the Taliban and pushed the alQaeda out and has them on the run. We should be proud of our 

diplomats, who did such an excellent job at the Bonn Conference 

in creating an interim authority. There were many people who 

thought it wasn’t going to work, couldn’t possibly pull these people 

together, but it happened. A lot of credit goes to Mr. Brahimi and 

the United Nations, but also our Ambassador Dobbins and a number of people who did an excellent job in bringing this about. Now 

our job is to support Chairman Karzai as he starts to build from 

nothing. 

I am very happy that also, with a great deal of help on the part 

of America’s diplomats, we were able to put together an International Conference on Reconstruction in Tokyo, which came up 

with $4.5 billion. Much more will be required. Under British leadership, the international security assistance force is off to a good 

start, but much more needs to be done. We need a national army 

created in Afghanistan. We need a national police force, and we are 

hard at work with Chairman Karzai and his associates to make 

this happen. And we have to make sure that a Loya Jurga takes 

place soon and we transition this interim authority into a permanent authority and then the Afghan people have a chance to participate in full and free elections within 2 years time. 

Mr. Chairman, let me just close by saying that we do have lots 

of challenges ahead of us, lots of crises before us, but there are so 

many good things that are going on. A new look at Central Asia, 

India, Pakistan, even in the crisis situation they are in at the moment, there is an opportunity to solve that crisis diplomatically. I 

think we will be able to do that with continued American engagement. And when that is over, we will find that America has a new 

set of opportunities with both India and Pakistan that we might 

not have had before. 

In Central Asia the great game will not break out again. America 

will have a continuing interest and presence in Central Asia of a 

kind that we could not have dreamed before. Russia, China, signs 

are looking good. Europe, solid. We are doing more with other parts 

of Asia. We are engaged in Africa. We are engaged in our own 

hemisphere, and we are engaged on the basis of principle, principle 

grounded in democracy, as the system that works and the others 

tend not to. We are engaged on the basis of free market economics, 

and we are pushing for trade liberalization and breaking down 

trade barriers so we can help nations start up the economic ladder, 

get their people out of poverty and despair. All people want the 

same thing for their children. Food on the table, a roof over their 

16

head, clothes on their back, schooling, health care, and a hope for 

a better future for your children comes with democracy, and it 

comes with free market economics. 

An important part of the President’s speech which also undergirded our foreign policy is his talk about values in the latter part 

of the State of the Union speech, not American values, not European values, not even Islamic values, but universal values of freedom, of peace, God’s values, giving to each man and woman on 

Earth the opportunity to pursue their destiny limited only by their 

willingness to work, the system in which they are allowed to work 

and by their own ambition. 

That is the basis upon which we conduct our foreign policy. It is 

the message that I give to my staff and to my ambassadors, your 

ambassadors, the American people’s ambassadors around the 

world. Manifest the world our values, don’t preach to them, don’t 

lecture them, just manifest them and more and more people will 

come to the understanding that that is a value system they ought 

to take a hard look at because it works and the others don’t. 

I thank you for your support, and I look forward to your continued support in doing the work of America’s diplomats but, more importantly, doing the work that the American people have given to 

us to do. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Powell follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE COLIN L. POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

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

testify in support of President Bush’s budget request for FY 2003. 

Let me say here at the outset, Mr. Chairman, before I go into the details of the 

budget and our foreign policy, that President Bush has two overriding objectives 

that our foreign policy must serve before all else. These two objectives are to win 

the war on terrorism and to protect Americans at home and abroad. This Administration will not be deterred from accomplishing these objectives. I have no doubt 

that this committee and the Congress feel the same way. 

As many of you will recall, at my first budget testimony last March I said I was 

going to break the mold and instead of talking exclusively about foreign affairs, I 

was going to focus on the financial condition of the department—both in terms of 

State Department operations and in terms of foreign operations. I did that because 

the resources challenge for the Department of State had become a serious impediment to the conduct of the nation’s foreign policy. And you heard my testimony and 

you responded, and we are grateful. 

Because of your understanding and generosity, we have already made significant 

progress and in the remainder of FY 2002 we will make more. In new hires for the 

Foreign Service, we have made great strides. For example, we doubled the number 

of candidates for the Foreign Service Written Examination—and this year we will 

give the exam twice instead of just once. Moreover, our new recruits better reflect 

the diversity of our country with nearly 17% of those who passed last September’s 

written exam being members of minority groups. For instance, we tripled the number of African-Americans. 

We have also improved Civil Service recruitment by creating new web-based recruiting tools. And once we identify the best people we bring them on more quickly. 

For Foreign Service recruits, for instance, we have reduced the time from written 

exam to entry into service from 27 months to less than a year. We are also working 

with OMB to create extensive new performance measures to ensure that we are hiring the very best people. 

We are also well underway in bringing state-of-the-art information technology to 

the Department. We have an aggressive deployment schedule for our OpenNet Plus 

system which will provide desktop Internet access to our unclassified system for 

over 30,000 State users worldwide. We are deploying our classified connectivity proVerDate Feb 1 2002 14:46 May 08, 2002 Jkt 078083 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\FULL\020602\77532 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
17

gram over the next two years. Our goal is to put the Internet in the service of diplomacy and we are well on the way to accomplishing it. 

In right-sizing our facilities and in shaping up and bringing smarter management 

practices to our overseas buildings program, we are moving forward briskly as 

well—as many of you are aware because General Chuck Williams has been keeping 

you informed about our progress. In fact, that is the first change we made, putting 

General Williams in charge and giving him assistant secretary equivalent rank. His 

Overseas Building Operations (OBO) has developed the Department’s first longrange plan, which covers our major facility requirements through Fiscal Year 2007. 

The OBO has also developed a standard embassy design concept for small, medium, and large embassies. This concept will reduce cost while speeding up construction and enhancing quality. And in making all of our facilities, overseas and 

stateside, more secure, we are also making good headway. By the end of FY 2002, 

over two-thirds of our overseas posts should reach minimal security standards, 

meaning secure doors, windows, and perimeters. And we are making progress in efforts to provide new facilities that are fully secure, with 13 major capital projects 

in design or construction, another eight expected to begin this fiscal year, and nine 

more in FY 2003. 

I am also pleased that we have been able to improve the morale of our State Department families. We are especially proud of our interim childcare center at the 

National Foreign Affairs Training Center. It opened on September 4 and can handle 

a full complement of 30 infants and toddlers. 

The idea of family and the quality of life that must always nourish that idea even 

in the remotest station, is uppermost in our minds at the Department. While we 

concentrate on the nation’s foreign affairs we must also focus on caring about those 

Americans who conduct it, as well as the many thousands of Foreign Service Nationals who help us across the globe. For example, our sixty Afghan employees in 

Kabul worked diligently to maintain and protect our facilities throughout the 13 

years the Embassy was closed. They worked at considerable personal risk and often 

went months without getting paid. They even repaired the chancery roof when it 

was damaged by a rocket attack. This is the sort of diligence and loyalty that is 

typical of our outstanding Foreign Service Nationals. 

With regard to our budget, last year I told you that the out years were a source 

of concern to me—and they still are. In fact, given the costs of the war on terrorism, 

the downturn in the economy and accompanying shrinkage of revenues, I am even 

more concerned this year than last. But I was confident last year that I could make 

the case for State and I am confident this year that I can do so. We have a solid 

case to make, and it is the case of how we best pursue America’s interests and there 

is no doubt in this old soldier’s mind that foreign policy stands foremost among the 

answers to that ‘‘how.’’ And Mr. Chairman, I am excited about the changes we’ve 

made and the momentum we’ve developed. 

We need to keep that momentum going. That is why for FY 2003 you will get no 

break from me. I am going to focus on resources again this year in my testimony, 

because it is so critical that we continue to push the organization and conduct of 

America’s foreign policy into the 21st Century. 

Since that heart-rending day in September when the terrorists struck in New 

York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, we have seen why our foreign policy is so important. 

We have had great success over the past five months in the war on terrorism, 

especially in Afghanistan. And behind the courageous men and women of our armed 

forces has been the quiet, steady course of diplomacy, assisting our military’s efforts 

to unseat the Taliban government and defeat the al-Qaida terrorists in Afghanistan. 

We’ve reshaped that whole region—a new U.S.-Pakistan relationship, a reinvigorated U.S.-India relationship, a new Interim Authority in Kabul, the Taliban gone, 

and the terrorists dead, in jail, or on the run. We are also forming important new 

relationships with the nations of Central Asia. 

In his second visit to the Department last year, President Bush told us that despite the great tragedy of September 11, we could see opportunities through our 

tears—and at his direction, the Department of State has been at flank speed ever 

since, making as much as possible of those opportunities. 

And we need to continue to do so and for many years to come. We will need resources to do it, so first let me focus on my ‘‘CEO dollars’’, and then I will turn to 

foreign policy. 

The Budget Priorities for FY 2003: Department of State and Related Agencies 

The President’s request for the Department of State and Related Agencies for FY 

2003 is $8.1 billion. These dollars will allow us to:

18

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

The budget request includes $100 million for the next step in the hiring process we began last year. With these dollars, we will be able to bring on board 

399 more foreign affairs professionals and be well on our way to repairing the 

large gap created in our personnel structure and, thus, the strain put on our 

people by almost a decade of too few hires, an inability to train properly, and 

hundreds of unfilled positions. In FY 2004, if we are able to hire the final 

399 personnel, we will have completed our three-year effort with respect to 

overseas staffing—to include establishing the training pool I described to you 

last year that is so important if we are to allow our people to complete the 

training we feel is needed for them to do their jobs. Soon, I will be back up 

here briefing you on the results of our domestic staffing review.

• Continue to upgrade and enhance our worldwide security readiness—even more important in light of our success in disrupting and damaging the alQaida terrorist network. The budget request includes $553 million that builds 

on the funding provided from the Emergency Response Fund for the increased 

hiring of security agents and for counterterrorism programs.

• Continue to upgrade the security of our overseas facilities. The budget request includes over $1.3 billion to improve physical security, correct serious 

deficiencies that still exist, and provide for security-driven construction of 

new facilities at high-risk posts around the world.

• Continue our program to provide state-of-the-art information technology to 

our people everywhere. Just as I promised you last year, the budget request 

will continue projects aimed at extending classified connectivity to every post 

that requires it and to expanding desktop access to the Internet for Department employees. We have included $177 million for this purpose. Over the 

past decade, we let the Department’s essential connectivity ebb to very low 

levels and we need to correct that situation.

• Continue and enhance our educational and cultural exchange programs. The 

budget request includes $247 million for strategic activities that build mutual 

understanding and develop friendly relations between America and the peoples of the world. These activities help build the trust, confidence, and international cooperation necessary to sustain and advance the full range of our 

interests. Such activities have gained a new sense of urgency and importance 

since the brutal attacks of September. We need to teach more about America 

to the world. We need to show people who we are and what we stand for, and 

these programs do just that.

• Continue to meet our obligations to international organizations—also important as we pursue the war on terrorism to its end. The budget request includes $891.4 million to fund U.S. assessments to 43 international organizations, active membership of which furthers U.S. economic, political, security, 

social, and cultural interests.

• Continue to try to meet our obligations to international peacekeeping activities. The budget request includes $726 million to pay our projected United 

Nations peacekeeping assessments—all the more important as we seek to 

avoid increasing even further our UN arrearages. UN peacekeeping activities 

allow us to leverage our political, military, and financial assets through the 

authority of the United Nations Security Council and the participation of 

other countries in providing funds and peacekeepers for conflicts worldwide. 

As we have seen in Afghanistan, it is often best to use American GIs for the 

heavy-lifting of combat and leave the peacekeeping to others.

• Continue and also enhance an aggressive public diplomacy effort to eliminate 

support for terrorists and thus deny them safe haven. The budget includes 

almost $518 million for International Broadcasting, of which $60 million is for 

the war on terrorism. This funding will enable the Voice of America and 

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty to continue increased media broadcasts to 

Afghanistan and the surrounding countries and throughout the Middle East. 

These international broadcasts help inform local public opinion about the true 

nature of al-Qaida and the purposes of the war on terrorism, building support 

for the coalition’s global campaign.

Mr. Chairman, on this last subject let me expand my remarks. 

The terrorist attacks of September 11 underscored the urgency of implementing 

an effective public diplomacy campaign. Those who abet terror by spreading distortion and hate and inciting others, take full advantage of the global news cycle. We 

must do the same. Since September 11, there have been over 2,000 media appearances by State Department officials. Our continuous presence in Arabic and regional 

19

media by officials with language and media skills, has been unprecedented. Our 

international information website on terror is now online in seven languages. Internet search engines show it is the hottest page on the topic. Our 25-page color publication, ‘‘The Network of Terrorism’’, is now available in 30 languages with many different adaptations, including a full insert in the Arabic edition of Newsweek. ‘‘Right 

content, right format, right audience, right now’’ describes our strategic aim in seeing that U.S. policies are explained and placed in the proper context in the minds 

of foreign audiences. 

I also serve, ex officio, as a member of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the 

agency that oversees the efforts of Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio 

Liberty to broadcast our message into South Central Asia and the Middle East. 

With the support of the Congress, our broadcasting has increased dramatically since 

September 11. We have almost doubled the number of broadcast hours to areas that 

have been the breeding grounds of terrorists. The dollars we have requested for 

international broadcasting will help sustain these key efforts through the next fiscal 

year. 

In addition, Undersecretary Charlotte Beers leads an aggressive effort to create 

and implement new programs to reach new audiences. She is working with private 

sector companies, government agencies, and with our embassies to create avenues 

to broader, younger audiences in critical regions. One of our new initiatives will 

focus on Muslim life in America. It will include television documentaries and radio 

programs co-produced with Muslim-Americans, speaker exchanges, and op-ed pieces. 

We know that this must be a long-term effort that will bear fruit only over time. 

But we must do it. Two of America’s greatest strengths during the Cold War were 

our vigorous information and exchange programs. I believe that we can and must 

build a comparable capability today if we are to confront successfully the new threat 

to our security. 

Mr. Chairman, all of these State Department and Related Agencies programs and 

initiatives are critical to the conduct of America’s foreign policy. Some of you know 

my feelings about the importance to the success of any enterprise of having the 

right people in the right places. If I had to put one of these priorities at the very 

pinnacle of our efforts, it would be our people. We must sustain the strong recruiting program we began last year. At the same time, we will continue measuring our 

progress not simply on numbers hired but on how our new hire’s enhance the Department’s mission. We want to get to a point where our people can undergo training without seriously jeopardizing their missions or offices; where our men and 

women don’t have to fill two or three positions at once; and where people have a 

chance to breathe occasionally. Morale at the Department has taken a definite 

swing upward and we want it to continue to rise and to stay as high as possible. 

As a soldier, I can tell you that such high morale, combined with superb training 

and adequate resources, is the key to a first-class offense—and that is what our men 

and women are, the first line of offense for America. 

So, before I turn to foreign policy, let me say once again how strongly I feel as 

the CEO of the State Department about this part of our budget. It is essential that 

we have the funds necessary to pay for our operations worldwide. 

Foreign Policy: Successes, Challenges, and Opportunities 

Over the past year, Mr. Chairman, I believe the broader tapestry of our foreign 

policy has become clear: to encourage the spread of democracy and market economies and to bring more nations to the understanding that the power of the individual is the power that counts. And when evil appears to threaten this progress, 

America will confront that evil and defeat it—as we are doing in the war on terrorism. 

In weaving this tapestry, we have achieved several successes in addition to the 

successes of the war on terrorism and the regional developments its skillful pursuit 

has made possible. Let me highlight several. 

With regard to Russia, President Bush has defied some of our critics and structured a very strong relationship. The meetings that he had with President Putin 

and the dialogue that has taken place between Russian Foreign Minister Ivanov and 

me and between Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and his counterpart, and at a variety of other levels, have positioned the United States for a strengthened relationship 

with the land of eleven time zones. 

The way that Russia responded to the events of September 11 was reflective of 

this positive relationship. Russia has been a key member of the antiterrorist coalition. It has played a crucial role in our success in Afghanistan, by providing intelligence, bolstering the Northern Alliance, and assisting our entry into Central Asia. 

As a result, we have seriously eroded the capabilities of a terrorist network that 

posed a direct threat to both of our countries 

20

Similarly, the way we agreed to disagree on the ABM Treaty reflects the intense 

dialogue we had over eleven months, a dialogue in which we told the Russians 

where we were headed and we made clear to them that we were serious and that 

nothing would deter us. And we asked them if there was a way that we could do 

what we had to do together, or a way that they could accept what we had to do 

in light of the threat to both of our countries from ballistic missiles. 

At the end of the day, we agreed to disagree and we notified Russia that we were 

going to withdraw from the ABM Treaty. I notified FM Ivanov—we talked about our 

plans for two days. President Bush called President Putin. Then the two presidents 

arranged the way we would make our different announcements. And the world did 

not end. An arms race did not break out. There is no crisis in Russia-U.S. relations. 

In fact, our relations are very good. Both presidents pledged to reduce further the 

number of their offensive nuclear weapons and we are hard at work on an agreement to record these mutual commitments. This is all part of the new strategic 

framework with Russia. 

We even managed to come to an agreement on how we are going to work through 

NATO. We are now developing mechanisms for pursuing joint Russia-NATO consultations and actions ‘‘at 20’’ on a number of concrete issues. Our aim is to have 

these mechanisms in place for the Reykjavik ministerial in May. And as we head 

for the NATO Summit in Prague in November, I believe we will find the environment for the continued expansion of NATO a great deal calmer than we might have 

expected. 

I believe the way we handled the war on terrorism, the ABM Treaty, nuclear reductions, and NATO is reflective of the way we will be working together with Russia 

in the future. Building on the progress we have already made will require energy, 

good will, and creativity on both sides as we seek to resolve some of the tough issues 

on our agenda. We have not forgotten about Russian abuse of human rights in 

Chechnya, Moscow’s nuclear proliferation to Iran, or Russian intransigence with respect to revision of Iraq sanctions. Neither have we neglected to consider what the 

situation in Afghanistan has made plain for all to see: how do we achieve a more 

stable security situation in Central Asia? We know that this is something we cannot 

do without the Russians and something that increasingly they realize can’t be done 

without us, and without the full participation of the countries in the region. We are 

working these issues as well. 

In fact, the way we are approaching Central Asia is symbolic of the way we are 

approaching the relationship as a whole and of the growing trust between our two 

countries. We are taking issues that used to be problems between us and turning 

them into opportunities for more cooperation. Such an approach does not mean that 

differences have vanished or that tough negotiations are a thing of the past. What 

it means is that we believe there are no insurmountable obstacles to building on 

the improved relationship we have already constructed. 

It will take time. But we are on the road to a vastly changed relationship with 

Russia. That can only be for the good—for America and the world. 

We have also made significant progress in our relationship with China. 

We moved from what was a potentially volatile situation in April involving our 

EP–3 aircraft which was forced to land on China’s Hainan Island after a PLA fighter aircraft collided with it, to a very successful meeting in Shanghai in October between President Jiang Zemin and President Bush and an APEC Conference, hosted 

by China, that was equally successful. 

There are certain shared interests that we have with China and we have emphasized those interests. They are regional and global interests, such as China’s accession to WTO, stability on the Korean Peninsula, and combating the scourge of HIV/

AIDs. On such issues we can talk and we can produce constructive outcomes. 

There are other interests where we decidedly do not see eye-to-eye, such as arms 

sales to Taiwan, human rights, religious freedom, and missile proliferation. On such 

issues we can have a dialogue and try to make measurable progress. 

But we do not want the interests where we differ to constrain us from pursuing 

those where we share common goals. And that is the basis upon which our relations 

are going rather smoothly at present. That, and counterterrorism. 

President Jiang Zemin was one of the first world leaders to call President Bush 

and offer his sorrow and condolences for the tragic events of September 11. And in 

the almost five months since that day, China has helped in the war against terrorism. Beijing has also helped in the reconstruction of Afghanistan and we hope 

will help even more in the future. 

Moreover, China has played a constructive role in helping us manage over these 

past few weeks the very dangerous situation in South Asia between India and Pakistan. When I could call China’s Foreign Minster Tang and have a good discussion, 

making sure our policies were known and understood, it made for a more reasoned 

21

approach to what was a volatile situation. As a result, China supported the approach that the rest of the international community had taken. Beijing was not trying to be a spoiler but instead was trying to help us alleviate tensions and convince 

the two parties to scale down their dangerous confrontation—which now it appears 

they are beginning to do. 

All of this cooperation came as a result of our careful efforts to build the relationship over the months since the EP–3 incident. We never walked away from our commitment to human rights, non-proliferation, or religious freedom; and we never 

walked away from the position that we don’t think the Chinese political system is 

the right one for the 21st century. And we continued to tell the Chinese that if their 

economic development continues apace and the Chinese people see the benefits of 

being part of a world that rests on the rule of law, we can continue to work together 

constructively. 

A candid, constructive, and cooperative relationship is what we are building with 

China. Candid where we disagree; constructive where we can see some daylight; and 

cooperative where we have common regional or global interests. These are the principles President Bush will take with him to Beijing later this month. After meeting 

with Prime Minister Koizumi in Tokyo and with President Kim in Seoul, the President will spend a day and a half in Beijing and meet with President Jiang Zemin, 

as well as Premier Zhu Rongji. He will have ample opportunity to put these principles to work. 

As we improved our relationship with China, we also reinvigorated our bilateral 

alliances with Japan, Korea, and Australia. Nowhere has this been more visible 

than in the war on terrorism—where cooperation has been solid and helpful. 

Prime Minister Koizumi immediately offered Japan’s strong support, within the 

confines of its constitution. And he is working to enhance Japan’s capability to contribute to such global and regional actions in the future. President Bush’s dialogue 

with this charismatic and popular Japanese leader has been warm, engaging, and 

productive. Always the linchpin of our security strategy in East Asia, the U.S.-

Japan Security Alliance is now as strong a bond between our two countries as it 

has been in the half-century of its existence. Our shared interests, values, and concerns, plus the dictates of regional security, make it imperative that we sustain this 

renewed vigor in our key Pacific alliance. And we will. 

With respect to the Peninsula, our alliance with the Republic of Korea (ROK) has 

also been strengthened by Korea’s strong response to the war on terrorism and by 

our careful analysis of and consultations on where we needed to take the dialogue 

with the North. President Bush has made it very clear that we are dissatisfied with 

the actions of North Korea, that they continue to develop and sell missiles that 

could carry weapons of mass destruction. But we have also made clear that both 

we and the ROK are ready to resume dialogue with Pyongyang, on this or any other 

matter, at any time the North Koreans decide to come back to the table. The ball 

is in Kim Jong-il’s court. 

The Australians have been clearly forward-leaning in their efforts to support the 

war on terrorism. Heavily committed in East Timor already, Canberra nonetheless 

offered its help immediately and we have been grateful for that help. The people 

of Australia are indeed some of America’s truest friends. 

As I look across the Pacific to East Asia I see a much-improved security scene 

and I believe that President Bush deserves the lion’s share of the credit for this success. 

Another foreign policy success is the improvement we have achieved in our relations with Europe. In waging war together on terrorism, our cooperation has grown 

stronger. NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time ever on September 12. Since 

then, the European Union has moved swiftly to round up terrorists, close down terrorist financing networks, and improve law enforcement and aviation security cooperation. 

Moreover, President Bush has made clear that even as we fight the war on terrorism, we will not be deterred from achieving the goal we share with Europeans 

of a Europe whole, free, and at peace. We continue to work toward this goal with 

our Allies and Partners in Europe. While in the Balkans there remain several challenges to our achieving this goal, we believe we are meeting those challenges. We 

have seized war criminals, helped bring about significant changes in governments 

in Croatia and Yugoslavia, and our military forces are partnered with European 

forces in Kosovo and Bosnia to help bring stability and self-governance, while European-led action fosters a settlement in Macedonia. We need to finish the job in the 

Balkans—and we will. We went in together with the Europeans, and we will come 

out together. 

I also believe we have been successful in bringing the Europeans to a calmer level 

of concern with respect to what was being labeled by many in Europe ‘‘unbridled 

22

U.S. unilateralism’’. Notwithstanding the recent reaction in Europe to President 

Bush’s State of the Union Address, I still believe this to be true. 

There was significant concern among the Europeans earlier last year that because 

we took some unilateral positions of principle for us that somehow the U.S. was 

going off on its own without a care for the rest of the world. This was particularly 

true with respect to the Kyoto Protocol. So we set out immediately to correct this 

misperception. Beginning with President Bush’s speech in Warsaw, his participation 

in the G–8 meetings and the European Union summit, our extensive consultations 

with respect to the new strategic framework with Russia, and culminating in the 

brilliant way in which the President pulled together the coalition against terrorism, 

I believe that we demonstrated to the world that we can be decisively cooperative 

when it serves our interests and the interests of the world. 

But we have also demonstrated that when it is a matter of principle, we will 

stand on that principle. In his first year in office President Bush has shown the 

international community who he is and what his administration is all about. That 

is an important accomplishment—and one that is appreciated now everywhere I go. 

People know where America is coming from and do not have to doubt our resolve 

or our purpose. They may not always agree with us, but they have no doubt about 

our policy or our position. We want to ensure that this policy clarity and this firmness of purpose continue to characterize our foreign policy, and not just with the 

Europeans but with all nations. 

Let me just note that this sort of principled approach characterizes our determined effort to reduce the threat from weapons of mass destruction—an effort well 

underway before the tragic events of September 11 added even greater urgency. We 

and the Russians will reduce our own deployed nuclear weapons substantially. In 

the meantime, we are using a comprehensive approach, along with our friends and 

allies, to tackle WMD elsewhere, an approach that includes export controls, non-proliferation, arms control, missile defenses, and counter-proliferation. As you heard 

President Bush say last Tuesday night in the chambers of this Congress, ‘‘the price 

of indifference [to WMD] would be catastrophic.’’ There are terrorists in the world 

who would like nothing better than to get their hands on and use nuclear, chemical, 

or biological weapons. So there is a definite link between terrorism and WMD. Not 

to recognize that link would be foolhardy to the extreme. 

Principled approach does not equate to no cooperation. We know that cooperation 

is often essential to get things done. On our efforts to lift countries out of poverty, 

for example, and to create conditions in which trade and investment flourish, we 

need to cooperate. This summer in Johannesburg, we will participate in the World 

Summit on Sustainable Development. There we will have an opportunity to address 

such issues as good governance; protection of our oceans, fisheries, and forests; and 

how best to narrow the gap between the rich countries and the poor countries of 

the world. And that brings me to my next high mark in our foreign policy for the 

past year, Africa. 

Mr. Chairman, we have crafted a new and more effective approach to Africa—the 

success of which was most dramatically demonstrated in the WTO deliberations in 

Doha last November that led to the launching of a new trade round. The United 

States found its positions in those deliberations being strongly supported by the developing countries, most notably those from Africa. You may have some idea of how 

proud that makes America’s Secretary of State—proud of his country, and proud of 

this Congress for its deliberate work to make this possible. The Congress laid the 

foundation for our efforts with the African Growth and Opportunity Act—an historic 

piece of legislation with respect to the struggling economies in Africa. In the first 

year of implementation of this Act, we have seen substantial increases in trade with 

several countries—South Africa by 11 %, Kenya by 21%, Lesotho by 51%, and Madagascar by a whopping 117%, all based on the first three quarters of 2001 compared 

to the same period in 2000. Likewise, we are very pleased with the excellent success 

of the first U.S.-SubSaharan Africa Trade and Economic Cooperation Forum which 

was held last October. 

A large part of our approach to Africa and to other developing regions and countries as well, will be a renewed and strengthened concern with progress toward good 

governance as a prerequisite for development assistance. Where conditions are favorable, our development assistance in Africa will emphasize the vigorous promotion 

of agriculture. Agriculture is the backbone of Africa’s economies and must be revitalized to reduce hunger and to lift the rural majority out of poverty. In addition, we 

will emphasize fighting corruption and President Bush’s new initiative on basic education. Moreover, we want to emphasize methods that directly empower individuals—methods such as micro-lending, a superb vehicle for increasing the economic 

participation and security of the working poor. The people of Africa in particular 

know that in many cases their governments do not deliver the health care, transporVerDate Feb 1 2002 14:46 May 08, 2002 Jkt 078083 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\FULL\020602\77532 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
23

tation and communication networks, education and training, and financial investment needed to create 21st century economies. They know that this must change 

if there is to be hope of economic success—of job creation, private investment, stable 

currencies, and economic growth. 

We also know and more and more of Africa’s people are coming to know that none 

of this economic success is possible if we do not meet the challenge of HIV/AIDS. 

That is why I am pleased to report that pledges to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, 

Tuberculosis, and Malaria now exceed $1.7 billion and continue to grow. Soon, the 

Fund is expected to accept proposals and provide grants to partnerships in those 

countries with the greatest disease burden and the least resources with which to 

alleviate that burden. 

We want the Global Fund to complement national, bilateral, and other international efforts to fight these dreaded diseases. Strong congressional support will 

ensure that the United States remains the leader in this global humanitarian and 

national security effort. 

I have not exhausted the list of our foreign policy successes either. In our own 

hemisphere we have met with considerable success. Highlights have been the President’s warm relationship with Mexico’s President Fox, the Summit of the Americas 

in Quebec, and the signing of the Inter-American Democratic Charter in Lima, Peru. 

Now our focus is to create a Free Trade Area of the Americas—including, as President Bush described three weeks ago, not only our current negotiations with Chile 

but also a new effort to explore the concept of a free trade agreement with Central 

America. 

Moreover, we have every expectation that the Financing for Development Conference in Mexico later this month will be successful. There, the importance of good 

governance, trade, and private investment will be the focus. We need to keep democracy and market economics on the march in Latin America. And to be sure, there 

are some dark clouds moving in now, and one of the darkest looms over Colombia 

where a combination of narco-terrorism and festering insurgency threatens to derail 

the progress the Colombians have made in solidifying their democracy. 

Our Andean Regional Initiative is aimed at fighting the illicit drugs problem 

while promoting economic development, human rights, and democratic institutions 

in Colombia and its Andean neighbors. Intense U.S. support and engagement has 

been the critical element in our counterdrug successes in Bolivia and Peru and will 

continue to be critical as we help our regional partners strengthen their societies 

to confront and eradicate this threat to their own democracies and to America’s national security interests. 

There is another element to this challenge caused by our intense focus right now 

and for the foreseeable future on the war on terrorism. U.S. military and law enforcement forces previously assigned to interdict the flow of drugs between South 

America and the United States have been reduced by more than fifty per cent. Because of this reduction we have less capability to stem the flow of drugs from south 

to north, thus we will be even more dependent on friendly countries in source and 

transit zones to help us deal with the drug threat. 

For our Caribbean neighbors, making the situation worse are the end results of 

September 11—lower growth, decreased tourism, increased unemployment, decreased tax revenue, and decreased external financial flows. This economic decline 

is compounded by high rates of HIV/AIDS infection and financial crime, as well as 

the traffic in illicit drugs. 

President Bush’s Third Border Initiative (TBI) seeks to broaden our engagement 

with our Caribbean neighbors based on recommendations by the region’s leaders on 

the areas most critical to their economic and social development. The TBI is centered on economic capacity building and on leveraging public/private partnerships 

to help meet the region’s pressing needs. I will be visiting the Caribbean later this 

week to talk about these issues. 

In addition to its economic provisions, the Third Border Initiative includes 20 million dollars for HIV/AIDS education and prevention efforts. This represents a twofold increase in U.S. HIV/AIDS assistance to the region in just two years. 

As you are aware, Mr. Chairman, our ties to the Caribbean region are as much 

cultural and human as they are economic and political. The countries of the Caribbean attract millions of American visitors every year and the region is our sixth 

largest export market. Large numbers of Caribbean immigrants have found their 

way to America, including, I am proud to say, my Jamaican forebearers. Here people 

from the region have found freedom and opportunity and have added something 

wonderful to the great American cultural mix. But our primary goal must be to help 

ensure that the peoples of the Caribbean find new opportunities for work, prosperity 

and a better life at home. 

24

At the end of the day, it is difficult to exaggerate what we have at stake in our 

own hemisphere. Political and economic stability in our own neighborhood reduces 

the scale of illegal immigration, drug trafficking, terrorism, and economic turmoil. 

It also promotes the expansion of trade and investment. Today, we sell more to 

Latin America and the Caribbean than to the European Union. Our trade within 

NAFTA is greater than that with the EU and Japan combined. We sell more to 

MERCOSUR than to China. And Latin America and the Caribbean is our fastest 

growing export market. Clearly, the President is right to focus attention on this 

hemisphere and we will be working hard in the days ahead to make that focus productive, both economically and politically. 

Mr. Chairman, in addition to the dark clouds I have described within our hemisphere, there are vexing problems that persist elsewhere, the most prominent of 

which are in the Middle East. The situation between Israel and the Palestinians, 

Iraq, and Iran are among our concerns. 

With respect to the tragic confrontation between Israel and the Palestinians, we 

will continue to try and focus the parties on the need to walk back from violence 

to a political process. Our priorities have been and will remain clear: ending the violence and terror through establishment of an enduring cease-fire and then movement forward along the path outlined in the Tenet Security Workplan and the 

Mitchell Report recommendations, agreed to by both sides and supported by the 

international community. This forward movement would lead ultimately to negotiations on all the issues that must be resolved. 

Israelis and Palestinians share a common dream: to live side-by-side in genuine, 

lasting security and peace in two states, Israel and Palestine, with internationally 

recognized borders. We share that hope for a better tomorrow for both peoples. 

President Bush expressed this positive vision in his speech to the United Nations 

last November, and I described it in my speech later that month in Louisville. 

We must not become frustrated, or yield to those who would have us turn away 

from this conflict—or from this critical region. As the President has said, the United 

States has too many vital interests at stake to take such a step, and one of those 

vital interests is the security of Israel. We must not lose sight of what we have 

achieved through our hard work and diplomacy in the region and beyond. There is 

a path out of the darkness, accepted by both Israel and the Palestinians—the Tenet 

Workplan and the Mitchell Report. We have mobilized our friends and allies, including the UN, the European Union, Russia and others throughout the region and the 

world, to speak with one voice in supporting this road back to peace. 

But first things first. Our positive vision will never be realized so long as violence 

and terror continue. The President and I, and General Zinni, have been unequivocal 

with Chairman Arafat. The Palestinian people will never see their aspirations 

achieved through violence. Chairman Arafat must act decisively to confront the 

sources of terror and choose once and for all the option of peace over violence. He 

cannot have it both ways. He cannot engage with us and others in pursuit of peace 

and at the same time permit or tolerate continued violence and terror. In that regard, I have made clear to Chairman Arafat that the smuggling of arms to the Palestinian Authority by Iran and Hizballah aboard the Karine A is absolutely unacceptable. Chairman Arafat must ensure that no further activities of this kind ever 

take place and he must take swift action against all Palestinian officials who were 

involved. 

Chairman Arafat knows what he must do. Actions are required, not just words, 

if we are to be in the position of working effectively again with him to help restore 

calm and forward movement. Israel too must act. Prime Minister Sharon has spoken 

of his desire to improve the situation of Palestinian civilians, confronted with a disastrous economic situation and suffering daily. We have urged the Israeli government to act in ways that help ease these hardships and avoid further escalation or 

complicate efforts to reduce violence. Difficult as the present circumstances are, the 

United States will remain involved. But, in the end, Israel and the Palestinians 

must make the hard decisions necessary to resume progress toward peace. 

With regard to Iraq, that country remains a significant threat to the region’s stability. We are working at the UN and elsewhere to strengthen international controls 

on Iraq. In the last year, we successfully stopped the free fall of sanctions and began 

to rebuild United Nations Security Council consensus on Iraq. The UNSC unanimously adopted resolution 1382 in November, committing itself to implement the 

central element of ‘‘smart sanctions’’ by May 30 of this year. This central element, 

or Goods Review List (GRL), identifies materials UNSC members must approve for 

export to Iraq and ensures continued supervision and control over dual-use goods. 

Its implementation will effectively lift economic sanctions on purely civilian trade 

and focus controls on arms, especially WMD. This will further strengthen support 

for UN controls by showing the international community that Saddam Hussein, not 

25

the UN and not the U.S., is responsible for the humanitarian plight of the Iraqi people. We are working with the Russians to get final agreement on the GRL. 

At the end of the day, we have not ruled out other options with respect to Iraq. 

We still believe strongly in regime change in Iraq and we look forward to the day 

when a democratic, representative government at peace with its neighbors leads 

Iraq to rejoin the family of nations. 

With regard to Iran, we have a long-standing list of grievances, from concerns 

about proliferation to Iran’s continued sponsorship of terrorism. We have been clear 

in communicating to Teheran that its support for terrorism remains a serious 

unaddressed concern—and this includes the case of the Karine A transporting arms. 

Teheran’s latest provocation, besides the arms aboard the Karine A, has been its 

apparent unhelpful activities in the post-Taliban environment of western Afghanistan. This, after being quite helpful as we prosecuted the war against terrorism in 

Afghanistan and, at the Bonn Conference, being helpful with the setup of the Interim Authority in Kabul. 

After citing the list of our grievances with Iran, however, I am still convinced that 

we may be able to talk to Iran, that we may be able to have a reasonable conversation with Iranian leaders. With respect to the situation in Afghanistan, for example, 

I believe we can demonstrate to them that it is not in their interest to destabilize 

the government that they helped to create in Bonn. The other issues will be more 

difficult; but I do believe constructive talks with Iran on Afghanistan are possible. 

Mr. Chairman, I have not yet spoken at length about the crisis in South Asia or 

the war against terrorism, both of which I know are on all of the committee members’ minds. Let me turn to those two very important matters now. 

The Crisis in South Asia 

The standoff between India and Pakistan is a very dangerous situation. Any situation where you have forces that are mobilized and are in proximity to one another 

and are at something of a war footing with nearly a million soldiers deployed, is 

a dangerous situation. One where both sides have nuclear and missile capability is 

dramatically more so. As President Bush and I worked this issue over the past few 

weeks, we noted however that there was an opportunity for a political and diplomatic solution—a solution that would avoid what could be a very disastrous conflict 

if it came to war. 

Prime Minister Blair visited the region in early January. Chinese premier, Zhu 

Rongji, visited New Delhi the week of January 14. As you know, I visited New Delhi 

and Islamabad three weeks ago. I talked frequently by phone with General 

Musharraf and with my counterpart in India, Foreign Minister Singh. We talked at 

length about how to reach a point where the two sides could say ‘‘All right, let’s 

start to deescalate.’’

President Musharraf’s speech on January 12 was a seminal event. It not only 

dealt with terrorism and extremism in a way that I believe New Delhi found constructive, it sent a clear message to Pakistanis that terrorism must end if Pakistan 

is to enter the 21st century with expectations of progress and a decent life for its 

people. President Musharraf showed great courage and foresight in sending such a 

decisive message to his country and, by extension, to the Islamic world at large. 

Now he must show equal courage in implementing his concepts in Pakistan. 

From the start of this crisis, both New Delhi and Islamabad have indicated that 

they want to avoid war, that they are desirous of solving the standoff through political and diplomatic means. Now, as we are seeing and as we are hoping, events 

seem to be progressing toward that end. We will continue monitoring the situation, 

urging restraint and dialogue, and helping where and when we can. We will encourage both India and Pakistan to refrain from provocative rhetoric and to move toward redeployment of their military forces. We need to continue carefully walking 

down from the very precarious position each country has created with respect to the 

other. 

Mr. Chairman, let me now turn to the war on terrorism. 

The War On Terrorism 

A little over two weeks ago, I was in Tokyo to join the European Union, Saudi 

Arabia, and Japan in hosting the Afghan Donor Conference. Representatives from 

over 60 countries attended, as well as experts from the Multilateral Development 

Banks, and a number of UN agencies. The conference helped to ensure that a wide 

range of countries will help the Afghans rebuild their country. The United States 

pledged almost $297 million at the conference and others pitched in accordingly. 

The total pledged at this point is around $4.5 billion with more than $1.8 billion 

for the first year. I am pleased with the first-year funds, but we must do much better for the long haul. 

26

The heavy-lifting with respect to Afghanistan is only just beginning. We have 

helped the Afghans remove the oppressive Taliban regime from their country. We 

have destroyed the al-Qaida network in Afghanistan, with our troops mopping up 

some of the remnants as we speak. We have made possible the delivery of humanitarian aid, including massive amounts of food. We have avoided the wholesale starvation that many predicted. Moreover, we have helped the people of Afghanistan establish a multi-ethnic Interim Authority in Kabul, led by Chairman Karzai. One of 

its ultimate goals is to oversee an agreed process that will lead to a broad-based 

Afghan government—one that represents all the people of the country, people of 

every background and region, women as well as men. 

We also have a rare chance to disrupt seriously the flow of opium in the world, 

as Afghanistan has been the world’s largest source of this drug which is the base 

for heroin. A government that is headed toward reconstruction, toward building a 

new and better life for its citizens, and a government that is concerned with feeding 

its population and giving them adequate education, good roads, clean water, and 

other needed services, will not be a government that permits the selling of opium 

to the world. And such a government needs to be secure as well. 

Many of our key allies and partners are contributing to the International Security 

Assistance Force in Kabul to help ensure a secure environment for Mr. Karzai to 

build a new Afghanistan. We are reviewing whether or not more forces might be 

needed for this force and we will continue to look closely at the security needs as 

we move forward. We want to do everything possible to prevent the rise of any alternative power to the Interim Authority, until a permanent government can be established and begin to take care of that challenge on its own. 

Much remains to be done and admittedly a lot of what remains will be difficult 

to accomplish. But we believe that at long last Afghanistan is on a positive track. 

There is no question that this is a time of great challenge for the Afghan people, 

but it is equally unquestionable that this is also a time of great hope. And, as President Bush pledged last week during Chairman Karzai’s visit to Washington: ‘‘The 

United States is committed to playing a leading role in the reconstruction of Afghanistan.’’ Mr. Chairman, I know that the committee met with Chairman Karzai last week. 

The committee members have heard first hand the desperate need but also the hope 

for the future. You understand that we must have a long-term commitment, from 

America and from the other countries dedicated to this process. If we can ensure 

such a commitment, and if we can achieve proper accountability and use of these 

funds, then I believe there is a good chance of making significant progress in bringing a new future to Afghanistan—and ending the days of warlordism and political 

chaos that bred the Taliban and made a fertile ground for terrorists. 

And as reconstruction begins in Afghanistan, the war against terrorism continues. 

As President Bush said last week in his State of the Union Address, ‘‘What we have 

found in Afghanistan confirms that, far from ending there, our war against terror 

is only beginning.’’ The administration is working together in new ways never before 

envisioned. And that’s what this effort is going to require. FBI, CIA, INS, Treasury, 

State, NSC, the Attorney General and Justice Department, and others, are all coming together. This campaign is transnational, cross-border, even global in a way we 

have never contemplated. 

What we are trying to do on the foreign policy side is to help analyze where alQaida cells might seek refuge. A country that immediately comes to mind is Somalia 

because it is quite a lawless place without much of a government and because it 

has been this sort of terrorist haven in the past, providing training camps, communications links, and financial cover. 

We are watching Somalia very closely. Terrorism might find fertile ground there 

and we do not want that to happen. No plans have been made—yet. But if we find 

al-Qaida there, you can rest assured we will take the appropriate action. 

We have also had a good dialogue with President Ali Abdallah Salih of Yemen 

and we believe that actions he is taking are a good first step toward the goal of 

uprooting the al-Qaida network there. 

There are other countries we are working with as well, some of whom have their 

own sort of terrorist problem that has spillover into our own problem. The Philippines has the Abu Sayyaf, who in the past have had connections with al-Qaida. 

But this is not just a campaign against al-Qaida—it is a campaign against terrorism 

throughout the world. 

So we are working with President Arroyo in the Philippines to assist that country 

in combating its terrorists—who as you know right now hold two American citizens 

as hostages. 

We are also working with the Sudan, a country with whom we have had major 

difficulties in the past few years. Even before September 11 we had been working 

27

with the Sudanese, asking them ‘‘What do you get for this? What do you get for letting people like these terrorists have safe haven in the Sudan? What does it do for 

you except bring down the condemnation of the world?’’ And they have been somewhat responsive. The problems in the Sudan are not solved by any means. But some 

new opportunities have opened up. 

As you can see, then, part of our approach to this extended campaign against terrorism is to work with countries such as the Sudan. We are not being naive, not 

being unmindful of the challenges that exist, but using diplomacy, using good people 

like Senator Danforth and others, and at the same time cooperating together on intelligence and law enforcement activities to put a stop to easy passage or safe haven 

for terrorists. 

We have not made any recommendation to the President about the major use of 

military force and the President has made no decision as yet with respect to such 

use of force. But there are many other actions that are taking place—actions of a 

law enforcement, political, diplomatic, financial, and intelligence-sharing nature. 

A sizable portion of the President’s budget request is dedicated to these 

counterterrorism efforts, as you will see as I turn to the specific priorities of our 

budget request for Foreign Operations. 

The Budget Priorities for FY 2003: Foreign Operations 

The President’s FY 2003 request for Foreign Operations is a little over $16.1 billion. These dollars will support the continuing war on terrorism, the work we are 

doing in Colombia and the Andean region at large, our efforts to combat HIV/AIDS 

and other infectious diseases, the important work of the Peace Corps and the scaling 

up of that work, and our plan to clear arrearages at the Multilateral Development 

Banks. 

War on Terrorism 

As the war on terrorism expands, it will remain the top U.S. foreign policy priority. To fight terrorism as well as alleviate the conditions that fuel violent extremism, we are requesting an estimated $5 billion. In addition to the initiatives outlined previously under the budget for the State Department and Related Agencies, 

this funding includes:

• Foreign assistance—$3.5 billion for economic and security assistance, military 

equipment, and training for front-line states and our other partners in the 

war on terrorism.

— $3.4 billion from Foreign Operations accounts such as the Economic 

Support Fund, International Military Education and Training, Foreign 

Military Financing, and Freedom Support Act.

— $88 million for programs in Russia and other states of the former Soviet 

Union to reduce the availability to terrorists of weapons of mass destruction. Ongoing programs engage former weapons scientists in peaceful research and help prevent the spread of the materials expertise required to build such weapons.

— $69 million for counterterrorism engagement programs, training, and 

equipment to help other countries fight global terror, thereby strengthening our own national security.

— $4 million for the Treasury Department’s Office of Technical Assistance 

to provide training and other necessary expertise to foreign finance offices to halt terrorist financing.

And Mr. Chairman, while in the FY 2003 budget request there is no money identified at the moment for Afghanistan reconstruction, I know that President Bush, the 

Congress, and the American people recognize that rebuilding that war-torn country 

must be and will be a multi-year effort. The Administration will be working closely 

with this committee and with the Congress to sustain our contribution in future 

years. 

Andean Counterdrug Initiative 

We are requesting $731 million in FY 2003 for the multi-year counter-drug initiative in Colombia and other Andean countries that are the source of the cocaine sold 

on America’s streets. ACI assistance to Andean governments will support drug 

eradication, interdiction, economic development, and development of government institutions. Assisting efforts to destroy local coca crops and processing labs there increases the effectiveness of U.S. law enforcement here. 

28

Global Health and HIV/AIDS 

In FY 2003, we are requesting $1.4 billion for USAID global health programs. Of 

this amount, we are requesting $540 million for bilateral HIV/AIDS prevention, 

care, and treatment activities, and $100 million for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, 

Tuberculosis, and Malaria, to which I referred earlier. All of this funding will increase the already significant U.S. contribution to combating the AIDS pandemic 

and make us the single largest bilateral donor to the effort. I should add that the 

overall U.S. Government request for international HIV/AIDS programs exceeds one 

billion dollars, including $200 million for the Global Fund. 

The Peace Corps 

All of you heard the President’s remarks last Tuesday evening with respect to the 

USA Freedom Corps and his objective to renew the promise of the Peace Corps and 

to double the number of volunteers in the Corps in the next five years. We have 

put $320 million for the Peace Corps in the FY 2003 budget request. This is an increase of over $42 million over our FY 2002 level. This increase will allow us to 

begin the scaling up that the President has directed. In addition to re-opening currently suspended posts, the Peace Corps will establish new programs in eight countries and place over 1,200 additional volunteers worldwide. By the end of FY 2003 

the Peace Corps will have more than 8,000 volunteers on the ground. 

MDB Arrears 

The FY 2003 request includes an initiative to pay one third of the amount the 

United States owes the Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) for our scheduled 

annual commitments. With U.S. arrears currently now totaling $533 million, the request would provide $178 million to pay one third of our total arrears during the 

fiscal year. The banks lend to and invest in developing economies, promoting growth 

and poverty reduction. We need to support them. 

Summing Up 

Mr. Chairman, you have heard from me as CEO of the State Department and as 

principal foreign policy advisor to the President. I hold both responsibilities dear. 

Taking care of the great men and women who carry out America’s foreign policy is 

as vital a mission in my view as helping to construct and shape that foreign policy. 

As I told this committee last year and as I have already reminded it again this 

year, the conduct of the nation’s foreign policy suffered significantly from a lack of 

resources over the past decade. I have set both my CEO hat and my foreign policy 

hat to correct that situation. But I cannot do it without your help and the help of 

your colleagues in the House and across the capitol in the Senate. I believe we have 

demonstrated in the past year that we are worth the money. I believe we have demonstrated that we can be wise stewards of the people’s money and put it to good 

use in the pursuit of America’s interests abroad. I also believe that we have demonstrated conclusively that we are essential to that process of pursuing the nation’s 

interests. With your able assistance, we will continue to do so in the months ahead. 

Thank you, and I will be pleased to take your questions.

Chairman HYDE. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for a very substantive and instructive statement. I normally don’t ask questions 

until all the Members are through, but I just want to make a comment on a remark my friend Mr. Lantos made. I find he and I 

agree far more than we disagree, which is unusual for rigorous 

Democrats and Republicans, but I think on the subject of foreign 

policy there is a lot of room for the values that are universal that 

you have spoken of. But Mr. Lantos was critical of the amount of 

money that we are spending on foreign aid, broadly speaking. 

I have heard those statistics for years about 1⁄2 of 1 percent of 

our gross domestic product. Some day I would like some mathematician to calculate the contributions America makes to the wellbeing of the world beyond the mere dollar sum for so-called foreign 

aid, the military umbrella over the world, the security assistance, 

the Peace Corps, the nongovernment organizations that are facilitated. I think America contributes more in a wider array of assets 

to the world than any nation in history, and we can always do 

more. But I think the Congress recognizes that it is caught beVerDate Feb 1 2002 14:46 May 08, 2002 Jkt 078083 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\020602\77532 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
29

tween an America that isn’t in love with foreign aid, and a Congress that understands the need for us to play a role in keeping 

countries viable. And so I do not chastise America for not doing 

enough on foreign aid. If other countries did as much, it would be 

a much better world. But it’s not a question, just a comment. 

Mr. Lantos. 

Mr. LANTOS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and let me 

just say what a pleasure and privilege it has been to serve with 

you as the Ranking Democrat on this Committee, and our bipartisanship I think has been of some help in presenting a unified front 

in these very difficult times. I also fully agree with your basic 

statement that taking the totality of our contribution to the globe 

in terms of its security, peace, prosperity and what not, there is nobody in our league. There is nobody anywhere near our league, and 

I am the first one to recognize the security umbrella and all the 

other aspects of our international work. 

I do indeed, nevertheless, deplore the fact that as the President 

presents an enormous increase in our defense budget, an enormous 

increase in spending for home front security, both proposals I fully 

support, there is nickeling and diming on international diplomacy 

activities and our development assistance. Had it not been for this 

Committee’s work, our aid to help with the tragedy of AIDS would 

have been a fraction of what in the final analysis it turned out to 

be. And while we clearly carry the overwhelming bulk of the load 

globally for creating a civilized and stable and prosperous world, 

that should not exempt us from carrying our share of development 

assistance. There is simply no reason on earth why Denmark 

should spend, as a percentage of GDP, almost 10 times as much 

on development assistance as we are spending. And while nobody 

expects us to jump to that proportionate contribution, I will not remain silent on the fact that our development assistance by international standards is puny, puny—large numbers of countries, 

Japan and Asia and the Scandinavian countries and others are 

doing far more. 

This needs to be pointed out, and I hope the Department of State 

will lead the way under your leadership, Mr. Secretary, to work on 

this problem. You know full well that our diplomatic budget is 

tight. It is very tight. We have closed large numbers of diplomatic 

missions in the last 10 years at a time when flying the American 

flag as a symbol of American values across the globe is enormously 

important. 

I remember my unsuccessful attempt during the 1980s, long before your tenure as Secretary of State, to have just a small information office with a single officer in Pristina, Kosovo, which could 

have helped in that crisis by moving things in a more constructive 

direction, and the Department of State told me they didn’t have the 

resources to put a one-person office in Kosovo. The war in Kosovo 

cost us a hell of a lot more, hell of a lot more than that little office 

would have cost us, which might have contributed to dealing with 

the situation in a preventive fashion. 

Let me come to my question. And before I do so, Mr. Secretary, 

let me thank you for a brilliant and masterful presentation. The 

French have a phrase for everything and they have a phrase for 

what you did, and it is called the ‘‘tour de horizon,’’ the tour of the 

30

horizon. You have done it with a total mastery of the global scene 

and I want to publicly commend you and congratulate you. 

I would like to raise the matter of U.S.-Egyptian relations. Something is terribly out of whack in our aid program for Egypt. Over 

the past 15 years, we have provided roughly $30 billion of aid to 

Egypt, almost two-thirds of it in military aid. Again, in the current 

request of the Administration, we are proposing to provide Egypt 

with twice as much military aid as economic assistance. Yet, Mr. 

Secretary, as you well know, Egypt is in more dire economic straits 

than ever, so dire indeed that yesterday the World Bank convened 

an international donors conference meeting on Egypt’s behalf at 

Sharm El-Sheikh. The purpose of the conference is to ask the global community, ourselves included, for another $3 billion in aid so 

that the Egyptian economy can muddle through a bit longer. In 

contrast, the robust Egyptian military is state of the art. 

Mr. Secretary, the logic behind our aid programs to Egypt is incomprehensible. There is no military threat to Egypt from any 

source and there hasn’t been one for years. Egypt is at peace with 

every single one of its neighbors and there is no imminent or future 

threat to Egypt. But there is a threat to Egypt’s social fabric posed 

by its sputtering economy and its faltering educational system. 

These are exactly the same types of problems that Pakistan and 

Afghanistan faced 10 years ago with such tragic results. Now we 

don’t want Egypt to become another Pakistan, so impoverished it 

can’t feed its people or educate its children. 

I must ask you, why so much military assistance? What exactly 

is the threat that Egypt faces that requires so much and such advanced military technology? Our national interest demands that we 

shift our military assistance to Egypt to developmental and economic assistance. 

Let us recall, Mr. Secretary, that during the Shah’s time in Iran 

we lavished weaponry on a then-friendly regime only to see those 

weapons fall into the hands of our sworn enemies following a regime change. I intend to introduce legislation to reorient our assistance program for Egypt, less military aid, more economic aid. It is 

time for us to phase down military assistance and replace it with 

investment in Egypt’s people. 

I would appreciate your views. 

Secretary POWELL. Thank you very much. You of course know 

the origin of our commitment to Egypt with respect to the aid package we provide them every year. It was the government of Egypt’s 

view that a significant percentage of that aid should be in the form 

of security assistance to maintain an armed force that they felt was 

appropriate to their needs and their national security. Although I 

recognize that in terms of security they are quite secure behind 

their borders and their geographic situation, it is a judgment that 

President Mubarak and his government has made with respect to 

the level of security they need and the kind of armed forces that 

they have to have. 

I am not in a position right now to comment on the particular 

balance between security assistance and economic and development 

assistance, but I would look forward to seeing your legislation and 

see what you have in mind and then engaging with you on the 

31

merits of the legislation and what we might do in conversation 

with our Egyptian friends. 

Mr. LANTOS. I appreciate that, Mr. Secretary. 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Gilman. 

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to welcome our 

Secretary before our Committee once again and for your comprehensive review of our budget on foreign policy. We look forward 

to many more appearances by you and commend you for your leadership throughout the world. 

Mr. Secretary, I have two important issues that I would like to 

take up with you. With regard to Afghanistan and your last comments about it, I would appreciate your considering that an opium 

crop was planted last fall in Afghanistan and it is going to be ready 

for harvest in a few months. And while the Karzai government has 

declared a strong policy banning narcotics cultivation, banning 

processing, banning trafficking, it clearly lacks and cannot be expected to develop the capacity to enforce that ban on its own. We 

were told frankly by officials in the Karzai government at the highest levels that if they could not do the job, they would look to the 

UN and they would look to the United States for help. 

Because narcotics affects not only Afghanistan and our own Nation, but affects the entire world, I would hope that you might tell 

us what the Administration’s plans are to try to help Afghanistan 

with this very critical problem. 

Secretary POWELL. First, let me say we are very pleased with the 

approach that the Karzai government has taken to this problem. 

They were quick to ban it, and I was very impressed by Chairman 

Karzai’s attitude about this. He says farmers don’t get anything 

out of growing poppies. The distributors make the money. They 

would be better off just growing the food they need to live on and 

a little bit more, to start to earn a profit and not do this kind of 

cultivation. He sees it as part of his economic development to stop 

this as well. 

I don’t know that we have received any specific requests from 

him for support in either gathering up the crop, destroying it, finding the warehouses or what have you, but I am sure that we would 

be leaning forward to provide him with whatever support we can 

because we have a common objective. 

Mr. GILMAN. I would hope that we could give him some plan to 

be of help. 

Mr. Secretary, another important issue, as you pursue your efforts for peace in the Middle East, we are shocked by reports that 

Iran was smuggling mass quantities of lethal arms to the Palestinian Authority and we are pleased that you called on Arafat to 

take swift action against the Palestinians involved. Moreover, with 

regard to Iran, Israel’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Shimon Peres, 

following his meeting with Secretary General Kofi Annan this 

week, reported that Iran has stationed Iran’s Elite Revolutionary 

Guards in south Lebanon and that Iran has supplied Hizballah 

with rockets, transforming Lebanon into a powder keg. Moreover 

Jordan’s King Abdullah recently told President Bush and your office that Iran has a large scale plan to carry out terrorist attacks 

against Israel from Jordanian territory. 

32

What are we doing to try to prevent all of this coming out of 

Iran? 

Secretary POWELL. We are taking it very seriously, and we are 

in touch with the Lebanese government to make sure that they are 

not participating in this kind of activity on behalf of Iran or any 

organization sustained by Iran. And even though I don’t talk directly to my Iranian counterparts, we do have contacts with Iran 

through other channels and through other countries who do have 

relations with Iran to make sure they understood that the President meant what he said last week. If they want to have a better 

relationship with the world, a relationship that they need, these 

kinds of activities have to stop. We also are expecting to have a 

conversation on this subject with Prime Minister Sharon tomorrow 

evening, and I had a discussion with the Minister of Defense Ben 

Eliezer about it last night. 

We are taking it seriously, and we are gathering our own intelligence with respect to activities within Jordan and Lebanon, and 

we are going to make sure that the Iranians understand that this 

is inappropriate and that there are consequences to bear. There is 

a great struggle going on in Iran between those forces who are 

aligned with President Khatami, who is trying to change policies, 

and those forces aligned with Mr. Khomeini, the religious leader of 

the country. And I should have touched on it in my summary, but 

it is in my prepared statement, that we are seeing some positive 

things from Iran, the positive role they played in the Bonn Conference and the positive role they played in the Tokyo Reconstruction Conference for Afghanistan. But the negative role they are 

playing in some parts of the government is with respect to trying 

to gain influence over events and authorities in western Afghanistan and some of the meddling they have been doing in Kabul. 

We are making it clear to the Iranians that you have to choose. 

If you want to be part of a world that is moving forward, it is time 

to stop being a state sponsor of terrorism, get out of the axis of evil 

column, and make a choice, make a choice that we think your people want you to make and not the choice that your unelected government has been making in recent years. 

We are very sensitive to the points made by Shimon Peres and 

by King Abdullah, and we are using the channels that are available to us to bring pressure on the Iranians. 

Mr. GILMAN. I am pleased to hear that. Just one last item. New 

York Times last month reported an extraordinary interview with 

Saudi’s Crown Prince Abdallah, who told his interviewer with relation to accusations that American news media had been conducting 

a campaign to tarnish the image of Saudi Arabia, and I quote, ‘‘The 

people of the Kingdom have not been affected by what certain 

newspapers publish, and you know who is behind the media.’’ He 

is obviously making an anti-semitic illusion. 

Mr. Secretary, I hope you will have an opportunity to discuss 

these kinds of statements being made by the Saudi leadership. 

Secretary POWELL. We do on a rather regular basis, and we remind them that we have a free press that is not controlled by any 

one group and they should have been around us as friends long 

enough to understand the nature of our free press and that these 

kinds of statements are, one, wrong, and, two, unhelpful and, 

33

three, undignified and not reflective of the kind of relationship we 

have with Saudi Arabia. 

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HYDE. I am going to ask Members to be a little more 

crisp in their commentary because we try to get around to everyone 

and let the Secretary leave at a decent hour before darkness sets 

in. 

Ms. Berkley of Nevada. 

Ms. BERKLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and it is a 

great pleasure to see you, Mr. Secretary. Before I begin I would 

like to associate myself with Mr. Lantos’ comments and observations. I am a bit of a junkie. I stay here all day and put in 12, 14, 

16 hours and then I go home and turn on C–SPAN or CNN or any 

of the news networks to find out what else is going on that I 

missed. 

Last week I had the opportunity and great pleasure to meet with 

the very impressive interim leader of Afghanistan and heard his requests for incredible amounts of money to rebuild his nation. There 

is literally nothing left, they need everything from food, shelter, 

housing, infrastructure. It is just an enormous, enormous burden 

that he has and his requests are enormous as well, and I was very 

moved by him and what he is facing. But then when I got home 

and turned on the television and heard while he was here asking 

us for relief, there are warlords, competing warlords in Afghanistan 

that are still waging war against each other and against the people 

of Afghanistan. 

Now I say that and want to continue this thought. This Nation 

responded to this unprecedented and horrific attack of September 

11, and I must say my constituents rose to the occasion. I represent 

Las Vegas, and the resolution and the resolve that my constituents 

have in support of this Nation’s policy against the terrorists has 

been very heartwarming to me and mirrors my own resolve. But 

because of the demographics in my district, I have the fastest growing senior population, veterans population, school age population 

and now unfortunately the fourth highest unemployment rate in 

the Nation because of our heavy reliance on tourism. It is going to 

be my constituents that are going to bear the brunt of the needs 

of the rest of the world as this Nation continues and pursues its 

policy against the terrorists. 

Now we know in addition to Afghanistan, we are talking about 

Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Somalia, Iran, Indonesia, Iraq, 

North Korea, and that does not exhaust the number of nations that 

harbor terrorists or the terrorist nations themselves. 

Given your background, your knowledge of what happened in 

Vietnam, and your own personal philosophy, what do I say to my 

constituents who are going to be taking a tremendous hit that we 

are going to dip into Social Security and we are not funding education as adequately as I believe we should. Our veterans are taking a hit with this budget, and quite frankly I agree that I don’t 

think your State Department budget is enough for the needs that 

you have and the commitments that we have throughout the world 

when it comes to the State Department. 

How do I look my constituents in the eye and tell them that their 

sacrifices are going to bring an end to terrorism? What is our end 

34

game? What is our exit strategy? Do we go into nation after nation 

after nation and is there an end to this? What do I tell my constituents when they look at me and say where are we going? At what 

point do we declare victory? What is victory in this new type of 

war? 

Secretary POWELL. I don’t know when we will be able to declare 

victory. 

Ms. BERKLEY. And what is victory also? 

Secretary POWELL. I think victory can be identified by reaching 

a state where people are no longer afraid of terrorist activities, 

where they can go about their lives and not be concerned about the 

things that happened on the 11th of September or the kinds of car 

bombings that take place in Jerusalem or the kinds of terror that 

is meted out by the FARC in Colombia. It will take us a long time 

to reach that state. 

But I would also say to your constituents that the first thing we 

have to do is make sure the Nation is secure with a well-funded 

State Department and especially a well-funded military. One of the 

reasons that the military gets such a high claim on the budget, and 

homeland defense activities as well, is because these are accounts 

that have been very seriously neglected in recent years and we 

have to make sure that that is taken care of. When you have established homeland security and people feel more secure within our 

country, they will start traveling more. They will start going to all 

those wonderful conventions in Las Vegas where I used to speak. 

Ms. BERKLEY. We don’t want you speaking; we want you gambling. 

Secretary POWELL. What we have to do is invest in those things 

that provide us the level of security that gives our people a level 

of comfort. When that level of comfort is returned and nobody is 

concerned about getting on that Continental Airlines or whatever 

it is that will take us into beautiful Las Vegas, with that wonderful 

view as you land at the airport, that will come again once people 

are confident, comfortable in their safety to travel and they are 

confident that their government is doing a good job in bringing terrorism under control, if not totally under control but under control 

enough so we can get back to where we were a year and a half ago. 

There isn’t a lot that I can say to the constituent who is unemployed and isn’t terribly interested in terrorism or any ideology or 

anything else. They need a job, and that job will come once we 

have people moving again and once we put terrorism in proper perspective. 

I say to everybody now while we are fighting terrorism, while we 

are building up the Defense Department, Homeland Security and 

the State Department, let us go on with the Super Bowl, let us go 

on with the Olympics, let us get back to Las Vegas, let us get back 

to New York, let us go to Atlantic City, let us not be scared in our 

basements because we are Americans. We have guts. We know how 

to go about life, and let us get out to Las Vegas. We need to hear 

those—well, I better not say that. 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Secretary, there are two votes pending, so 

we will stand in recess. I ask the Committee to return promptly 

after the second vote so we may continue. 

Thank you. 

35

[Recess.] 

Chairman HYDE. The Committee will come to order. Mr. Secretary, before we proceed with further questions, would you give us 

your estimate as to when you should leave? 

Secretary POWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really have to 

leave at 1:15 to catch a plane. I am leaving the country. Of course, 

I would have loved to stay for the rest of the day and evening and 

into tomorrow. 

Chairman HYDE. We will submit written questions to you at 

least bilingually. Very well. With that admonition, that means we 

have about an hour. I would again appreciate the Members being 

as brisk as they can. 

Secretary POWELL. I will respond accordingly, sir. 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Leach. 

Mr. LEACH. First, Mr. Secretary, let me say that I thought that 

was as thoughtful and thorough a presentation in a short time period that any Secretary of State has given and we are appreciative 

of that, and we recognize your humor in your desire to stay with 

us. 

I am particularly pleased that you have made a distinction between governments and people; that is, an axis of evil may exist 

but it applies to government leaders and government policies, 

whereas we identify with the plight of people, of societies that don’t 

represent their interest. I am also very pleased with your new emphasis on seeking with Russia greater restrictions on the level of 

nuclear armaments. 

What I would just like to talk about for a second is the new challenge to American foreign policy that we never really dealt with as 

a foreign policy issue, and that is the word ‘‘biology.’’ Here the 

Chairman has noted that there are a lot of things we do in foreign 

aid that don’t come under the foreign aid budget. Arguably the 

greatest foreign aid the United States gives the world is our biological research, and the President’s budget has a very significant 

increase in National Institutes of Health funding, which is a real 

plus; also in terms of domestic defense into the biological centers 

that exist in every State. 

But I am very concerned, because we have a convention called 

the Biological Weapons Convention, and for many years we have 

been trying to upgrade its capacity for verification. I hope the Department of State takes this under review in a serious way. 

But the final issue I want to mention is AIDS. AIDS has been 

on the docket for quite a few years, but under the last Administration there was an assumption, at least an articulated belief, that 

Congress couldn’t go along with much funding and therefore they 

proposed very little. You have very forthrightly taken a lead in this 

area. You have indicated some increases in funding which are quite 

significant and, after all, in terms of threats to world civilization, 

biology is probably a greater threat than terrorists, and that is 

quite positive. 

On the other hand, I think we reached a point that Congress is 

going to be exceedingly forthcoming. And so my question to you is, 

if Congress is forthcoming on this issue, are you going to be willing 

as an Administration to work with greater commitments than so 

far have been presented? 

36

Secretary POWELL. With respect to HIV/AIDS? Yes. Very early in 

the Administration we saw the implications of the HIV/AIDS crisis, 

and I proposed to Secretary Thompson that we go to the President 

and create a joint task force with me and Secretary Thompson as 

co-chairs and that we really get involved. The President bought it 

in one meeting. Do it, get going. And then when the idea of the 

Global Trust Fund was bouncing around there, we grabbed it with 

Kofi Annan and gave it life and meaning with a $200 million contribution. I wish it could have been 20 billion. But it was a start. 

And now we have gotten that up to 1.7 billion and asking $200 million additionally this year, 100 million in my account and 100 million in Tommy Thompson’s account on top of all the other funding 

we do for HIV-related research and other things. I think this is a 

signal of the seriousness with which we viewed this. 

I went to Africa and visited some of the most affected countries, 

and we now have the Global Trust Fund up to the point where requests for proposals have gone out and grants will be issued in the 

not too distant future. 

Yes, it will continue to have high priority from the Administration and any resources that Congress makes available to us, we 

will make sure to use effectively in training, prevention, finding a 

cure. 

Mr. LEACH. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Berman? 

Mr. BERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and because of the 

Chairman’s admonition, I won’t pursue different strategies for 

doing well in Las Vegas and Atlantic City. I do have a preface to 

my question, though. 

Since the State of the Union reference by the President to Iraq, 

Iran, and North Korea as an axis of evil, a number of pundits and 

some of my colleagues have questioned the wisdom of those comments. Their criticisms run along the following lines: One, the 

President is signaling his intention to take on all three countries 

in a military campaign at a cost in human and fiscal terms to our 

Armed Services and our taxpayers many times greater than the 

one we are now engaged in; secondly, that he assumes contrary to 

the weight of the evidence that all three countries are in alliance 

against us; third, that he is foolishly ignoring the growing movement for reform and modernization in Iran and the budding pro instincts of young people there, and thereby inadvertently helping to 

thwart those trends and force Iran into a closer relationship with 

Iraq; fourth, that by his inclusion of North Korea he is ignoring the 

potential of negotiating an end to North Korea’s nuclear weapons 

programs and its testing and proliferation of missiles, and is undercutting the bold diplomatic efforts of the South Korean government. 

I don’t agree with these views and I have a different interpretation of the President’s comments. I think he was pointing out the 

connection between the development and proliferation of weapons 

of mass destruction and the governments that aid and harbor terrorist organizations or provide other forms of assistance to statesponsored terrorism, that he was putting those countries on notice 

that if these dangerous policies don’t change, there would be trouble ahead. 

37

As to Iran, I think what he was saying is that notwithstanding 

the existence of some very exciting trends there, the unelected powers in Iran that appear to control military and foreign policy and 

intelligence matters needed to continue to pursue weapons of mass 

destruction support and finance terrorist organizations, played a 

critical role in the supply of the dangerous weapons and explosives 

to the Palestinian Authority, are acting to destabilize west Afghanistan and perhaps also provide some sanctuary to al-Qaeda terrorists; and it is those unelected leaders who are the key obstacles to 

reform and democracy and the enemy of those movements in Iran. 

And as to North Korea, notwithstanding some mixed signals 

early in the Administration, the present posture of the Administration is that they are prepared to pursue negotiated resolution of 

these very disturbing activities in North Korea, and it is the North 

Koreans at this time who have not taken up the offer to negotiate. 

With Iraq, what I would like you to do is—you have done it to 

some extent already—but to clarify a little more what you think 

the President meant and also answer this one specific question. It 

is hard for a lot of us to believe that the simple return of inspectors 

to Iraq will seriously deal with that which causes us to think that 

as long as Saddam Hussein is there the war on terrorism won’t be 

over. The time has passed, the disbursement of their programs, the 

general way in which they deal with the inspectors, even when 

they are there, will mean that we won’t find what we need to find. 

If we put all our eggs in that basket, we are making a mistake. 

Secretary POWELL. First, your analysis is absolutely 100 percent 

perfect and I give you an A-plus on what the President said. That 

is exactly what the President said. And some of the comments that 

you started with and people criticized the President’s speech for 

were not terribly different from comments that people made a number of years ago when Ronald Reagan called Russia an evil empire, 

and it was. And guess what? By so saying it, he clarified the situation. He cleared the air and ended up helping the Russians deal 

with the problem they had, and I think he had the same kind of 

intent in mind when he used the axis of evil. 

With respect to Iraq, to keep my answer brief, the inspectors are 

part of the UN strategy. Notwithstanding how that unfolds, we still 

have a U.S. policy of regime change because we believe Saddam 

Hussein should move on and that the Iraqi people deserve better 

leadership. We also have a policy of using a no-fly zone to protect 

people in the north and south parts of Iraq from this despotic regime. 

With respect to the inspectors, the President has said repeatedly, 

let them in as part of our support of the UN position. I have no 

illusions about the ability to hide something from inspectors. But 

these are very well-trained people who will go from the base of information they had when they were asked out in 1998, and they 

have to be left in there for a considerable period of time to look 

around. Now you can hide things from them at the end of the day, 

but the very fact that they are there makes it a requirement for 

you to hide your programs and does have a deterring effect and 

does have the ability of making sure that there is nothing that is 

covert and, thereby, it hinders their ability to do those things that 

38

we have no doubt they will continue to try to do. It will be just a 

lot harder for them to do it in the presence of inspectors. 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Smith of New Jersey? 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and, Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here and for your excellent testimony. 

I think all of us would agree that you, President Bush, Secretary 

Rumsfeld, Attorney General Ashcroft and our military forces have 

done a superb job in both fighting the war on terrorism and explaining to the world the consequences of evil. The President has 

made it clear that the line of demarkation between those who respect freedom and the rule of law, and those who embrace terrorism, has tangible consequences. Every nation has a chance to 

join us in the struggle and be against evil, or to be an enabler or 

sponsor of that heinous crime. 

In like manner, Mr. Secretary, I would respectfully submit and 

ask that other serious human rights abuses receive no less scrutiny, attention and resolve. Clearly the tens of millions of victims 

of abuse worldwide cry out for sustained robust intervention 

against those crimes. While these abuses lack the visibility of the 

horrific events of 9/11, human rights abuses are no less awful than 

terrorist acts. 

As you know, last year Congress gave the White House more 

tools to crack down on the modern day slavery of human trafficking, and I am certain that you will use all that we have given 

you—and come back and ask for more if it is necessary—to stop the 

trafficking of women, especially into this country, for forced prostitution. 

In light of the President’s upcoming trip to China, I would focus 

a moment on that very briefly. The government of China today, as 

you know, aggressively uses torture, forced abortion, religious persecution and the jailing of democracy and labor rights activists to 

suppress and control dissent. To international audiences, they 

exude respectability and they do enter into dialogue on a surface 

level. I have met with Li Peng in China. Many of us on this Committee have met with Jiang Zemin here in Washington, and that 

dialogue is good. But to the victims of their cruelty it is no less 

painful, harsh and often lethal than if the Taliban or al-Qaeda 

were meting out the abuse. 

Forced abortion, as we all know, was properly ruled a crime 

against humanity at the Nazi War Crimes Tribunals that were 

held in Nuremberg. China today, on a massive scale far larger than 

that of the Nazis, uses forced abortion to exploit and control women 

and to murder their babies. Enablers like the U.N. Family Planning Agency (UNFPA) have whitewashed these crimes for more 

than 2 decades. Dr. John Aird, a recognized expert on China’s population program, was at a meeting we had recently with some victims who had been forcibly aborted. He said much is being made 

about the December 29 law passed in China in Beijing, and he 

points out that its primary purpose is to strengthen the enforcement of population control. He also points out that there have been 

brutal acts, more frequent than any in earlier years, of torture and 

killing as part of this program of forced abortion. The program remains coercive by design and intention. Claims of moderation put 

forth by the UNFPA and repeated in the United States press lack 

39

any foundation. The coercion, Dr. Aird concludes, will continue as 

long as the United States and other countries go on ignoring the 

human rights violations in China’s population program and providing financial support and encouragement for it. 

I know that this Administration believes passionately in the 

right to life and in all human rights. I just ask you to put this 

higher on the visibility—on the dialogue and let there be a tangible 

consequence if China just talks and promises but does nothing to 

mitigate these egregious abuses. I ask you, especially in light of the 

upcoming trip to China, that the President be very robust in pressing that deeds need to match their words. Because they always say 

to international audiences, ‘‘Oh, we are for volunteerism,’’ but the 

proof is overwhelmingly the other way. 

Secretary POWELL. Thank you, Mr. Smith, and you can be sure 

that the President does feel that way. In fact we were discussing 

it earlier this morning as we got ready for the trip. And I also 

thank the Congress for the support they have given us and the 

added resources. We are in the process of opening the Trafficking 

in Persons Office and making sure that it is up and running. We 

are very sensitive to the concerns you have raised and we will raise 

them with the Chinese later this month. 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Ackerman of New York. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you very much. Welcome, Mr. Secretary. 

I think most of us think that this was the best presentation by a 

Secretary of State since most of us have been here—some of us— for a pretty long time. Then again we expect nothing less from a 

New Yorker. 

I want to just tag on to something that Mr. Berman mentioned 

with regard to North Korea, and you appropriately give a lot of 

credit to the President. But I want to extend kudos to you for being 

sometimes the very lone persistent but persuasive voice within the 

Administration to help others see a better way to get to our objectives from the beginning of the Administration, and you deserve 

much credit for that. 

On the Middle East, I want to put a pitch in for some additional 

money for Jordan for the current calendar year—and I know that 

we have some money in there for 2003. The King has done, as you 

are aware and with your encouragement, some spectacular work on 

the peace process, new that he is to his throne. They have elections 

for the first time in quite a number of years in Jordan, and there 

are some actors there that are vying in the political process. It behooves us to make sure that the King can demonstrate that the 

conditions on the ground because of his cooperation with us are 

worthy of continuing the Administration that they have in their 

Parliament and not make it more difficult on the King. And the request that they have made, and I know the Israelis have echoed 

very strongly, is that the King is very deserving of this kind of 

money. In the next fiscal year it is important, but this is the year 

that it really counts. 

I do have a question for you. The Administration’s review that 

we have seen and read about on our relationship with Chairman 

Arafat after the Karine A seizure, a few of us, as have you, have 

seen what is to be seen and heard and what is to be heard about 

this. The Chairman’s direct personal, irrevocably sure participation 

40

in the ordering and attempt to procure these weapons, kind of belies the whole premise that he is a partner in the peace process. 

Yet then, again, we don’t have too many people with whom to deal 

on his side. We have endorsed—the President has—a Palestinian 

state. You have said that and reiterated that here, and we have 

given the Palestinian side an awful lot to encourage them down the 

road that we hope they will finally embark upon. 

My question is, we had an act or bill that we proposed here— myself, Mr. Lantos, Mr. Gilman—the Middle East Peace Commitments Act. It was incorporated in the appropriations bill adopted 

by the House and got watered down in the Senate. I know that at 

the time, and this was before the Karine A, that you had some 

strong objections to that. 

You said a couple of moments ago with regard to another area 

of the world about what President Reagan had to say, had to call 

it, with regard to the evil empire and that helped move the process 

along. Isn’t it time this Administration said what is indeed the 

truth with regard to Mr. Arafat’s participation in terrorism? And 

at this point, as some of us are reinvigorating the Middle East 

Peace Commitments Act to reevaluate it to see if you would support it, we have a waiver in there for the President. He has to 

evaluate whether they are meeting their obligations under Oslo 

and other accords. There are sanctions that go with that, but we 

have made sure that the President’s hands and yours are not tied 

in foreign policy and given a national security waiver. Shouldn’t we 

be calling the shots the way it is? 

Secretary POWELL. First, on Jordan, I agree with you totally. We 

have a pretty good piece in 2003, as you noted, and I met with 

King Abdullah last week and he knows we will do everything for 

him in 2002. 

With respect to Chairman Arafat, as I said earlier, it is our belief 

based on what we know that the Palestinian Authority does have 

to take responsibility for the Karine A. I cannot tie it directly to 

Chairman Arafat on the basis of the information that is available 

to me, but it is certainly a case where he should have known and 

may well have known. I just can’t prove that he did know or had 

direct control over the operation. But it is close enough that the 

Authority has to take responsibility for it. 

With respect to your proposed legislation, I would always be willing to take a look at it to see whether or not it does or does not 

hinder our ability to conduct foreign policy in this very difficult 

area. Frankly, I need as much flexibility as I can get in order to 

walk the very fine line between these two peoples and their government, and anything that constrains the President’s ability to walk 

that fine line and to do zigs and zags from day to day I don’t think 

is helpful, but I would be more than willing to take a look at it 

again, Mr. Ackerman. 

Chairman HYDE. Ms. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. 

Secretary, it is a pleasure to have you with us again. I am glad 

that your wife, Alma, and my husband, Dexter, took our exchanges 

on the quickies well last time. I will keep it clean this time. 

Secretary POWELL. Is the Chairman going to make it worse again 

this time as he did last time? 

41

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I am glad that you have made him a participant. 

Chairman HYDE. I won’t dignify that with comment. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Secretary, you stated that the U.S. supports multilateralism, but when it is a matter of principle, the U.S. 

cannot shirk its responsibilities or commitments. We then have to 

do it alone. The President has reaffirmed the U.S. position that 

there will be no weakening of U.S. sanctions toward my homeland 

of Cuba—against Fidel Castro—until this dictatorship complies 

with three conditions, and he said it over and over again: It must 

free all political prisoners, legalizes all independent groups and political parties, and hold free, and fair, multiparty, and internationally supervised and recognized elections. 

President Bush has also underscored his commitment to increase 

support for the internal opposition that does exist, the pro-democracy movement that is growing stronger in Cuba, all policies opposed by many of our allies. The President has also denounced 

Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism and for the regime’s espionage 

activities of the U.S. 

I know that you firmly support the President’s strong stance on 

Cuba but would appreciate your elaborations on your reference to 

help bring our European allies and other supporters of the U.S. to 

support our basic fundamental policy of isolating the tyrant while 

supporting freedom and democracy for those opposition groups. 

And regarding the Lourdes espionage base, you mentioned expanding relations with Cuba and the call from Mr. Ivanov that you 

were making as you approached the Hill. We know the Bush Administration’s tireless efforts to ensure that Russia’s Lourdes espionage facility in Cuba is dismantled and rendered inoperable so that 

no other enemy of the U.S. can use it to undermine our national 

security. 

What have Russian military and security officials said to you 

about the delays in carrying forth President Putin’s commitment to 

withdraw from Lourdes and dismantle it? 

And regarding Israel, the capture of the Karine A—and I was in 

Israel with Congressman Ackerman—the shipment of weapons 

heading for the coast of Gaza from Iran is one of the most egregious examples of Arafat’s continued violations of his commitment 

and clear evidence, I believe, of the Palestinian Authority’s involvement with the world’s most dangerous terrorists, including Iran, 

which was specifically highlighted by President Bush as one of the 

axis of evil. President Bush and Vice President Cheneyare to be 

commended for their strong statements denouncing the shipment. 

Would you not agree that the Palestinian Authority and Arafat, 

as most recently evidenced by the Karine A incident, have made a 

strategic choice to engage in and support terror and thus should 

bear the consequences of such a choice? 

As President Bush so eloquently stated after the 9/11 terrorist 

attacks, you are either with us; that is, against terror, or you are 

with the enemies of freedom and with the enemies of the United 

States and our principles. 

I have other questions about the Jewish Community Center 

bombing in Argentina, U.S. terrorism strategy in the Western 

42

Hemisphere and the United Nations, which I will submit to you in 

writing. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary POWELL. Thank you very much, Congresswoman. 

With respect to Cuba, our policy of course is absolutely unchanged. In fact, this morning the President and I discussed it once 

again because there are always others who think that we should 

back off the very strong principal position we have taken with respect to sanctions against Cuba, the embargoes. And the President 

reaffirmed, although I did not need any reaffirmation, that he has 

not blinked in the slightest with respect to our policies on Cuba. 

There are nations elsewhere who have different views on this, but 

they run straight into our solid wall of resistance to changing our 

policy or to different views on this subject. 

With respect to Lourdes, the Russians remain committed to its 

removal. I can’t tell you the current hiccups with respect to the 

speed with which it is removed, but I will ask Igor when next I 

speak to him. But they remain committed to it, and we were with 

President Putin right after he made the decision. He told us it was 

a difficult one for him but it was a decision that was firm and he 

will stick with it. 

With respect to the Karine A, both we and the Israelis are talking to associates of Chairman Arafat who are here and who were 

visiting with Prime Minister Sharon last week and saying it is time 

to make a strategic choice. If one has been made that says that 

they are going to continue in the direction that we have seen in recent weeks with things like the Karine A, then that leads you down 

a dead-end and you have to now make a strategic choice that says 

you want to be part of a process that leads to a ceasefire and peace 

discussions. It cannot be made any more clear in the starkest 

terms to Mr. Arafat that it is time for him to make a strategic and 

correct choice as opposed to the many strategic incorrect choices he 

has made over the years. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Absolutely. The best quickie I have had all 

week. 

Secretary POWELL. You can’t let that go by. 

Chairman HYDE. Samuel Goldwyn had a phrase, ‘‘Include me 

out.’’

The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Payne. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good to see 

you, Mr. Secretary. 

Just quickly, as we have been dealing with the war on terrorism, 

I am concerned about the influence on the Horn of Africa and I 

have a question regarding the war in Somalia. We have seen, in 

Sudan, that there appears to be an easing of U.S. opposition to the 

horrible Khartoum government. I understand that our special 

envoy, Mr. Danforth, said that if three or four issues are covered, 

one includes a commission to study whether slavery exists. This is 

something that has been verified, abductions 5 or 6 years ago. The 

fact is that they have neutral zones which have been violated, the 

government still bombs its own people and still uses food as a 

weapon. There are still 4 million displaced, 2 million dead, it goes 

on. But our position in the war on terrorism seems to legitimize the 

43

government of Sudan because they say, well, even though Osama 

bin Laden lived here for 5 or 6 years, we are changing over. 

However, in Somalia, especially with the new film, Black Hawk 

Down, going over the tragedy there, it seems that there is starting 

to be a hype on going into Somalia. To me, with this struggling Somalian transitional government, I just wonder if there is any information that connects them with al-Qaeda or Al-Ittihed organizations where we are pushing there but looking the other way with 

Sudan. 

Real quickly as I conclude, because I know time is short, with the 

volcanos in Congo, with the people drowning in Nigeria, with all 

of this happening, we have a $23 million decrease in the ESF 

funds. All of Africa will probably get less than 800 million. I know 

we can’t do everything in the world, but there are over 800 million 

people, so this is less than a dollar a person. The war on terrorism 

is our number one issue. It takes a year-and-a-half for all 800 million people to receive what we allocate in 1 day, a billion dollars 

plus a day, on the war on terrorism. And some people think that 

some of these things are correlated on foreign assistance, how we 

help fledgling governments. 

The final real question is that CARICOM is meeting in Belize 

right now. They are saying, let us release the money in Haiti that 

is there in the Inter-American Development Bank. A special mission just returned from Haiti that was there from 28 to 31 of January, and we still are saying no. The country has so many problems. 

The poverty is getting worse. And I am wondering whether we can 

instruct our votes on the Inter-American Development Bank to 

take another look. They are struggling. CARICOM said they are 

pleased with what they have seen. They just reported back yesterday in Belize. Is there some way the U.S. could change the policy 

of withholding money to Haiti? 

Thank you. 

Secretary POWELL. If I could answer quickly, with respect to 

Sudan, we are still holding them accountable for terrorist activities 

and terrorist offices that are still located in Khartoum, but they 

have done quite a bit in the last 4, 5 months with respect to removing some of these organizations from the Sudan and also cooperating with us in intelligence and law enforcement activities. 

Senator Danforth had some success on his mission. We are very 

pleased with that, and we are going to build on that success. We 

managed to get an agreement to have a ceasefire in the Nuba 

Mountains region, and I think that was a step forward. There is 

still a long way to go and we will continue to hold the government 

in Khartoum responsible for bombing its own people. We have told 

them we cannot go forward and try to resolve the outstanding 

issues if they continue to act in such a despicable way. 

We are not going to back off on that. And we have not suddenly 

lost sight of the nature of this government or the activity that it 

has undertaken over time. But at the same time it is important for 

us to engage with them and with the SPLA and others in the south 

in order to find a way to move forward and end the bombing and 

end such things as slavery and the other reprehensible activities 

that take place and find a way to solve this crisis which has been 

going on for 2 decades now. 

44

In Somalia we are not looking for a way or an opportunity or an 

excuse to invade. We are watching to see whether or not terrorist 

organizations are finding the destabilized situation in Somalia as 

fertile ground to undertake new activities or to find a safe haven, 

and we will continue to watch that and take action as appropriate. 

But we are not looking for a new excuse in which to enter Somalia 

with the armed forces of the United States. We are just watching 

very carefully off the Horn of Africa to see where these terrorist organizations might be going. 

With respect to Goma, we have done quite a bit with respect to 

relief efforts, and I have been in touch with a number of relief organizations and talked to Reverend Jackson after his meetings here 

2 weeks ago as to what more we might be able to do. 

With Nigeria, we have underway now an assessment team to see 

what explosive ordnance demolition people we might send to the 

area or get from other countries to go there and help with the very 

serious problem they now have in getting rid of all of these dud 

munitions that were spread around by the explosions. 

With respect to the CARICOM meeting in Belize, they are all 

leaving Belize and heading over to Nassau, where I will meet them 

tomorrow morning. I will be able to hear their assessment firsthand and take a look. We have said that President Aristide must 

be held to account for a number of steps that the previous Administration, the Clinton Administration, put down, which we think are 

reasonable steps for him to take and standards for him to meet before we release the money out of the Inter-American Development 

Bank and other financial assistance to the country. It is desperately in need, but we have to make sure that it does something 

about the difficult political situation that causes such instability in 

the country. Otherwise the aid will not be properly used. 

Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. General, nice to see you again. I was pleased 

to hear that right before you came here you were on the phone to 

Igor, your Russian counterpart. I know with your advice the President believes that our relationship with Russia is perhaps one of 

our most important in the world and that they can be our most valuable friend if we treat each other correctly. I agree with that assessment and I think that is going to reap a lot of benefits for our 

people. 

India, too, can be a good friend. Let me note, however, the best 

thing we can do to make them our friend is to end this conflict in 

Kashmir. The United States has not had a good record with that 

in the past, and I might just say that the conflict will never end 

until the people of Kashmir are given the right to make the decision as to what will happen for their own future through a ballot 

box. In the past the United States has never stressed that, and I 

would hope that this Administration would begin to stress the importance of letting the people of Kashmir determine their own destiny through a ballot box, which will then help end the conflict that 

is so threatening to the subcontinent. 

India and Russia are important to us because of what I would 

like to lead into, and that is China. And as we are fighting our war 

on terrorism, I hope we do not lose sight of the fact that China has 

45

not in any way democratized. Russia may have opposition parties 

and newspapers and people who aren’t afraid to speak up anymore. 

They have got some problems, yes, but in China we have none of 

that, and we have horrendous human rights abuses in China. And 

just pointing it out to them without having any consequences if 

they don’t do anything about it, which is what the last Administration did, leads us nowhere. In fact, it makes them think that we 

don’t really mean what we say. 

So I hope we bring it up to China that there will be consequences 

if they continue these abuses, especially if while they are not doing 

anything to promote democracy, we know they are at this time expanding their military and acting in a belligerent way. I know your 

job is to maintain peace between our nations and try to bring a little bit of progress there. 

When they shut down or crashed into our airplane, I will say 

that was an act of belligerency, and it is as simple as that. They 

continue to get away with that type of thing, and it will not lead 

to a more peaceful world. 

And finally, about Afghanistan, I have been very deeply involved 

with this over the years, as you know, and I would hope that we 

move forward very quickly in helping the Afghans with the 

demining effort. I believe Mr. Lantos has a piece of legislation 

about demining that is totally parallel to that goal. A lot of these 

mines are things we gave them during the war and we haven’t 

helped dig them up. We also need to make sure we are aggressive 

in offering crop substitution to those farmers with poppies. Now we 

can spray the poppies from the air, which is what we should do, 

but at the same time we need to be on the scene telling those farmers that we are going to give them a subsidy. We give our own 

farmers a subsidy. It is going to be a lot more costly to follow that 

heroin down the trail of our streets if we don’t. 

And my last point, and that is that the State Department in the 

past and the other Administrations have always opposed the return 

of King Shah to Afghanistan. At times when I was trying to set up 

something to oppose the Taliban and I visited all the countries 

around Afghanistan trying to get some support for the anti-Taliban 

forces, our own State Department would follow me and say this kid 

doesn’t speak for anyone but himself and King Zahir Shah has no 

support there. 

Well, the Zahir Shah will be returning, and let me predict that 

when he does you will see the largest outpouring of affection by the 

Afghanistan people than for any other leader that has ever set foot 

in Afghanistan or has been in Afghanistan for the last 50 years. 

So I would hope that our government recognizes the affection they 

have for Zahir Shah and uses it to keep the progress toward democracy going. 

Secretary POWELL. On the last point we do understand that, and, 

as you know, members of my Department reached out and have 

been in touch with Zahir Shah consistently since we came in office, 

and we are looking forward to seeing his return. I am quite sure 

it will be just the kind of outpouring that you suggest. If not necessarily the political leader, he is the moral force. 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Sherman of California. 

46

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Secretary, thanks for being with us, and for 

your outstanding statement, but I almost wish that I wasn’t here 

to hear it because I could also be on the floor debating this tax bill. 

That is the real reason why the Administration has given you a cut 

in foreign operations, and our only hope to avoid that cut is a supplemental that goes around the budget process. But I realize you 

don’t make the fiscal policy for this Administration. I hope that you 

will continue to be an advocate inside the Administration to explain that foreign operations and diplomacy, especially public diplomacy and radio broadcasting, can be dollar for dollar more important to our security than even defense expenditures or homeland 

defense expenditures. 

Moving on from that, I want to also commend the Administration. It is the natural thing for this country to wait until we are 

attacked. Even Franklin Delano Roosevelt did not lead us into a 

preemptive defense in World War II, and I have got to admire your 

whole Administration for the courage and the foresight you have 

shown to take on the nuclear program of Iraq and the other countries you have mentioned instead of just waiting until they develop 

nuclear weapons, which would be the normal response. Frankly, I 

think would have been the response of this country if we were not 

awakened by September 11. 

I think the debate on missile defense has obscured an important 

fact, and that is how easy it would be to smuggle a nuclear weapon 

across our borders or into one of our harbors. We simply can’t allow 

Iraq to develop nuclear weapons. 

My first question is, just how strong is the resolve of this Administration? How certain can we be that unless Saddam surprises us 

and allows the most incredibly intrusive inspection program imaginable that the American military will be deployed against him, or 

is there a risk that we will go back—not completely to sleep, but 

pacify ourselves with the idea that we are working to overthrow 

him in some slow method over which we would not control the timing and as to which most of the Iraqi dissidents have disappointed 

us in the past, especially as to their accountability for the funds we 

have given? How certain can we be that this Iraqi nuclear program 

will be stopped in the next year? 

Secretary POWELL. Let me answer it this way, Mr. Sherman, by 

saying the President is examining a full range of options on how 

to deal with Iraq. Let the inspectors in, he said, as part of the UN 

effort. And regime change is something the U.S. might have to do 

alone. I would not like to go into any of the details of the options 

that are being looked at, but it is the most serious assessment of 

options that one might imagine and he’s leaving no stone unturned 

as to what we might do. 

With respect to the nuclear program, there is no doubt that the 

Iraqis are pursuing it. The best intelligence we have suggests that 

it isn’t something they have ready to pop out in the next year or 

so. It would take them quite a bit longer than that in the absence 

of external help. But nevertheless, we are convinced that they are 

continuing to pursue such programs. It is a lot harder to do if you 

have inspectors running around the country unfettered, which is 

the only way I think they can be allowed in the country. 

47

The direct answer to your question, but not the complete answer 

to your question, is that the President is determined to keep this 

on the front burner and is looking at all the options that are available for him to deal with this in a decisive way. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Does the Administration have any doubt that the 

Palestinian Authority leadership at the highest levels was behind 

the Karine A episode and authorized that import of destabilizing 

weapons? 

Secretary POWELL. We are convinced that it was done with 

knowledge of the Palestinian Authority at a high level. I cannot say 

at the highest level. 

Mr. SHERMAN. My time has expired. Thank you. 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Royce, the gentleman from California. 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Powell, you 

mentioned the African Growth and Opportunity Act and the benefit 

that is having in terms of economic development. I just returned 

from leading a CODEL to southern Africa and would like to share 

with you the result in terms of overnight job creation. We saw five 

different plants and businesses employing over 30,000 people. And 

to see Africa, which had been marginalized from the world economy, now attracting hundreds of millions of dollars in investments 

because of AGOA, is satisfying. 

However, the House passed last November an AGOA 2 bill into 

the Senate, and I would like to ask for your assistance in getting 

that legislation dislodged from the Senate and onto the President’s 

desk. I believe, as you have well articulated on many occasions, it 

is in our national interest to see that Africa has a fighting economic chance. 

Another point I wanted to make was that I hope we are considering sanctions on Liberian timber, which is being clear-cut with 

no thought of the ecological consequences to this and frankly is 

going to fill the coffers of Charles Taylor, Incorporated. 

Lastly, I wanted to raise the issue of presidential elections scheduled for March in Zimbabwe. We had an opportunity when we were 

in the region to talk to many people about Zimbabwe. Many political opponents have been recently murdered there. The press is 

under siege. I talked to one reporter who was tortured for 9 days. 

The Mugabe government is getting into it deeper and deeper with 

Libya. Qadhafi is helping fund many of these operations. Paramilitary gangs are roving the country looking for opponents, and 

anybody who happens to be a member of a union, a teacher, a 

farmer or farm worker are identified as a potentially anti-Mugabe 

victim, and at that point they are beaten. And the leaders in the 

region, the governments in the region, heads of state and parliamentarians tell us that people are fleeing by the tens of thousands 

over the borders and are creating a refugee crisis in neighboring 

countries. 

In December, President Bush signed the Zimbabwe Democracy 

and Economic Recovery Act, calling on the Administration to start 

the process of cataloging so we could impose economic and travel 

sanctions on those specific individuals who are responsible for the 

breakdown of rule of law there. Basically that would be President 

Mugabe and his inner circle, who are laundering money out of the 

country. We have written to the Administration urging that these 

48

personal sanctions be imposed. I would like to ask when might 

these smart sanctions be imposed on Mr. Mugabe and his cronies. 

Secretary POWELL. On AGOA 2, I would like to see that come 

out. We have definitely proven that AGOA 1 is the way to go. If 

time permitted, I would love to share with the Committee my experience on textiles and textile products and textile quotas and how 

every undeveloped nation and region in the world wants access to 

our market for clothing because it is such a labor intensive industry. It sucks up lots of labor. It is easy to enter. The technology is 

not difficult. It has been known for 150 years, and it allows so 

many people with no other means to support their family to get 

into the workplace for the first time. But it is difficult to find a balance with respect to our own industry and the opportunities we can 

provide to other nations, but we do support that. 

With respect to Liberian timber, let me get back to you. I am not 

sure if we have identified that as one that we have to go after with 

sanctions. 

[The information, submitted after the hearing, follows:]

SECRETARY POWELL’S RESPONSE TO QUESTION OF THE HONORABLE EDWARD R. 

ROYCE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Question: 

Are we considering sanctions on Liberian timber, which is being clear-cut with no 

thought of the ecological consequences, and which will fill the coffers of Charles Taylor, Incorporated? 

Answer: 

Yes. Timber exports are a major source of revenue for President Taylor. Our goal 

is to deny Taylor control of that revenue used to support his destabilization activities. Some U.N. Security Council (UNSC) members blocked our attempts last year 

to impose U.N. sanctions on Liberian timber. 

We are willing to consider mechanisms to put revenue from timber and other natural resource exports in an escrow account to benefit the Liberian people. If this 

is not feasible, we are prepared to press for a ban on timber exports from Liberia 

when existing sanctions come up for review in May. We anticipate some UNSC 

member opposition (including France and China) to such sanctions, because President Taylor is seeking to project an image that the Liberian people are already benefitting from the timber industry. 

We expect the government of Liberia to implement its recent agreement with the 

U.S. nongovernmental organization, ‘‘Conservation International,’’ and others to preserve 30 percent of Liberia’s forests as national parks.

Secretary POWELL. Zimbabwe, I think you know that I have spoken out strongly over the past year with respect to the actions that 

President Mugabe has taken. There is going to be a refugee crisis 

if this continues. It is really going to be affecting South Africa, and 

we have been talking to our South African friends about it. And 

with respect to the legislation last year and travel sanctions, the 

travel sanctions are in the process of being imposed. I am not sure 

whether they have been imposed or not, but we are certainly going 

to use the legislation that was provided to us. 

Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez. 

Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, let me 

join all of my colleagues in commending you for your service and 

your work on behalf of our country. It is really exemplary and we 

commend you. I just want to make two prefatory comments. 

One is that I, as someone in my 10th year of sitting on this Committee and being an advocate of minority recruiting, particularly 

49

with African American and the Latino community, I look forward 

to the day when everybody who is sitting behind you will be as diverse as America is. In this opportunity for new hires, giving the 

test and having more people take the exams is great. Then we have 

the oral exams, which seem to be the bar that is used to disqualify 

people from finally entering the ranks, and I hope there is some 

sensitivity in that regard to try and improve that. 

Secondly, as the Ranking Democrat on the Western Hemisphere 

Subcommittee, where I have sat on for the last 10 years, I hope 

that in your broad expanse of issues that you have to discuss that 

we give a little more attention to what is happening right here on 

our front porch, so to speak, and our back yard. The growing economic crisis in Argentina, the situation that continues to evolve in 

Colombia and the democracy challenges in Venezuela are only 

some issues that I think need some great attention and more than 

a passing comment, understanding that you have—when you are 

talking about the world, an enormous challenge. I think we tend 

to short-change ourselves in our own hemisphere in not paying 

more attention beyond the free trade of the Americas, which I 

think is very important. 

I want to echo the remarks made about the budget, and I know 

you have heard this many times, but simply to say if we are going 

to defeat the terrorists then we must not only beat them in the battlefield but we must beat them in the streets. We must win the 

hearts and minds of young people throughout the world, many who 

live in grinding poverty, desperation and hopelessness, and we 

have to offer them better alternatives so they don’t fall into the 

hands of the terrorists. And in that regard, our foreign diplomacy, 

our public diplomacy, all of the efforts of the State Department are 

crucial. I think Americans finally create the connection as they ask, 

well, why do these people hate us so much? I think that there is 

still an unprecedented opportunity to make that connection for average Americans that in their lives, the reality of whether it be in 

security or in promotion of our economic well-being abroad, that we 

have a unique opportunity. 

Let me ask you these questions. The President is going to be 

going to Monterrey, Mexico in March for the International Conference on Financing for Development. I will be introducing the Social Investment Fund for the Americas, something we have been 

working for quite awhile. Trade is great, but when over half of the 

people of the hemisphere live below the poverty level, in and of 

itself trade won’t solve many of our problems. 

So I would like to hear what the Administration is going to propose in Monterrey. I would like to hear why we went from last 

year’s budget summary document that said that UN Population 

Fund provides, ‘‘crucial assistance to developing countries and 

countries with economies in transition,’’ and then we zero that out 

in this budget. So I would like to hear why did we have a zeroing 

out. 

And lastly, an amendment that I offered in this Committee when 

we were doing the State Department reauthorization with reference to the Kyoto process was basically asking the Administration to stay engaged in the Kyoto process. I have yet to hear a viable alternative from the Administration on an issue that an overVerDate Feb 1 2002 14:46 May 08, 2002 Jkt 078083 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\020602\77532 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
50

whelming majority of scientists who study climate change tell us 

is very pressing. Could you give us an update on what the Administration policy is, in terms of staying engaged in the Kyoto process, and what do we expect to hear from the Administration in the 

Johannesburg conference coming up? 

Secretary POWELL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MENENDEZ. I did that all within my 5 minutes. 

Secretary POWELL. On minority recruiting, I am very proud of 

the success we had last year by tripling the number of minority applicants for the Foreign Service written exam. I am using members 

of my staff to follow up with these young people to make sure they 

actually show up for the exam. And if they do pass the exam, we 

make sure they show up for the oral exam. 

We think mentoring has to begin at the front end of the process, 

because I do want to see a State Department that is as diverse and 

beautiful as all of America. We had a couple of years in the 1990s 

when they didn’t recruit at all. Two years of no recruiting. It was 

sinful that that happened, and we are just starting to fix that problem and catch up. And as we catch up, I want to make sure it is 

the kind of a force that will make us all proud. 

If you look at my written statement, you will see I did touch on 

those Latin American countries. In the interest of time I couldn’t 

stop at every place, Mr. Menendez, but we are worried about Argentina and following it closely. I have said some things with respect to the situation in Venezuela. And Colombia is a particular 

challenge. In what is otherwise a hemisphere that has a great deal 

of promise, there are these kinds of difficulties that we still have 

to deal with. 

With respect to the Monterrey Development Conference, I don’t 

have a specific proposal to share with you today, but we are hard 

at work with preparatory conferences to see what it is we can take 

to Monterrey and then get ready to carry on that work through 

other preparatory conferences for the summit in Johannesburg on 

sustainable development. But I don’t have a specific proposal. As 

we do come up with our ideas, I hope we can make them very public so we can go with a strong delegation to Johannesburg and with 

solid proposals. 

On family planning, we are debating this within the Administration now as to what number should be in against that item, and 

there is a process going on now to come up with the right answer 

to that question. I hope you will allow me to provide that answer 

for the record as we get further in. 

[The information, submitted after the hearing, follows:]

SECRETARY POWELL’S RESPONSE TO QUESTION OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT

MENENDEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Question: 

Why did we go from last year’s budget summary document that said the U.N. Population Fund provides, ‘‘crucial assistance to developing countries and countries with 

economies in transition,’’ and then we zero that out in this budget? Please explain 

why the zeroing out. 

Answer: 

The Administration continues to broadly support the important work of UNFPA 

worldwide and, specifically, its response to the emergency needs of vulnerable populations. At the same time, we remain mindful of our obligations under the KempVerDate Feb 1 2002 14:46 May 08, 2002 Jkt 078083 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\FULL\020602\77532 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
51

Kasten amendment to the annual Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Appropriations Act, which provides that no U.S. funds can go to an 

organization that supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization. 

The Administration is also attentive to periodic reports of abuse and coercion in 

China’s family planning program and the recent allegations of UNFPA’s complicity 

in coercive family planning practices in China. These allegations assert that 

UNFPA’s program in China is in violation of the Kemp-Kasten amendment. While 

we are aware of UNFPA’s response that it is not involved in coercive practices and 

is, in fact, supporting a program that stresses the importance of voluntarism and 

non-coercion, it is incumbent upon us to review these allegations. 

The issue of UNFPA funding in light of these allegations is under review.

Secretary POWELL. On Kyoto, we have had some very interesting 

meetings within the past week on what the U.S. proposals should 

be. We can’t say we are not for Kyoto without presenting an alternative view. An alternative view is coming along, and I hope that 

the President will be making some decisions in the very near future which will show to the world that we are committed to reducing greenhouse gases and committed to being a responsible partner 

with the rest of the world. Even though it may not be within the 

Kyoto Protocol framework, you will see the United States taking 

action that deals with this problem in an effective way that does 

not seriously degrade our economy as a result of trying to seriously 

reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. I think you are going to 

see a very responsible proposal come forward from the President. 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Secretary, the vote is on the floor, and your 

time has come when you wished to leave or needed to leave. So let 

me speak for the whole Committee and say this has been highly 

instructive and interesting and substantive, and we thank you very 

much. 

[Whereupon, at 1:10 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(53)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE TOM LANTOS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today marks the Committee’s inaugural hearing of the 

session, and your presence, Mr. Secretary, underscores the importance of our upcoming work. 

Let me begin by echoing the Chairman’s praise. Since September 11th, you have 

risen to the challenge, and in so doing, you have elevated the Nation. Thank you, 

Mr. Secretary, for your extraordinary patriotic service during these very trying 

times. You make America proud. 

Now, nearly five months after September 11th, we have come to understand better the long-term impact of that fateful day. As the hijacked airliners slammed into 

the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the kaleidoscope of international politics 

was violently shaken, scrambling the patterns of power. 

Today, all of the great powers are united against the forces of barbarism. Not 

since the end of the Second World War have all the great nations of the civilized 

world—including China, India, Russia, Europe, India, Pakistan—joined in common 

cause against a common enemy. 

But the new patterns of power are by no means permanent. Indeed, with his State 

of the Union address, the President again has shaken the kaleidoscope. He has widened our focus to encompass not only the perpetrators of the September 11th attacks and the regimes that protect them, but also the rogue states that develop the 

instruments of mass destruction that terrorize the civilized world. 

Preventing Iraq, Iran, and North Korea and other rogue states from developing 

and spreading weapons of mass destruction, however, will not pacify them. Ultimately, we must seek to transform these states from outlaws to responsible members of the international community. We must use all levers of power we possesses 

to accomplish this historic mission. After the Second World War, the United States 

and our allies were the catalysts for regime change in Germany and Japan, leading 

to their democratic transformation. Now, in the wake of September 11th, we must 

again be the catalysts for regime change in Iraq and other states threatening our 

interests and values. 

Mr. Secretary, it is with this new mission in mind that I assess the Administration’s international affairs budget proposal and find it sorely lacking. The President 

proposes increasing our defense budget by nearly $50 billion, a proposal I strongly 

support. At the same time, however, his request for international affairs spending 

represents an actual decrease compared to the funds provided by Congress last year. 

To win the war against terrorism, we need more than smart bombs. We need 

smart diplomats, secure embassies and stepped-up international broadcasting and 

foreign assistance that advances the world’s march toward democracy and freedom. 

Our chronically low level of international affairs spending is a national disgrace—

only compounded by this new budget proposal. The United States spends less than 

one tenth of one percent of our Gross Domestic Product on international development assistance, while our friends in Norway, Denmark, and the Netherlands spend 

proportionately ten times as much. Mr. Secretary, you have correctly called America’s diplomacy our first line of defense. By that measure, this budget will leave 

America vulnerable and much too dependent upon our military. 

There is no better example of the dangers of shortchanging diplomacy than is Afghanistan today. Had we invested only a fraction of what the international community now plans to spend in assistance after the Soviets withdrew in 1990, the 

Taliban would never have emerged, Usama bin Laden would never have found refuge, and we would not be waging war in Afghanistan now. 

54

I am especially dismayed by the cuts this budget will force on our international 

broadcasting and public diplomacy programs. These initiatives are critical to broadening international understanding of the United States and the values that form 

our foreign policies. We cannot win the information war, and hence the war against 

terrorism, if we shortchange our public diplomacy. 

Finally, I am profoundly disturbed by the recent remarks of your Cabinet colleague, Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, who made clear his contempt for foreign 

assistance, dismissing it as ineffective and wasteful. The Administration—and the 

country—would do well to disown his irresponsible remarks and recommit itself to 

strengthening U.S. national security through increased and effective foreign assistance. 

Mr. Secretary, I am anxious to hear your testimony today and welcome your insights into these pressing issues. Thank you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT MENENDEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

Mr. Secretary, thank you for coming today. I know that I am not alone in my appreciation of the excellent work you have done, and continue to do, in behalf of our 

nation. 

THE INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS BUDGET AND GLOBAL POVERTY

Mr. Secretary, if diplomacy is the first line of defense, I’m afraid that the International Affairs budget you are presenting falls way short in bolstering that first 

line. I think it is a shame that the Administration has chosen not to take the bold 

step of complementing the $48 billion increase for the military with a meaningful 

and strategic increase beyond the requested $1.4 billion increase for the International Affairs 150 Budget Function—particularly in our bilateral and multilateral 

assistance accounts. 

Some talk about a new Marshall Plan after 9/11, with levels of spending on international affairs much larger than what it is today. Those levels may or may not be 

warranted. But it seems to me that we have missed an opportunity. 

In unveiling his budget, the President reminded us that this year’s military budget request increase is the largest in twenty years. It is a shame that we are not 

also touting the largest International Affairs budget increase in twenty years, as our 

national interests require at this critical moment in our history. I believe it is not 

sufficient to merely tout support for the so- called front line states, along with a few 

other minor increases, as meeting our national security interests. 

If we are to defeat the terrorists, we must not only beat them in the battlefield, 

but we must beat them in the street. We must win the hearts and minds of young 

people throughout the world, many of whom live in grinding poverty, desperation 

and hopelessness. We must offer them a better alternative so that they do not fall 

into the hands of the terrorists. Additionally, the world would see concretely the 

great generosity of the American people, and the American people would see their 

security enhanced. 

As you probably are aware, the World Economic Forum released a poll during 

their New York conference last week in which it surveyed 25,000 people in 25 countries regarding attitudes toward globalization. The poll found that a majority support economic globalization, although a significant number also worry that 

globalization may harm the environment, cause job losses and widen the gap between rich and poor countries. 

Douglas Miller, President of the poll’s co-author, Environics International, urged 

leaders to capitalize on the apparent shift in public opinion following the terrorist 

attacks against the United States. 

‘‘In this post-11 September world, citizens in the richest countries feel new urgency to ensure that those in the poorest countries gain some tangible advantage 

from globalization’’. He added that, ‘‘Society may be at an historic moment when the 

importance of addressing global poverty is matched by the self-interest, the willingness and the capacity to do so.’’ Indeed, it is in our national security and economic 

interests to address the needs of the world’s poor. 

The poll also found broad support for foreign aid to developing countries—even 

among populations, such as ours, that have traditionally been skeptical about foreign assistance. And that is the key, it seems to me. It is time we put our money 

where our mouth is in terms of tackling poverty around the world. 

55

That is why I will soon be introducing a Social Investment Fund for the Americas 

so that we may in our own hemisphere have a deliberate and exclusive focus on addressing the needs of the half of this region’s population that is poor. 

We have before us an increase here of 5 percent, and I support that. But it falls 

short. I believe that we have missed an important opportunity. 

Also, I understand the President will travel to Monterrey, Mexico in March to participate in the International Conference on Financing for Development. As I have 

stated, we must increase the amount of development assistance that rich countries 

devote to improving education, health, food and nutrition, sanitation, housing, and 

job opportunities in poorer countries. 

FUNDING FOR THE UN POPULATION FUND

Last year, in your budget Summary Document you stated that you would provide $25 million for the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), that ‘‘provides critical assistance 

to developing countries and countries with economies in transition’’. The FY2002 

Foreign Operations bill included a bipartisan agreement to provide $34 million for 

the UNFPA, an increase of $9 million over the President’s request. This year, your 

budget ‘‘zeroes out’’ funding for the UNFPA, unless you will be coming forward with 

an amended presentation. 

The UNFPA provides life-saving, voluntary family planning and maternal health 

services to the poorest women around the world. The organization promotes safe 

pregnancy and delivery for mothers and children, and works to prevent teen pregnancy and stem the transmission of HIV/AIDS in developing countries. 

It is my understanding that the UNFPA does not provide support for abortions 

or abortion-related activities anywhere in the world, nor does it promote or provide 

support for involuntary sterilization or coercive practices of any kind. 

A UNITED, JUST AND PEACEFUL CYPRUS

Mr. Secretary, since I was first elected here I have been advocating on behalf of 

peace, justice and prosperity in a united Cyprus. I understand that we have a new 

willingness on behalf of Turkey to work out a peaceful settlement that would unite 

the island—as it should be. I must say that I have my doubts here. 

KYOTO PROTOCOL TO THE UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE

CHANGE

Last year, the Administration in my view blundered its handling of the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 

by stating, without much consultation with anyone either here in Congress or internationally, that it would not further participate in the Protocol after ten years of 

international negotiations. 

In the wake of the horrific attacks of 9/11, we must view this issue with even 

more urgency from a national security perspective. The Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change (IPCC) has stated that food security, desertification, droughts, 

floods, increases in disease such as malaria, and adverse effects on coastal settlements among other issues will hit developing nations hard, especially in Africa and 

Asia and the Pacific. 

This Committee passed an amendment asking the Administration to stay engaged 

in the Kyoto process. We have yet to hear a viable alternative from the Administration on an issue that the overwhelming majority of scientists who study climate 

change tell us is very pressing. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE STEVE CHABOT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

Welcome, Mr. Secretary. It’s always good to see you. We all appreciate your good 

work. You have one of the most difficult jobs imaginable and I think your efforts 

to bring together a coalition of diverse participants to fight the war on terrorism 

have been nothing short of heroic. America is quite fortunate to have you representing our nation around this incredibly unsettled world. 

As you know, I’ve spent a lot of time in recent years on the issue of international 

parental child abduction. You have been supportive of our efforts and I know that 

those left-behind parents who have been so terribly affected are appreciative of your 

efforts. 

Last week, Sally Quinn wrote a very timely article for the Washington Post headlined ‘‘Does Germany Condone Kidnaping?’’ She highlighted some of the more outrageous cases where custodial American parents have not only been denied custody 

56

of their children but have even been denied visitation rights as well. She cites the 

infamous Joseph Cooke case and points out that the German government insists 

that Mr. Cooke’s kidnaped children are better off in German government foster care 

than with their American father. 

She also cites the case of our friend, Lady Catherine Meyer, the wife of Great 

Britain’s ambassador to the United States, who has only been able to spend a few 

hours with her stolen children in the last 8 years. German courts have consistently 

rejected her efforts to seek a fair resolution. 

She writes of an American military officer who has been imprisoned in Germany 

for non-support of children he has been allowed to see for only one hour in the last 

7 years. And, sadly, she tells of an American father, who, last month killed himself, 

after his children were kidnaped by their German mother. 

Meanwhile, the German Foreign Minister has criticized the United States government for its treatment of captured terrorists—those whose goal is to murder Americans. I’ll try to be diplomatic and not even comment on that. Perhaps you would 

like to. 

While Ms. Quinn’s article highlighted only Germany, we know that other countries have exhibited the same arrogance. Austria is a prime example. You are familiar with the case of Tom Sylvester, of Cincinnati, whose stolen daughter Carina, has 

been denied all but minimal visits with her father since October of 1995. Even when 

Austrian courts, including the Supreme Court, ruled in Mr. Sylvester’s favor, the 

Austrian government refused to enforce the rulings. Mr. Sylvester lives with this 

heartache every day. 

Mr. Secretary, we appreciate your support on this issue and we look forward to 

continuing to work with your department on behalf of the stolen American children 

and their left-behind parents. I hope that, at some point soon, we can get together 

to discuss the Sylvester case, and finally reunite Carina with her long-suffering father. They have been denied their basic human rights long enough. 

Switching gears, I’d just like to compliment you on your strong remarks before 

the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday with regard to the resumption 

of weapons inspections in Iraq. Clearly, as you pointed out, the burden is on Saddam Hussein to demonstrate that the Iraqi regime is not developing and stockpiling 

chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. And I do hope that you will be successful 

in working with other world leaders to implement a more effective sanctions regime. 

Again, Mr. Secretary, I thank you for your testimony this morning and I applaud 

you for your good work on behalf of our great nation. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ELIOT L. ENGEL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. Secretary, thank you for appearing before us today to discuss the International Affairs Budget request for FY 2003. 

September 11th was the wake-up call for the United States. Our nation is in the 

process of shifting many of our resources toward defending ourselves and protecting 

our allies against the threats of the 21st Century. 

Terrorism doesn’t just happen because leaders order it. Terrorists are bread to 

hate. And we must stop the hate. Children around the world are taught that our 

values are wrong and represent fundamental evil. This must stop. In order to put 

an end to terrorism, nations must stop teaching hatred in their schools and encouraging acts of hatred in their streets. 

We are engaged in a war against terrorism. This war is a coordinated military, 

diplomatic, political and educational campaign. Our nation is working to promote 

our values around the world, to bringing democracy and freedom to oppressed nations, and to fostering prosperity through economic development. While we are promoting these values, there are others who sow hatred and oppression among their 

citizens. These are the leaders who educated, trained, sponsored and operated the 

terrorists cells who attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. These terrorist groups cannot act on their own. Rather, they have states who provide them 

with the funds and the infrastructure they need to recruit and train their members. 

In his State of the Union speech, President Bush pointed to the ‘‘axis of evil.’’ I 

appreciate the reference to the Axis powers that carried out the most evil we have 

ever seen in the past. President Bush cited a new Axis made up of North Korea, 

Iran and Iraq and defined the Axis as countries who are sponsoring terrorism and 

developing weapons of mass destruction. These countries, and others who fit this description, are a threat to the United States’ interests around the world, and we must 

stop them as part of our campaign against terrorism. 

57

I welcome you our Committee, Mr. Secretary, and look forward to your presentation. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BARBARA LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Lantos. I want to express my appreciation and 

esteem to you, Secretary Powell. Your efforts to build international cooperation and 

to look beyond the immediate horizon and consider the long-term implications of our 

policies are much appreciated. 

We all recognize that September 11th changed the world, and we are all still 

struggling to understand this new international domain in which we find ourselves. 

Today, I would like to focus my questions on our policies toward Africa and the developing world. 

On the one hand, since the 11th, we can say that Africa has received increased 

attention from the United States, or certainly increased concern. We worry that 

weak states and porous borders may facilitate terrorism. We know that poverty and 

despair can feed anger and violence. But Africa, we must remember, is a continent, 

not a breeding ground. And it is a continent that faces devastating health crises. 

1. I want to commend you for demonstrating your commitment to making the U.S. 

response to the global HIV/AIDS pandemic a priority. Both the Clinton and Bush 

Administrations have recognized this crisis as a serious national security issue. I 

am very concerned, however, to see that increases to AIDS funding are coming at 

the expense of fighting other preventable diseases, effectively robbing Peter to save 

Paul. What message will we be taking to the U.N. Special Session for Children in 

May by making major cuts to the Child Survival and the Infectious Disease accounts? 

Also, while the United States made a good first step last year by contributing $250 million to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, this 

country has not yet reached the bar raised by HR 2069, which the House passed 

last year, authorizing funding at three times that level. Countries around the world 

are developing action proposals that won’t be able to be funded with the current 

level of investment. When will the administration increase the level of funding to 

the Global Fund? Do you expect an increase beyond the President’s budget for the 

Global Fund, and if not why? 

2. In looking at Africa, it is difficult to look beyond the tragedies of today, but 

we must also take a longer term view. The World Bank reports that Africa will suffer most of all from projected global climate change, and we know that the U.S. is 

responsible for a quarter of all the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. When the Administration announced that it was withdrawing from the Kyoto process, it promised a comprehensive alternative. Can you tell us what form our alternative program is taking and how we are working with the international community to reduce 

emissions and to deal with the effects of global climate change? 

3. My third question concerns the need for international family planning and the 

damaging effect of the global gag rule. The Administration has completely eliminated funding for UNFPA and has proposed a steep cut in USAID funding for international family planning programs. Can you tell us what the Administration’s justification is for these steep cuts, which may well eliminate vital healthcare programs 

for poor women in developing nations? Also, can you tell me what the total spending 

on family planning is in the President’s budget? 

4. As we address HIV/AIDS in all regions of the world, I would also like to raise 

with you the alarming situation in Haiti. As you know, due to the humanitarian 

crisis in Haiti, including an explosive AIDS crisis, the CBC has recently written 

President Bush to request a meeting to discuss the withholding of multilateral assistance to the Government of Haiti and the overall direction of US policy. I have 

recently received reports that a CARICOM delegation to Haiti issued positive reports about the situation there and called on the international community to release 

all assistance to Haiti. I understand that you are leaving for Haiti later today. Can 

you tell us about your potential discussions with CARICOM leaders and will Haiti 

be on that agenda? 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RON PAUL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for appearing before this Committee today 

and for explaining the priorities for the 2003 fiscal year International Affairs Budget. Unfortunately, this budget represents more—much more—of the same approach 

58

that has failed the United States time and time again. This is a budget and approach to international affairs that stresses the same strategy of interventionism in 

the affairs of other nations. 

A good deal of the international affairs budget goes toward supporting one side 

or the other in various conflicts across the globe that have nothing to do with American interests. This only creates anger and resentment abroad; it in no way furthers 

our national interest. Mr. Secretary, have we not by now seen the folly of taking 

sides in conflicts that do not concern us? 

This budget still funds organizations like the Export-Import Bank (Eximbank). 

The Eximbank takes money from American taxpayers to subsidize exports by American companies, which are for the most part large, politically powerful corporations. 

These corporations can certainly afford to support their own exports without relying 

on the American taxpayer. It is not only bad economics to force working Americans, 

small business, and entrepreneurs to subsidize the exports of the large corporations: 

it is also immoral. 

The budget contains some 725 million dollars for Contributions for International 

Peacekeeping Activities. Mr. Secretary, as of December 2000, according to the Defense Department, there were more than 250,000 U.S. military personnel deployed 

overseas on six continents in 141 nations. All the while, when the United States 

faced the prospect of an armed attack from abroad after September 11, the taxpayer 

found that there were not sufficient resources available to defend this country. 

Thus, NATO AWACS surveillance planes were requested to guard American airspace. Is it not time to say ‘‘enough’’ to these endless ‘‘peacekeeping’’ missions 

abroad and instead concentrate on being able to defend our own borders? 

The budget also included increased funds for such dubious organizations as the 

National Endowment for Democracy, which travels throughout the globe meddling 

in and manipulating foreign elections. This activity purchases the United States no 

good will among the people whose democracy is being subverted by organizations 

such as the misnamed National Endowment for Democracy. 

Mr. Secretary, I believe a far better approach to America’s international affairs 

would be one that keeps in mind the great words and practices of this nation’s 

founders. The traditional American foreign policy of the Founders and our presidents for the first 145 years of our history entailed three points: (1) Friendship with 

all nations desiring of such; (2) As much free trade and travel with those countries 

as possible; and (3) Avoiding entangling alliances. 

This is advice we would do well to heed when considering America’s international 

affairs budget and activities for fiscal year 2003. A foreign policy based on these 

principles would leave Americans much richer and much safer. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHELLEY BERKLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing. Welcome Secretary 

Powell, you have provided this country with excellent leadership during an obviously difficult time. I look forward to hearing your testimony today. 

The country stands at a crossroads. We have won tremendous victories in bringing freedom back to the people of Afghanistan, but still have battles to wage to rid 

the world of Osama Bin Laden, and terrorists everywhere. As the pursuit for Osama 

Bin Laden, and remaining Al-Qaida forces continues, questions arise as to where 

American forces will be deployed next. It is no secret that countries like North 

Korea, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon all engage in, or encourage terrorist activity. 

Identifying the so-called ‘‘axis of evil’’ is the easy part, figuring a way to deal with 

them is more difficult. I hope, Mr. Secretary, that you will do your best to enlighten 

the rest of us as to what we might expect. 

I am concerned about terrorism from Pakistan. General Musharaf must be commended for offering brave leadership by joining our fight against Al-Qaida. I recently was in India and saw first hand the results of the December 13, 2001 attack 

on the Indian Parliament. India has faced decades of terrorism emanating from or 

supported by Pakistan. There are at least 33 terrorist groups operating in the Kashmir region. Most are small extremist Islamic groups, trained in guerilla warfare and 

terrorism. I hope that it is understood throughout the Pakistani leadership that 

while our appreciation for their assistance is heartfelt, we are steadfast in our resolve to fight terrorism everywhere. Pakistan, and the world, must understand that 

terrorism is our enemy, whether it is against Americans, Indians, or Israelis. 

Let me touch briefly on the situation in the Middle East. This nation gave the 

world notice that there were two options following September 11th, 2001—you are 

with us, or with the terrorists. As suicide bombs rip through Israeli cities, killing 

59

innocent Israelis, it is obvious the choice that Chairman Arafat has made. We gave 

Mr. Arafat our most recent ‘‘last chance’’ warning, and the response has been Palestinian weapons smuggling, and terrorist bombings in Jerusalem. His refusal to act 

to curb terrorism forces the Israelis to take their security matters into their own 

hands. America has, and must continue to support Israel’s right to self-defense. Ridding the world of terrorism and terrorists is not just an Israeli interest, but one 

shared by freedom loving people everywhere. And here, Mr. Arafat should make no 

mistake. America will not confuse Israeli self-defense with the Palestinian practice 

of indiscriminate assassination—the practice of Palestinian militants walking into 

crowded pedestrian areas with bombs strapped to their bodies in an attempt to kill 

as many unarmed innocents as possible. 

In his editorial in the New York Times last Sunday, Mr. Arafat rightly notes that ‘‘Peace is not a signed agreement between individuals—it is the reconciliation between peoples.’’ He also rightly states that two people cannot reconcile when one 

refuses to treat the other as a partner in peace, when one uses the logic of power 

rather than the power of logic. If only Mr. Arafat believed his own words. If his 

words meant that the Palestinians would stop teaching children about the glory of 

war, but instead taught about the power of peace. If Mr. Arafat’s words meant that 

the Palestinians would stop importing weapons from Iran, Syria, and from anyone 

else who would sell them. If Mr. Arafat’s words meant that suicide bombings and 

shootings would cease throughout Israeli cities. But Mr. Arafat’s words do not 

match his actions. There can be no peace because the Palestinians refuse to treat 

the Israelis as partners for peace. When Mr. Arafat walked away from Camp David, 

he signaled to the world that he has no interest in making peace. 

I applaud the administration’s support of Israel’s necessary actions to protect its 

citizens from Palestinian terrorist attacks. Our message to the Palestinian leadership is clear—words are no longer persuasive. You have lied to us and to the Palestinian people for decades. The only thing that matters are your actions against terrorism, against war, and for peace. 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO SECRETARY OF STATE COLIN POWELL BY

THE HONORABLE HENRY J. HYDE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE

STATE OF ILLINOIS

UN ISSUES: REJOINING U.N. HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Question: 

Specifically, has the U.S. asked any of the EU member countries also seeking to 

join this body to defer candidacy, allowing the U.S. to regain its seat later this year? 

If not, is the U.S. planning to do so in the near future? 

Answer: 

We have told the EU and key members of the Western European and Others 

Group (WEOG) that our return to the UNCHR hinges on our ability to run on a 

clean regional slate (an uncontested election). The WEOG has not yet agreed upon 

a clean slate. We are still working on it in discussions both about a 20-year WEOG 

rotational scheme and about the possibility that some European candidates might 

withdraw. These discussions are still underway. 

UN ISSUES: THE FIGHT AGAINST GLOBAL TERRORISM

Question: 

Are you satisfied with the role the U.N. has played in advancing the U.S. efforts 

in the fight against global terrorism? What additional actions are needed by the U.N. 

Security Council in this effort? 

Answer: 

Its response to the 9/11 attacks shows the United Nations at its most effective. 

On the first day after the attacks, the General Assembly, by consensus of the 189 

members, adopted resolution 56/1 which called for international cooperation to prevent and eradicate acts of terrorism and to hold accountable the perpetrators and 

those who harbor or support them. On the same day, the Security Council adopted 

resolution 1368 which recognized the inherent right of self-defense and categorized 

all acts of international terrorism. 

On September 28, 2001, the Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 

1373 under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations. This historic resolution obliged member states to limit the ability of terrorists and terrorist organizations to operate internationally by freezing assets of terrorists, affiliated persons 

60

and organizations, bringing those who commit terrorist acts or assist them to justice 

and denying them safe-haven, among other things. The resolution also established 

a Counter Terrorism Committee (CTC) to oversee implementation of the resolution. 

Even before September 11, the UN had focused on the Taliban’s role in providing 

a haven for terrorists. In November, 1999, the Security Council imposed sanctions 

on the Taliban in Resolution 1267 after they refused to turn over Usama bin Laden. 

In January 2001, further Security Council sanctions were imposed. In addition to 

the demand that the Taliban turn over Usama bin Laden, the resolution required 

that the Taliban close down terrorist training camps. Sanctions under the resolution 

included an arms embargo against the Taliban, a freeze on bin Laden’s assets, and 

the closure of Taliban and Ariana Airlines offices overseas, among other things. 

U.S. efforts to combat terrorism are also aided by the UN’s ongoing efforts to develop an international legal framework for fighting terrorism. The U.S. is a party 

to ten of the twelve international anti-terrorism conventions. The remaining two, 

‘‘Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism’’ and ‘‘Suppression of Terrorist Bombings’’ were approved by the Senate on December 5, 2001. When the implementing 

legislation, now before the Senate, is enacted, the U.S. expects to deposit its instruments of ratification for the remaining two conventions. 

Action must now focus on maintaining pressure for follow-through. That is the 

work of the Security Council’s Counter-terrorism Committee (CTC). Member states 

are required to report to the CTC the steps they are taking to fight terrorism in 

seven critical areas: legislation, financial asset controls, customs, immigration, extradition, law enforcement and arms traffic. The Committee will provide information 

on additional resources or expertise to states to enable them to implement Security 

Council Resolution 1373. In addition, the U.S. is using Resolution 1373 to pressure 

countries bilaterally to take steps against terrorist organizations and is encouraging 

the G–8 and regional organizations to take similar steps. 

UN ISSUES

Question: 

What is the status of your efforts to develop a ‘‘smart sanctions’’ approach toward 

Iraq and get weapons inspectors back inside the country? What are the consequences 

to Iraq if it continues to refuse the entry of these weapons inspectors? 

Answer: 

In unanimously adopting resolution 1382 in November 2001, the UN Security 

Council committed to implement the central element of the ‘‘smart sanctions’’ approach—the Goods Review List (GRL)—by May 30, 2002. We are currently making 

progress with the Russians and other UN Security Council members toward reaching agreement on appropriate refinements to the GRL prior to its implementation. 

Once implemented, the GRL will lift economic sanctions on purely civilian goods for 

the benefit of the Iraqi people and focus controls on preventing the Iraqi regime 

from rearming. Implementation of the GRL will also diminish the Iraqi regime’s 

ability to blame UN Security Council controls and the United States for the plight 

of the Iraqi people. It will also help restore UN Security Council solidarity on Iraq, 

which will place us in a better position to seek further specific controls to improve 

the UN sanctions regime. 

The President has made clear that Iraq must permit the return of UN weapons 

inspectors and satisfy the United States and the international community that it 

does not have weapons of mass destruction and is in full compliance with applicable 

UN Security Council resolutions. Weapons inspections are one of Iraq’s obligations 

under UN Security Council resolutions. Iraq may not negotiate or pick its obligations; it must unconditionally fulfill all its obligations under UN Security Council 

resolutions, including cooperating fully with UN weapons inspections. We are carefully reviewing our options in light of Iraq’s continuing refusal to comply fully and 

unconditionally with its obligations. 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO SECRETARY OF STATE COLIN POWELL BY

THE HONORABLE JOSEPH CROWLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE

STATE OF NEW YORK

UN ISSUES—THE UNITED NATIONS POPULATION FUND (UNFPA)

Question: 

Last year the President, recognizing the merits of the United Nations Family Planning Assistance program (UNFPA), requested $25 million for the UNFPA, and as 

you know, Congress allocated $34 million for this global health initiative. In addiVerDate Feb 1 2002 14:46 May 08, 2002 Jkt 078083 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\FULL\020602\77532 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
61

tion, your office released $600,000 last October to UNFPA to assist women in wartorn Afghanistan, a worthwhile endeavor in most people’s mind, certainly in mine. 

Therefore, I was very disturbed that the President’s budget proposal, released this 

Monday, does not allocate resources for UNFPA in the fiscal year 2002 or 2003. 

Mr. Secretary, I know that you agree that these programs improve the quality of 

life for women and families throughout the world, and I am puzzled by the lack of 

support in the Administration for a program they supported and requested funding 

for last year. Could you please give us your sense as to why the Administration has 

decided to keep the $34 million Congress appropriated, reserved and unallocated? 

And what sort of ramifications do you foresee this having on future U.S. involvement 

in UNFPA? 

Answer: 

The Administration continues to broadly support the important work of UNFPA 

and specifically, its response to the emergency needs of vulnerable populations, such 

as in Afghanistan. At the same time, we remain mindful of our obligations under 

the Kemp-Kasten amendment to the annual Foreign Operations, Export Financing 

and Related Programs Appropriations Act, which provides that no U.S. funds can 

go to an organization that supports or participates in the management of a program 

of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization. 

The Administration is also attentive to periodic reports of abuse and coercion in 

China’s family planning program and the recent allegations of UNFPA’s complicity 

in coercive family planning practices in China. These allegations assert that 

UNFPA’s program in China is in violation of the Kemp-Kasten amendment. While 

we are aware of UNFPA’s response that it is not involved in coercive practices and 

is, in fact, supporting a program that stresses the importance of voluntarism and 

non-coercion, it is incumbent upon us to review the allegations. 

The issue of UNFPA funding in light of these allegations is under review by the 

Administration. We are expediting the launch of this assessment. 

SUPPORT TO IRAQI OPPOSITION GROUPS

Question: 

The Administration proposes once again providing $25 million in support to the 

Iraqi opposition-in-exile, under the leadership of Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress (INC). In previous years, the INC has been unable to make productive use of the funds because of its inability to organize itself. Furthermore, the State 

Department itself has had difficulty certifying that the INC was adequately able to 

account for its use of the funds. Given the demonstrated inability of the INC to put 

U.S. taxpayer-provided funds to good use, how does the Administration envision the 

INC using an additional $25 million in 2003? What specific programs will it embark 

upon? 

Answer: 

To date, the U.S. has provided $14.6 million in support to the INC, largely in support of the production and distribution of its newspaper, satellite TV broadcasts, information collection program, diplomatic outreach, drawdown of Department of Defense training under the Iraq Liberation Act, three London offices, two DC offices, 

and offices in Tehran, Damascus, and Prague. We have been in close consultation 

with the INC regarding the accounting and management problems detailed in the 

State Department Office of the Inspector General’s audit report, and feel that they 

are making a good-faith effort to address those issues. We plan to continue our support of the INC, and other organizations, as we work to help the Iraqi people 

achieve their aspirations for a better future. 

In that vein, we are committed to working with an effective, broad-based, inclusive Iraqi opposition. Our first step in this process is to sponsor a conference of Iraqi 

opposition groups and prominent emigres, focused on planning for a post-Saddam 

Iraq. Such a conference will bring Iraqis together in a constructive way, and raise 

the voices of the opposition as they cooperatively reassert the core principles that 

will guide a post-Saddam Iraq. We also plan to use Iraqi Opposition ESF to support 

a variety of opposition groups, including the INC, in a range of programs, including 

outreach, public diplomacy, and planning for the transition to a post-Saddam Iraq. 

SINAI

Question: 

I notice that the Administration proposed $16.4 million to continue its support for 

the Multinational Force and Observers (MFO) in the Sinai. Yet at the same time, 

we hear rumblings out of the Pentagon that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld would 

62

like to withdraw U.S. forces from the MFO and possibly replace them with U.S.-

funded private contractors. 

This mission has helped preserve the peace between Egypt and Israel for over 30 

years and continues to serve as a necessary confidence-building measure. The Egyptian government, under the stewardship of President Hosni Mubarak, is a close 

friend and ally of the United States and a peace partner of the State of Israel. But 

future Egyptian regimes may prove more belligerent, making the MFO critical to the 

preservation of peace. Withdrawing from the MFO while U.S. involvement in the 

Israeli-Palestinian conflict falls to its lowest level, ever, would send a terrible signal 

that the United States is no longer interested in maintaining peace and stability in 

the region. 

Will the Administration continue to support the presence of U.S. forces in the MFO, 

or will it instead leave the mission to other countries or private companies? If the 

Administration does plan to withdraw, will it do so even over the objection of Israel 

and Egypt? 

Answer: 

The Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty and its security provisions, monitored by the 

MFO, are a cornerstone of U.S. policy and presence in the Middle East. The U.S. 

is especially mindful of its responsibilities and obligations to the MFO. As such, 

there are no plans to reduce our role in the MFO at this time. 

The Israelis and Egyptians are both on record in insisting that the U.S. continue 

its military presence in the MFO. They and we are concerned that any draw-down 

of U.S. troops, if not carried out in close consultation with all concerned parties, 

could prompt other contributors of both troops and finances to reevaluate their continued participation. If other contributors were to follow our lead, it could severely 

weaken the MFO, increasing tensions between Israel and Egypt during an already 

volatile time. It also could undermine our credibility as a guarantor of future IsraeliArab security arrangements. 

However, U.S. participation in the MFO places a considerable burden on the U.S. 

Army. We are reviewing ways to lighten this burden without undermining the critical role and effectiveness of our troops in the MFO. Obviously, we would review 

such modifications with the parties before taking any action. 

CYPRUS

Question: 

Recent discussions between the Turkish and Greek leaders of Cyprus provide a 

seemingly unprecedented opportunity to resolve this age-old conflict. What is the Administration doing to help facilitate a political settlement, and what resources is it 

prepared to make available to foster reconciliation between the Greek and Turkish 

communities, which have had virtually no contact with one another for generations, 

should a settlement be reached? 

Answer: 

We agree that the current direct talks between the leaders on the island provide 

the best chance in a long time for a solution of the Cyprus problem. 

We are supporting the direct talks on a number of fronts. 

First, we have strongly supported the UN Secretary General’s Good Offices Mission, and its efforts to achieve a comprehensive settlement, through numerous UN 

Security Council (UNSC) resolutions and press statements. 

Second, through our Ambassador on the island, Donald K. Bandler, we are reiterating directly to the leaders and their delegations to the talks our support of the 

talks, and the importance of seizing this opportunity to reach a settlement. 

Third, through our Special Cyprus Coordinator Thomas G. Weston, we are reinforcing with the leaders on the island and the Governments of Greece and Turkey 

our interest in the success of the ongoing negotiations. 

Fourth, and also through our Special Cyprus Coordinator, we are working with 

the European Union and its member states to ensure that Cyprus’s EU accession 

continues to be an incentive to a comprehensive settlement. 

Should a settlement be achieved, we would work with USAID to ensure that program activities funded by $15 million in FY2002 Economic Support Funds support 

implementation of a settlement. 

PERU/ECUADOR/COLOMBIA

Question: 

The U.S. drug interdiction efforts in the Andean region have demonstrated some 

successes and some failures. Certainly, the progress made in Peru and Bolivia in the 

63

realm of drug eradication and crop substitution is commendable. However, I am increasingly concerned by the manner in which we have neglected Ecuador in this war 

on drugs. I believe that we made a very expensive mistake by waiting until there was 

a problem in Peru and Ecuador before we reacted. I want to ensure that we don’t 

make the same mistake twice. 

The spillover effect from drug operations in Colombia is well documented. FARC 

rebels cross the Rio Putamayo on a daily basis either to seek refuge from battles on 

the Colombian side of the border, or to set up roadblocks in Ecuador for the purposed 

of kidnapping and extortion. As the coca crop is pushed out of Colombia, the rebels 

who need it to survive will find a new location to set up shop. I am concerned that 

the $25 million estimated for FY2002 and $37 million for FY2003 under the Andean 

Counter-Drug Initiative falls far short of the amount needed to prevent this tragic 

scenario. What is the rationale for keeping funding for Ecuador at this level when 

all the signs point to a need much more? 

Answer: 

As part of the FY 02 budget request of $882.3 million for the Andean Regional 

Initiative, the Administration sought $76.48 million for programs in Ecuador. The 

actual amount provided for ARI, including some monies redirected from other counternarcotics programs with congressional approval, was $782.3 million. This necessitated a reduction in funds for all of the ARI countries, and funding for programs 

in Ecuador was finally set at $46.86 million. 

The Administration remains committed to supporting Ecuador’s efforts against 

the threat brought by illegal drug trade to its northern border. While the funding 

level for Ecuador is less than the amount the Administration requested, it is still 

a significant increase over prior-year levels. The FY02 assistance level to Ecuador 

is actually very close to three times what we provided in FY99. Our recently-submitted FY03 budget request also seeks another increase for Ecuador to approximately $57 million in combined ESF and ACI program dollars. 

CENTRAL ASIA AND THE BALKANS

Question: 

We have seen in recent months the ease with which terrorist organizations like alQaeda have operated in Central Asia, the Caucasus, and the Balkans—a phenomenon that highlights the need for these countries to develop better mechanisms 

to secure their borders, share information on terrorist groups, and stem arms trafficking. Similarly, the appeal of terrorist groups in these regions demonstrates the 

need to address the root causes of discontent—little prospects for economic development, poor social services, and decaying infrastructure. 

I am therefore surprised to see that funding for such programs in Eastern Europe 

and the former Soviet Union under the Support for Eastern European Democracy Act 

(SEED) and the Freedom Support Act (FSA) is significantly lower than in previous 

years. Given that recent events have demonstrated that insecurity and discontent in 

these parts of the world can dramatically affect the security of the United States and 

the safety of Americans abroad, how can the Administration achieve its ambitious 

goals? 

Answer: 

The Administration recognizes the need to address both immediate terrorism-related security concerns and the deeper root causes of support for terrorism and extremism in Central Asia, the Caucasus and the Balkans, never more so than since 

the events of September 11. Within our overall request for assistance to the Independent States of the former Soviet Union, we have shifted resources to the front 

line states in Central Asia and the Caucasus, and are looking carefully at further 

requirements. Funding requested for the countries of the former Soviet Union in FY 

2003 actually represents an increase over the FY 2002 appropriated level, taking 

into account the transfer of the Export Control and Border Security (EXBS) program 

from the FSA to the NADR account. 

Over the last few years the United States and our allies devoted extraordinary 

resources to the tasks of organizing governments and re-igniting economies across 

the Balkans. Those funds have made important contributions to stabilization in Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia, while helping Albania, 

Bulgaria and Romania weather the backwash of turbulence from their neighbors. 

The request of nearly half a billion dollars for FY 2003 will allow us to maintain 

the momentum towards our common goals in each of these countries, but the extraordinary level of resources required in previous years for rapid acceleration is no 

longer needed. 

64

FORMER SOVIET UNION

Question: 

I am pleased to see that the Department of the Treasury has increased funding for 

its Technical Assistance program to $10 million. I feel strongly that the countries 

that can most benefit from this assistance are the countries of the former Soviet 

Union, which have significant economic potential yet are hobbled by inadequate expertise, stifling bureaucracy, and inefficient long-term fiscal planning. Where will 

these funds be spent, and on what sort of programs? 

Answer: 

Treasury technical assistance programs in the former Soviet Union are funded 

under the FREEDOM Support Act (FSA), not from funds directly appropriated to 

the Department of the Treasury. 

Treasury technical assistance is currently or will soon be provided to Armenia, 

Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova, Russia, Ukraine and Uzbekistan. 

Treasury advisors provide assistance to help these countries carry out necessary 

reforms in the fields of taxation, budget, enforcement (including money laundering, 

both by organized crime and by terrorist groups), banking and debt. 

INDIA-PAKISTAN RELATIONS

Question: 

What steps will the Administration be taking to try to assuage Indian fears of a 

disparity in funding in Pakistan’s favor? 

Answer: 

India’s leaders fully recognize that any effort to build a stable, prosperous, democratic Pakistan is very much in India’s interest. Since September 11, and indeed before that time, we have been working diligently to strengthen Pakistan’s economy 

and thereby weaken the influence of extremists. These efforts are paying off, as is 

evident from Pakistan’s support for Operation Enduring Freedom and by President 

Musharraf’s continuing actions against extremists. 

As our relationship with Pakistan has evolved, the Administration has been mindful of the history of hostility between these two countries—we have wanted to avoid 

the very problem to which the question alludes. 

We will continue working to ensure that India and Pakistan understand our determination to fight terrorism, build better trading ties, fight poverty, and promote 

an effective partnership with all countries in the region. Each relationship is important to the United States and each stands on its own merits. 

INDONESIA

Question: 

The Administration has once again requested $400,000 for International Military 

Education and Training (IMET) for Indonesia. The Indonesian Armed Forces have 

been responsible for some of the most atrocious state-sponsored human rights abuses 

in the world in recent years. Their actions in East Timor, Aceh, and other areas of 

the country have demonstrated that they are far from a professional military that is 

capable of respecting international human rights norms and playing a constructive 

role in a democratic society. 

I would like to know how the Administration proposes to use IMET resources for 

Indonesia. I would encourage you to either eliminate these funds entirely or ensure 

that IMET training is used exclusively to enhance the armed forces’ professionalism 

and respect for human rights and civilian rule. 

Answer: 

The Administration shares the goals of strengthening civilian oversight and enhancing the professionalism and respect for human rights of the Indonesian Armed 

Forces. 

International Military Education and Training has not been available to Indonesia for several years. This year, to further civilian oversight of the military and 

in accord with specific changes in the wording of applicable legislation, the Administration intends to use Expanded International Military Education and Training in 

Indonesia to educate and train Indonesian civilians. The participants will include 

private citizens, legislators and civilian governmental personnel. The program will 

be designed to contribute to responsible defense resource management, foster greater respect for and understanding of the principle of civilian control of the military, 

and to improve the military justice system and procedures. 

65

BANGLADESH

Question: 

What steps will this Administration be taking to facilitate a smooth development 

of the fledgling Bangladeshi democracy? 

Answer: 

The State Department has actively supported the growth of democracy in Bangladesh by funding election reform, monitoring capacity programs, and strengthening civil society, anti-corruption and judicial transparency projects. The success 

of these efforts was most recently visible during Bangladesh’s parliamentary elections on October 1, 2001. The USG supported programs that trained and fielded 

40,000 domestic and hundreds of international observers who played an important 

role in providing objectivity and confidence to the voting public. As a result, Bangladesh was able to hold its freest and fairest election to date. Our support was successful because the caretaker government was willing to enact the reforms necessary to hold free and fair elections. 

I agree with you—we should and will support a moderate Muslim democracy, but 

Bangladesh’s institutions remain fragile. Timely action is needed, but only the leaders and institutions of Bangladesh can fully consolidate the country’s democracy. 

The Prime Minister has promised to allow a more meaningful role for the opposition 

in parliament. We would work hard to provide the necessary resources to support 

this innovation but it requires the opposition to first take its seat in parliament. 

Bangladesh has made progress but much more remains to be done. 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO SECRETARY OF STATE COLIN POWELL BY

THE HONORABLE ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM

THE STATE OF FLORIDA

UN ISSUES: ANTI-ISRAELI VIEWS IN THE UN SYSTEM

Question: 

What steps do you foresee as necessary to ensure that the United States can prevent 

such anti-Semitic and despicable actions from taking place in the years to come? Additionally, what can the Department of State do to ensure that our allies, particularly 

those in the European Union and Latin America, work with us on this critical issue? 

Answer: 

As we have done since Israel joined the UN, the USG will continue to consult and 

work closely with Israel and our like-minded friends to seek to ensure that all documents, declarations and resolutions emerging from UN bodies are balanced, fair and 

free of anti-Semitic language or anti-Israeli recommendations. 

ISRAEL

Question: 

President Bush specifically mentioned Islamic Jihad, HAMAS, and Hezbollah in 

his State of the Union speech as anti-Israel terrorist organizations. I want to commend the Administration for adding these groups to the list of those targeted by Executive Order and also for the President’s very direct language on those groups. 

However, when do you expect the al-Aksa, the Tanzim and Force 17 be added to 

the Executive Order? How have the Executive Orders affected these organizations’ activities? What are we doing to ensure that Yasir Arafat ceases to allow them to operate? 

Answer: 

The violent activities of all groups, including those operating in Israel and the occupied territories, are under constant review by the Department of State. In addition, we consult closely with officials in the Departments of Treasury and Justice, 

as required by the Executive Order before a designation of a terrorist organization 

can be made. Once a designation has been made, all U.S.-based accounts of such 

organizations would be frozen, and we would request our allies to take similar steps. 

For designations made to date, we are still assessing the financial impact of these 

actions while we also vigorously pursue international cooperation to help staunch 

the flow of financial support to these groups in the future. 

In our contacts with Yasir Arafat, we have made categorically clear that he must 

do all in his power to bring terrorism and violence to an end. 

66

ARGENTINEAN JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER BOMBING

Question: 

Nearly eight years after the terrorist bombing of Buenos Aires’ Jewish Community 

Center, which left 86 people dead, the quest for justice remains unfulfilled. After 

years of foot-dragging by the Argentinean authorities, 20 individuals were finally 

charged with minor roles in the attack. Nonetheless, there remains considerable 

doubt that the prosecutors are committed to tracking down the principal culprits, believed by many to be Hizballah operatives and the Iranian regime. One recent allegation under investigation accuses former President Carlos Menem of accepting $10 

million from Tehran to mask the regime’s involvement. 

What is the Department of State’s view of the Argentinean commitment to securing 

justice for the victims and their families? What steps has the Department undertaken, 

bilaterally and through the Organization of American States, to help ensure a just, 

transparent, and expedited resolution to this matter? 

Answer: 

We believe that Argentine judicial and police authorities have pursued a serious 

investigation of the 1994 AMIA bombing. The beginning of the trial in September 

2001 of 20 accessories to the crime is a significant advance in the case. Argentine 

authorities hope that this ongoing trial will help to uncover further leads that could 

possibly result in the identification of the actual perpetrators of the crime. The 

AMIA investigation has been constrained by serious resource limitations and by inefficiencies in the Argentine justice system, to include lack of coordination between 

local and federal police and the Secretariat of State of Intelligence. 

From the beginning the U.S. Government has taken an active role in support of 

the investigation. The Federal Bureau of Investigation, for example, has vigorously 

pursued any terrorist leads and suspects and has worked to encourage and support 

the investigation into the AMIA bombing by the government of Argentina. 

Besides technical support such as crime scene search and forensic testing that 

helped establish the presence, quantity and type of explosives used in the bombing, 

the FBI sent two separate FBI-financed teams at Argentina’s request, most recently 

in June 2001, to spend roughly a month with Argentine investigators reviewing evidence and investigative findings in order to help identify any outstanding leads. 

Along those lines, the Embassy Legal Attache ́ arranged for Judge Galeano, the 

investigating judge, to go to FBI Headquarters in October 2001 to receive detailed 

briefings on terrorist organizations in the Middle East, including, of course, aspects 

related to the AMIA bombing. 

The State Department has been monitoring the trial of the accessories to the 

bombing. The Ambassador and other Embassy officials have raised the issue with 

the Government of Argentina on numerous occasions and have participated in widely publicized events commemorating the bombing. In addition, the State Department has provided assistance to the Government and other Argentine organizations 

to support improvements in the judicial system as a whole. We will continue to 

press for and support efforts to bring all those responsible for these crime to justice. 

ANTI-TERRORISM STRATEGY AND COORDINATION IN THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE

Question: 

Would you please elaborate on the Administration’s anti-terrorism strategy toward 

the Western Hemisphere? What guidelines have been established? What steps have 

been taken to coordinate bilaterally, and through the Organization of American 

States, toward an effective approach to the terrorism threat? 

Answer: 

The Administration’s anti-terrorism strategy for the Western Hemisphere is to 

support the global war on terrorism and strengthen the Hemisphere’s anti-terrorism 

posture. In most cases, these two principal objectives reinforce one another. 

Our actions in the Hemisphere have centered around building a strong support 

coalition, gaining universal adherence to the 12 international anti-terrorism conventions, improving border controls, coordinating actions and intelligence on suspected 

terrorist organizations in the Hemisphere, and preventing terrorists from abusing 

the Hemisphere’s financial system for fund raising and money laundering. The Department has not only provided our embassies with basic guidance, but has also instructed them to take the initiative in achieving our anti-terrorism objectives and 

this they have done, leading to remarkable success toward each of our objectives. 

These efforts have been coordinated with our global effort to combat terrorism under 

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373. 

67

The OAS has become a model for multilateral engagement by regional organizations. Meeting in Lima on September 11 to approve the Inter-American Democratic 

Charter, the Foreign Ministers immediately expressed solidarity with the U.S. by 

condemning the terrorist attacks—the first multilateral organization to do so. Reconvening in Washington on September 21, the Foreign Ministers adopted a strong 

resolution on strengthening Hemispheric cooperation to combat terrorism that, 

among other measures, called for convening an immediate meeting of the InterAmerican Committee Against Terrorism and drafting an Inter-American Convention 

Against Terrorism to be adopted at the June 2002 General Assembly. Since September, OAS member states have been actively engaged multilaterally, sub-regionally, and bilaterally in increasing and improving counterterrorism efforts. 

CUBA

Question: 

Mr. Secretary, given the President’s statements during the State of the Union address about ‘‘axis of evil’’ and, within the context of the war on terrorism, would you 

please explain the Department’s position on the travel of Cuban officials to and within the United States and the reasons substantiating such a policy? 

Answer: 

Visa issuance and travel policies for Cuban diplomats and other officials to and 

within the United States are governed by law, international obligations under the 

Vienna Convention and as the UN Host Country, our commitment to protect U.S. 

national security, and reciprocity concerns. 

Cuban diplomats bound for Washington, to serve in the Cuban Interests Section, 

and for New York, to serve at the Cuban Mission to the United Nations, are granted 

visas consistent with our bilateral Interests Section Agreement and with our host 

country obligations to the UN, respectively. An Executive Branch interagency process reviews all such applications, consistent with law, to ensure that no individual 

who intends wholly or in part to engage in espionage against the United States or 

who otherwise would represent a particular threat to national security is permitted 

to travel here. 

All other requests for visas by Cuban officials are reviewed on a case-by-case 

basis. Generally speaking, requests for visas from Cuban officials who wish to travel 

to locations other than New York or Washington on official business are denied. 

Cuban officials assigned to the UN Mission must obtain Department approval before undertaking travel outside a 25-mile ring around New York City. They are permitted travel only to accomplish activities related to their assignment to the United 

Nations. 

Cuban officials assigned to the Interests Section must notify the Department in 

advance of their intention to travel outside a 706 km2 area roughly equivalent to 

the area inside the Capital Beltway. Travel can be denied based on the specific objection of any of the participants in the U.S. interagency review process. 

Question: 

Also given that our own U.S. officials stationed at the Interests Section in Havana 

have extremely limited freedom of movement (as do the Cuban people) and their requests for meetings and travel are ignored or denied by the regime, would you agree 

that it is time to follow, in the words of President Teddy Roosevelt, a ‘‘stick’’ approach 

to travel of Cuban officials rather than the current ‘‘carrot’’ strategy? 

Answer: 

Travel requests by U.S. Interests Section personnel must be made in advance to 

Cuban authorities. Such requests are rarely denied. Cuban authorities generally 

grant meeting requests with provincial Communist party and government officials. 

However, the regime routinely ignores or denies requests for meetings with government ministries other than the Ministry of External Relations. Our efforts to engage with intellectuals and thinkers within the regime—for example, with Cuban 

government-controlled think-tanks and with university officials—are consistently 

thwarted. By contrast, in our free society, Cuban Interests Section personnel can 

and do engage with private citizens, universities, and other civil society groups in 

the United States. However, since 1996 Cuban Interests Section personnel must obtain prior approval for any proposed meetings with local, state, or federal officials. 

This state of affairs is highly frustrating, but is merely a symptom of the overall 

problem. We are a free society, open to all, and the government does not, cannot, 

and will not impede dialogue on any and all topics. Our free and open society is 

our strength. By contrast, the brittle Cuban regime is obsessive about information 

control. It tries to deny its citizens access to true information about the current 

68

Cuban reality, U.S. policy, and our desire for a rapid, peaceful transition to democracy. 

We have regularly raised with Cuban officials our desire for greater reciprocity 

in access in Cuba for U.S. Interests Section personnel, and are committed to achieving that goal. For example, in October, 2001, we reduced the Cuban Interest Section’s area of no-notice travel to 706 km2—roughly the area inside the Beltway—

in order to make it nearly equivalent to the no-notice travel area accorded to the 

U.S. Interests Section in Cuba. 

Question: 

What steps is the Department undertaking to further investigate and address the 

Castro regime’s support for global terrorism? Given that designation of terrorist 

countries is under the purview of the Secretary of State, what steps have you taken 

to ensure Cuba’s continued inclusion on the list of state sponsors of terrorism? What 

is the Department’s position on this issue? 

Answer: 

The Cuban regime is on the terrorist list for a variety of reasons, including its 

support for international terrorist organizations, including the ELN and the FARC, 

as well as ETA. There is recent and compelling evidence that the Cuban government 

sheltered a terrorist from the Chilean FPMR group who was wanted for murder in 

Chile. 

By blaming American policies for the 9/11 attacks, and by accusing the United 

States of war crimes as we prosecute the war on terrorism—as Foreign Minister 

Perez Roque did so offensively in his November speech at the UNGA—Cuba demonstrated that it is not on the side of those countries committed to eradicating this 

scourge. Until there is convincing evidence of a change in Cuban attitudes regarding 

the war on terrorism, and until Cuba takes the steps defined by U.S. statute for 

removal from the list, there is no chance of a change in Cuba’s status. 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO SECRETARY OF STATE COLIN POWELL BY

THE HONORABLE RON PAUL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

TEXAS

INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

Question: 

Mr. Secretary, as of today, some 52 countries have ratified the treaty to establish 

the International Criminal Court. According to the statutes of that treaty, once 60 

countries have ratified the treaty, the Court will claim jurisdiction over even non-signatories. What will be the U.S. reaction when there are 60 signatories and the Court 

attempts to act against an American, be he military or civilian? 

Answer: 

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) is a deeply flawed 

treaty that would place U.S. citizens—especially U.S. military personnel—at risk of 

unwarranted arrest and prosecution. The Administration has no intention of submitting the treaty to the Senate for advice and consent. We believe there are potentially grave consequences for U.S. persons if 60 countries ratify the treaty and it 

enters into force. The Administration is examining measures to protect our citizens 

from being prosecuted by the ICC. This will include examining our criminal laws 

to effectively preempt ICC jurisdiction and discussing with our friends and allies the 

risks the ICC poses to our citizens. 

IRAQ

Question: 

Mr. Secretary, I have a question about U.S. policy toward Iraq, particularly in 

light of increased calls in the Administration for military action against that country. On 14 September, just days after the horrific attack against the United States, 

the House of Representatives passed House Joint Resolution 64, subsequently promulgated as Pub. L. No. 107–40, stating in part, ‘‘The president is authorized to use all 

necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he 

determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons...’’

This authorization for the use of force explicitly requires that any target be tied 

to the attacks of September. According to a recent article in the International Herald 

Tribune, ‘‘the Central Intelligence Agency has no evidence that Iraq has engaged in 

69

terrorist operations against the United States in nearly a decade...’’ Other press 

reports have supported this view that Iraq had no hand in the terrorist attacks 

against the United States on 11 September. Nevertheless, members of the Administration have openly called for military action against Iraq. In an interview with the 

German Financial Times at the recent Munich Security Conference, head of the Defense Policy Board, Richard Perle is quoted saying, ‘‘I don’t think there is anything 

Saddam Hussein could do that would convince us there’s no longer any danger coming from Iraq.’’ Perle went on to say that the United States is on ‘‘a very clear path’’ toward war with Iraq. 

Given this information, do you believe that the Administration is obligated to return to Congress for authority in advance of any attack on Iraq? And if so, should 

this be a request for a declaration of war? 

Answer: 

Any decision concerning the use of force is a momentous matter and must be considered in the context of the specific circumstances of a proposed action. It bears 

noting, however, that Congress has previously addressed the use of force in Iraq for 

certain purposes, beginning with P.L. 102–1 (January 14, 1991) which remains in 

effect, and subsequently in a number of additional laws and resolutions. (See, P.L. 

102–190, Sec. 1095 & Sec. 1096 (FY 92/93 National Defense Authorization Act); P.L. 

105–235 (Aug. 14, 1998); H.J.Res. 75, (Passed the House Dec. 12, 2001).) In addition, the President enjoys constitutional authorities to commit U.S. forces to protect 

U.S. national security interests in appropriate circumstances. Be assured, however, 

that the Administration will continue to work closely with Congress on all phases 

of the war on terrorism. 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO SECRETARY OF STATE COLIN POWELL BY

THE HONORABLE ELIOT L. ENGEL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE

STATE OF NEW YORK

SYRIA

Question: 

President Bush did not mention Syria as part of the ‘‘axis of evil’’ in his State of 

the Union speech. Yet Syria continues to be listed as a state sponsor of terrorism and 

constantly violates Security Council resolutions regarding the selling of Iraqi oil, support for terrorism and the occupation of Lebanon. What kind of policies does the Administration plan for getting Syria to end its support for terrorism and to stop the 

Syrian occupation of Lebanon? 

Answer: 

U.S.-Syrian relations are marked by some positive areas of cooperation and other 

areas of significant disagreement. Since September 11 Syria has been a partner 

against al-Qaida. Its cooperation has helped save American lives. Nonetheless, we 

are looking for full cooperation against all terrorism with a global reach, and we 

have made clear to Syria that it must end support for terrorist groups, including 

Hizballah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. We have launched an international effort to detail to other countries Hizballah’s global involvement with terrorism and to request they join us in 

pressing Syria and Iran to put a stop to the group’s terrorist activities. An end to 

terrorist attacks would, in fact, serve Syrian interests, as well as Palestinian and 

Lebanese, as it would contribute to a climate conducive to a return to comprehensive peace negotiations. 

We raise our concerns about Syrian illicit trade with Iraq both bilaterally and in 

the UN Security Council. We intend to hold Syria to its commitment to respect 

UNSC resolutions and to bring its trade with Iraq under the Oil-for-Food programs. 

We remain committed to Lebanon’s independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity and have long supported the withdrawal of all foreign forces, including Syrian. The timing and terms of such a withdrawal are matters to be determined between the governments of Lebanon and Syria. Progress in the pursuit of comprehensive peace would facilitate such a step. 

SAUDI GENDER SEGREGATION

Question: 

Saudi Arabia is our ally in the Gulf and the largest oil producing country in which 

a large segment of its society faces discrimination in all walks of life. Saudi women 

must get permission of a male relative to have surgery, go to school, apply for a job, 

70

accept a marriage proposal, or go to court. They are segregated in schools, public 

transportation, the work place, and restaurants. They do not enjoy freedom of speech, 

assembly, religion, or press. Now American companies in Saudi Arabia are adopting 

the same discriminating codes. What actions are being taken by the Administration 

to pressure the Saudi government to stop this segregation? Is there a business code 

for American companies in Saudi Arabia? 

Answer: 

The Saudi Arabia section of the State Department annual Human Rights report 

provides an overview of the status of women in the Kingdom, both legal and social. 

Our embassy in Riyadh and consulates in Jeddah and Dhahran regularly invite 

Saudi women to participate in programs and workshops held in the region and in 

the U.S., aimed at elevating the status of women. The programs focus on the creation of associations, leaderships development, entrepreneurship and business opportunities. These opportunities for Saudi women also are available through the 

Fulbright and Humphrey programs. 

We also have raised the issue of trafficking in persons with the Saudis. The Embassy recently proposed a strategy to work with Saudi officials, private groups, and 

local media to highlight the problem of trafficking and work to eliminate this practice. 

Regarding a business code for U.S. companies in Saudi Arabia, U.S. corporations 

active in foreign markets normally adhere to local business practices, though they 

are obliged to comply with U.S. laws such as the foreign corrupt business practices 

act. 

KOSOVO

Question: 

What is the rationale behind decreasing U.S. assistance to Kosovo and UNMIK. 

Answer: 

Since we will have completed the more costly initial phase of institution building 

in Kosovo, the FY 2003 request of $85 million can effectively address the remaining 

challenges of maintaining stability and promoting a market economy which can ultimately link to the global economy through the European Union. 

The U.S. assistance program in Kosovo has shifted from an emphasis on humanitarian response and start-up of basic institutions to a longer-term focus on institution strengthening and the promotion of rule of law. Over the last two years, the 

donor community, working with the United Nations Mission Interim Administration 

in Kosovo (UNMIK), has targeted resources so as to provide a firm foundation for 

democratic institutions. In November 2001 Kosovars elected representatives to the 

first provisional assembly, and elected a president and prime minister in March. 

The growing ranks and growing confidence in the capabilities of the burgeoning 

Kosovo Police Service (KPS) is further evidence that a significant local rule of law 

institution is functioning. Furthermore, over 80 percent of the forecast revenue for 

Kosovo’s 2002 Consolidated Budget will be generated locally through a broad-based 

tax structure. 

As Kosovar leaders take up many of the authorities that have rested with UNMIK 

and locally-generated revenue increases, the Mission will reduce in size and scope. 

This coincides with a reduction in the amount of U.S. assessed costs for UNMIK 

operations. 

We will reduce the Support for Eastern European Democracy (SEED) and Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA) budgets without disrupting development by targeting resources on remaining priorities and pressing the 

European donors, long the leading donors to Kosovo, to take even greater responsibility for Kosovo’s progress. 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO SECRETARY OF STATE COLIN POWELL BY

THE HONORABLE STEVE CHABOT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE

STATE OF OHIO

HAGUE CONVENTION ON THE CIVIL ASPECTS OF INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION

Question: 

Will the Department of State support a renewed reporting requirement on compliance with the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction? Would the Department consider preparing and disseminating such a report as 

71

a public service to American parents, judges, family attorneys, and law enforcement 

authorities? 

Answer: 

The Department knows that the Hague Compliance reports have been useful to 

left-behind parents, and also in drawing the attention of some countries’ to their 

shortcomings in Convention implementation. We will continue to monitor compliance and make public statements on compliance where necessary. The Department 

will continue to be fully responsive to Congressional concerns regarding international parental child abduction. 

The existing compliance reports are on the internet and we continue to refer inquiring parents and others to that source. 

Question: 

Many left-behind parents believe that the State Department essentially ‘‘writes off’’

abducted or wrongfully retained American children by putting their case files in ‘‘inactive’’ status when the other country refuses to return the children and/or gives the 

American parent access or visitation rights that are completely unenforceable? 

Answer: 

As is the case in other signatory countries, the Department of State as the U.S. 

Central Authority closes or inactivates Hague cases for a variety of reasons, including the exhaustion of all judicial remedies pursuant to the Convention or withdrawal of requests for assistance. The State Department does not inactivate or close 

cases for insubstantial reasons; rather, the practice is to keep them open as appropriate. When a foreign court, for example, orders the return of a child and the order 

is not enforced, and/or there is a subsequent order rendering the original return 

order ineffective, the case remains open. In addition, the left-behind parent may request that the case be reopened at any time. 

When a foreign court orders access under the Convention, and that order is not 

enforced, the Department inactivates the case only if the left-behind parent withdraws from the case and does not request any further action from the State Department. 

CHILD ABDUCTION REPORTING

Question: 

When compiling the Children’s Rights section of the annual State Department 

‘‘Country Reports on Human Rights Practices,’’ would the Department consider addressing the human rights aspects of international child abduction/retention cases 

and related access/visitation matters? 

Answer: 

In the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, we strive to create a comprehensive, permanent, accurate, and credible record of human rights conditions 

around the world. We report on violations of internationally accepted human rights 

standards and norms such as freedom of expression, association, movement, and the 

right to leave one’s country. For example, we report forced conversions and forced 

marriages, issues that have arisen in connection with cases of this type. 

The Office of Children’s Issues in the Bureau of Consular Affairs fulfills the Department’s responsibilities with regard to international child abductions and related 

questions of retention and access. The Children’s Issues Office maintains an extensive website which provides a wide range of readily accessible materials and information pertinent to issues of children in the world today. 

The Children’s Issues Office also serves as the U.S. Central Authority for the 

Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and carries 

out a range of activities to facilitate the proper functioning of the Hague Convention, including monitoring Hague abduction and retention cases as well as compliance by other countries to the Hague Convention’s obligations. The Children’s Issues 

Office has prepared reports on Hague Convention compliance issues for the Congress for three years. 

There are other reasons why we do not report on international child abductions, 

per se, in the Country Reports, and why the State Department has opposed past 

Congressional efforts to include Hague Treaty compliance issues in the Country Reports. Reporting on treaty compliance poses special challenges. For example, we 

often don’t know that children have been removed from the country until we are 

contacted by one parent because records on such cases are covered by privacy laws, 

making them difficult to obtain. Then, information often cannot be reported because 

72

it is covered by privacy laws. Abroad, many countries do not keep records of this 

type, and where they do exist differences vary around the world. 

The bottom line is that we care about these children and we want to help. The 

Department is prepared to report on child abductions, and in fact is already doing 

so. 

INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION

Question: 

Is the State Department currently negotiating reciprocal child support enforcement 

agreements with foreign governments that would permit those governments to obtain 

U.S. government assistance in enforcing their child support orders against the parents of abducted American children? If so, could you advise me of the status of those 

negotiations? 

Answer: 

Since 1996, section 459A of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 659A) has authorized the Secretary of State with the concurrence of the Secretary of Health and 

Human Services to declare foreign countries (or political subdivisions thereof) to be 

reciprocating countries for the purpose of the enforcement of family support obligations. Such a designation may be made only if the country has established or has 

undertaken to establish procedures for the establishment and enforcement of duties 

of support for residents of the United States, and if those procedures are in substantial conformity with the procedures in place in the U.S. Pursuant to this authority, 

the U.S. has concluded reciprocal child support arrangements with Ireland, the 

Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Portugal, Australia, and the Canadian provinces 

of Nova Scotia, British Columbia and Manitoba. An agreement with the Netherlands has been signed and will enter into force when the Netherlands has completed 

its internal processes. Arrangements are pending with all of the remaining Canadian provinces and territories except for Quebec. 

These agreements create no obligation for the U.S. government or the government 

of any state of the U.S. to enforce child support where a custody dispute exists. This 

was explicitly stated in a February 25, 1999 letter from Paul Legler, the Assistant 

Commissioner of the Office of Child Support Enforcement at the Department of 

Health and Human Services to the Directors of all of the state-level child support 

agencies in the U.S. This letter can be found at www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cse/pol/

dc19919.htm. 

ABDUCTED AND WRONGFULLY DETAINED AMERICAN CHILDREN

Question: 

What is the State Department doing to ensure that our bilateral and multilateral 

agendas with the EU include continuing problems with countries (most notably Austria, Germany, and Sweden) concerning the non-return of abducted and wrongfully 

retained American children? 

Answer: 

The Department of State, acting as the Central Authority for the United States 

under the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, routinely and vigorously discusses child abduction and wrongful retention 

cases with the member states of the EU, in both bilateral and appropriate multilateral settings. The United States has a Hague Convention treaty relationship with 

each of the fifteen EU member states. 

The Department has, in particular, candidly shared its concerns about Hague 

Convention compliance with certain EU members. As noted in the Department’s 

2001 Compliance Report, Austria was identified as non-compliant because the Austrian judiciary did not appear to understand Austria’s obligations under the Hague 

Convention. Sweden and Germany were both listed as being of concern, although 

the Report notes progress in both countries. 

73

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO SECRETARY OF STATE COLIN POWELL BY

THE HONORABLE ROBERT MENENDEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

CLIMATE CHANGE

Question: 

Last year, the Administration in my view blundered its handling of the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 

by stating, without much consultation with anyone either here in Congress or internationally, that it would not further participate in the Protocol after ten years of 

international negotiations. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 

has stated that food security, desertification, droughts, floods, increases in disease 

such as malaria, and adverse effects on coastal settlements among other issues will 

hit developing nations hard, especially in Africa and Asia and the Pacific. This committee passed an Amendment asking the Administration to stay engaged in the Kyoto 

process. What progress has been made in addressing this issue? 

Answer: 

President Bush made clear last year that the Kyoto Protocol would harm the U.S. 

economy and voiced his concern that it contains no commitments for three fourths 

of the nations of the world. Soon thereafter he initiated a cabinet-level review of 

U.S. climate change policy. The President made an interim announcement regarding 

the status of the policy review through a June 11, 2001, Rose Garden speech, in 

which he unveiled his three climate change initiatives: advancing the science of climate change, advancing technology to address climate change, and promoting cooperation in the Western Hemisphere and beyond. Work to flesh out those initiatives is ongoing. 

The U.S. delegation to the resumed Sixth Conference of the Parties (COP–6 bis) 

in Bonn, Germany, in July 2001, was thoroughly engaged in the negotiation process. 

Nonetheless, as promised, it did not block consensus during the negotiations, and 

the meeting resulted in a political package deal to complete the elaboration of the 

details of the Kyoto Protocol. In November 2001, at COP–7 in Marrakech, Morocco, 

the U.S. delegation continued to be engaged on issues of key importance to the 

United States as the Parties completed the further work that many believe will pave 

the way for ratification by enough countries to bring the Kyoto Protocol into force. 

Over the past six months, the State Department has engaged in high-level dialogues with various governments, including Japan and Italy, concerning climate 

change research and technology. In addition, the Cabinet has continued to debate 

a range of policy options to further address the serious, complex, long-term challenge of climate change. Those deliberations are ongoing, and no deadline has been 

set. 

Today’s articles in the New York Times and the Washington Post have fueled 

some speculation about the President’s plan. These articles followed the release on 

February 4 of the 2002 Economic Report of the President. While the economic report 

is not a preview of the U.S. climate change policy as some have guessed, it does 

reiterate some Administration views regarding the remaining uncertainties of climate change science and the President’s interest in basing our policy action on 

sound science. The potential approaches to addressing climate change contained in 

the report are representative of some of the options being considered in the Cabinet 

review, but should be considered to be illustrative examples of possible approaches 

being considered at this time. 

UN FUNDS—THE UNITED NATIONS POPULATION FUND (UNFPA)

Question: 

Why did we go from last year’s budget summary document that said the UN Population Fund provides, ‘‘crucial assistance to developing countries and countries with 

economies in transition,’’ and then we zero that out in this budget? Please explain 

why the zeroing out? 

Answer: 

The Administration continues to broadly support the important work of UNFPA 

worldwide and specifically, its response to the emergency needs of vulnerable populations. At the same time, we remain mindful of our obligations under the KempKasten amendment to the annual Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Appropriations Act, which provides that no U.S. funds can go to an 

organization that supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization. 

74

The Administration is also attentive to periodic reports of abuse and coercion in 

China’s family planning program and the recent allegations of UNFPA’s complicity 

in coercive family planning practices in China. These allegations assert that 

UNFPA’s program in China is in violation of the Kemp-Kasten amendment. While 

we are aware of UNFPA’s response that it is not involved in coercive practices and 

is, in fact, supporting a program that stresses the importance of voluntarism and 

non-coercion, it is incumbent upon us to review these allegations. 

The issue of UNFPA funding in light of these allegations is under review. 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO SECRETARY OF STATE COLIN POWELL BY

THE HONORABLE JIM DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

FLORIDA

NICARAGUA

Question: 

How can the Department of State encourage the new Bolan ̃ os Administration to expedite the settlement of the more difficult property claims, in particular, a constituent 

case involving the Willey family’s Matagalpa Power claim, which has been pending 

for more than 20 years? 

Answer: 

The USG, under our Ambassador’s leadership in Managua, is working with the 

new Bolan ̃ os administration to find creative ways to expedite outstanding Amcit 

property claims. To date, the Government of Nicaragua (GON) has resolved thousands of outstanding Amcit property claims. 

As of 12/31/01, the GON had resolved 3,599 Amcit claims, including some large 

and complex cases. According to Embassy Managua, 878 unresolved claims remain. 

The GON offered a settlement to the Willey family in 2001, based on calculations 

using the nationalized Matagalpa Power company’s value as declared by the family 

in 1978, plus 22 years of interest. Half of the Willey family accepted the GON’s settlement in mid-2001. The Embassy will continue to assist all claimants who maintain property claims. 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO SECRETARY OF STATE COLIN POWELL BY

THE HONORABLE EDWARD R. ROYCE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

LIBERIA

Question: 

Are we considering sanctions on Liberian timber, which is being clear-cut with no 

thought of the ecological consequences, and which will fill the coffers of Charles Taylor, Incorporated? 

Answer: 

Yes. Timber exports are a major source of revenue for President Taylor. Our goal 

is to deny Taylor control of that revenue used to support his destabilization activities. Some UN Security Council (UNSC) members blocked our attempts last year 

to impose UN sanctions on Liberian timber. 

We are willing to consider mechanisms to put revenue from timber and other natural resource exports in an escrow account to benefit the Liberian people. If this 

is not feasible, we are prepared to press for a ban on timber exports from Liberia 

when existing sanctions come up for review in May. We anticipate some UNSC 

member opposition (including France and China) to such sanctions, because President Taylor is seeking to project an image that the Liberian people are already benefiting from the timber industry. 

We expect the government of Liberia to implement its recent agreement with the 

U.S. non-governmental organization ‘‘Conservation International’’ and others to preserve 30% of Liberia’s forests as national parks.

Æ