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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

73–278PDF 2012

THE STATE DEPARTMENT’S REWARDS PROGRAMS:

PERFORMANCE AND POTENTIAL

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM, 

NONPROLIFERATION, AND TRADE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 7, 2012

Serial No. 112–129

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ or

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

RON PAUL, Texas 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

DAVID RIVERA, Florida 

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York 

RENEE ELLMERS, North Carolina 

ROBERT TURNER, New York 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

DENNIS CARDOZA, California 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

ALLYSON SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

FREDERICA WILSON, Florida 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

YLEEM D.S. POBLETE, Staff Director 

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM, NONPROLIFERATION, AND TRADE

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

TED POE, Texas 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York 

RENEE ELLMERS, North Carolina 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

ALLYSON SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

Mr. Robert A. Hartung, Assistant Director, Threat Investigations and Analysis Directorate, Bureau of Diplomatic Security, U.S. Department of State .. 8

Ms. M. Brooke Darby, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of International 

Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, U.S. Department of State ............... 15

The Honorable Stephen J. Rapp, Ambassador-at-Large, Office of Global 

Criminal Justice ................................................................................................... 24

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Edward R. Royce, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California, and chairman, Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade: Prepared statement ................................................... 3

Mr. Robert A. Hartung: Prepared statement ........................................................ 10

Ms. M. Brooke Darby: Prepared statement ........................................................... 17

The Honorable Stephen J. Rapp: Prepared statement ......................................... 26

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 42

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 43

(1)

THE STATE DEPARTMENT’S REWARDS 

PROGRAMS: PERFORMANCE AND POTENTIAL 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 7, 2012

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM,

NONPROLIFERATION, AND TRADE,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:10 p.m., in room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward R. Royce 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. ROYCE. This hearing of the subcommittee will come to order. 

Today the subcommittee examines the State Department’s rewards 

programs and proposals for the expansion of that program. The 

State Department currently runs three different programs which 

offer reward money. 

There is the Rewards for Justice, Narcotics Rewards, and the 

War Crimes Rewards programs. Monetary awards are offered to 

those individuals who come forward, often at great personal risk to 

provide information that helps locate and capture terrorists or drug 

traffickers or certain wanted war criminals. 

The terrorism rewards program, which dates back to the Reagan 

administration and the bombing at the Beirut Embassy, is the 

most recognized of the three. Besides paid newspaper and radio 

spots, the program uses billboards, it uses posters and flyers to 

publicize reward offers, and given the prominence of smoking overseas, they also use matchbooks, such as these, which are distributed among the people. Several years ago, the program faced some 

criticism that its publicity campaigns were poorly constructed. So 

we look forward to hearing today about how that has changed. 

As we will hear today, all three programs can point to some significant victories. Terrorism rewards helped locate and put Ramzi 

Yousef behind bars. The Narcotics Rewards Program helped nab 

FARC commanders in Colombia and drug traffickers operating 

from Venezuela and Thailand. The war crimes programs have led 

to the arrest of some of the worst war criminals. 

A reward on your head creates for the individual significant 

angst. As the State Department will testify, one captured narcotics 

target told the DEA that he could no longer trust anyone in his organization after a $5-million reward was offered. He felt, he said, 

‘‘like a hunted man.’’ And given the destruction many of these characters do to the globe and to the people in their country, this is 

money well spent. 

2

But we live in a much different world than the one of the 1980s 

when these programs were first designed. Today transnational 

criminals are diversifying. And they are looking to sell anything to 

anybody. It could be arms. It could be intellectual property. It could 

be people. And one such arms trafficker was Viktor Bout, who supplied weapons to insurgents on both sides of the war, to militias, 

to terrorists around the world until his conviction in Federal Court. 

Reportedly the Narcotics Rewards Program helped to bag the ‘‘merchant of death,’’ as he was called, Viktor Bout. 

The overlap between the networks employed by criminals and 

employed by terrorists is growing. To keep pace, I have introduced 

legislation, H.R. 4077, cosponsored by Ranking Member Sherman 

and subcommittee member Poe, that would target transnational organized crime figures with a rewards program. Just as important, 

the legislation allows the rewards program to target those who are 

wanted for genocide or war crimes or crimes against humanity. In 

other words, the world’s worst human rights abusers. 

A likely target of this new war crimes authority would be Joseph 

Kony and the top commanders of the Lord’s Resistance Army. This 

group has terrorized northern Uganda and Central Africa for two 

decades with unspeakable crimes. In accordance with U.S. policy, 

a small team of U.S. troops are currently in the field helping local 

forces hunt down the individual who has captured over 30,000 children over the years. The women and girls he turned into concubines; the boys, into child soldiers. Our U.S. troops believe a rewards program aimed at Kony could bolster their efforts. That 

could generate the intelligence and that could boost the defections, 

and that could assist, because the ultimate work here is going to 

be undertaken by the Ugandan forces, who will basically either remove Kony from the battlefield and bring him to the bar of justice 

one way or the other. 

This subcommittee looks forward to the testimony today and advancing this important legislation to the House floor. I will now 

turn to Ranking Member Sherman for his opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Royce follows:]

3


73278d-1.eps
4


73278d-2.eps
5

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing on examining the State Department’s reward program and how 

those programs can be expanded. 

The State Department currently runs reward programs in three 

areas: The reward for justice program, focused on terrorism; the 

narcotics reward program; and the War Crimes Rewards Program, 

which targets war criminals subject to certain tribunals. I support 

the State Department’s rewards programs, which have been effective in leading to the capture of some of the most reprehensible individuals. We save innocent lives. We save taxpayer money in the 

long run by rewarding those who give us information, often at 

great risk to themselves. 

I support expanding this program. I have cosponsored your bill, 

H.R. 4077, which is bipartisan legislation which would expand the 

program to target transnational organized crime and those wanted 

for the most serious human rights abuses, all for reasons you well 

explained in your opening statement. 

These efforts began, these programs began in the 1980s. The programs were designed by the diplomatic security agent who investigated the 1983 U.S. Embassy bombing in Beirut perpetrated by 

Hezbollah with direct help from Iran. The program was expanded 

to cover narcotics traffickers and some war criminals in the late 

1980s. Today, rewards go up to $25 million; $25 million is the reward for information leading to the capture or death of key alQaeda leaders, most notably bin Laden but also including Ayman 

al-Zawahiri. The most recent example of the State Department offering a terrorism reward was for Yasin al-Suri, identified as a key 

fundraiser for al-Qaeda. 

According to the State Department, al-Suri has operated out of 

Iran since 2005. He is supposedly under house arrest, but that may 

be a mistranslation; they may have meant special guest of Iran. 

And he is providing al-Qaeda network with transportation for 

operatives and access to money. Al-Zawahiri is one of three individuals the U.S. Government is offering a $10-million reward for. The 

other two are Mullah Omar, the Taliban leader in Afghanistan, 

and Abu Dua, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq. And one of the questions I will ask of our witnesses is whether we should go even higher on those rewards or others. 

The State Department’s Rewards for Justice Program focused on 

terrorism is the most recognized of the three rewards programs. 

The State Department, through the Secretary of State, may offer 

rewards for information leading to the arrest or conviction of anyone who plans or carries out acts of terrorism against Americans 

at home or abroad, that prevents such acts from occurring, that 

leads to the location of key terrorist leaders or disrupts terrorist financing. 

The State Department maintains a list of current reward offers 

on its Web site, which is now available in nearly 30 languages. In 

addition to newspaper, radio, and TV ads in foreign media, the program utilizes billboards, flyers, postcards, and the well known 

matchbook cover. I see these matchbooks are in English, and I 

hope very much that a far greater number was created in Arabic, 

not that we need to worry about any of the three guys pictured on 

this particular matchbook at the present time. Many of us have 

6

seen these matchbooks, and this is one of many creative ways to 

reach out to those who may seek the reward. 

The State Department takes measures to protect the identity of 

a reward recipient’s program and the recipient’s immediate family. 

Of course, the State Department must report to Congress the total 

amounts spent on the program. Reward payments are often not 

publicized, and those who receive them are eligible for participation 

in the U.S. Witness Protection Program. I look forward to hearing 

from our witnesses whether an explicit offer of a U.S. visa for a 

family or even an extended family should be part of certain posted 

rewards. No one—a lot of people want money, very few want a 

death sentence, and they may have some such in their home country. 

I am going to skip ahead to a discussion of the chairman’s legislation. The Department of State Rewards Program Update and 

Technical Corrections Act of 2012, this would expand the reward 

programs to confront international organized crime and those 

wanted for the most serious human rights abuses. The chairman’s 

bill would allow the State Department to pay for information leading to the arrest or conviction of individuals engaged in international or transnational organized crime or the prevention or disruption of related criminal activities. The State Department officials have identified the lack of authority to target organized criminals with rewards as a major gap in the counterterrorism efforts. 

The bill would also allow the department to use the rewards program to target others indicted by international hybrid or mixed tribunals for the most serious human rights abuses, including genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Once again, Mr. 

Chairman, I commend you for this legislation. Happy to cosponsor 

it, and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you. Any other opening statements? 

Mr. Connolly, would you like to say a few words? 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The 1984 Act to Combat International Terrorism established the 

State Department’s Rewards For Justice Program, one of three rewards programs the State Department administers. The law allows 

the Secretary of State to authorize rewards for information that 

lead to the arrest or conviction of anyone who plans, commits or 

attempts international terrorist acts against U.S. persons or property, prevents such acts from occurring in the first place, leads to 

the location of a key terrorist leader or disrupts terrorist financing. 

The rewards program has led to the apprehension of Uday Hussein, Qusay Hussein, and Ramzi Yousef, among others. In fact, 

since the inception of the Rewards for Justice Program in 1984, the 

U.S. has paid more than $100 million to 70 people who provided 

credible information to put terrorists behind bars or prevented acts 

of international terrorism. 

The RFJ is not the only rewards program in State’s law enforcement tool kit. The Narcotics Rewards Program, also administered 

through the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement at State, offers rewards of up to $5 million for information 

leading to the arrest and the conviction of major narcotics traffickers who operate outside of the U.S. Over $71 million has been 

7

awarded to individuals who provided such information leading to 

the arrest or conviction of major narcotics traffickers. 

Last is the War Crimes Rewards Program, which the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security administers in conjunction with the Office of Global Criminal Justice. This program is designed to bring to justice fugitives sought by the U.N. International 

Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. 

Through the introduction of H.R. 4077, Chairman Royce has proposed expanding the State Department’s rewards programs to confront transnational organized criminals and individuals wanted for 

the most recent human rights abuses. An example of somebody 

who might be targeted under such a proposed expansion is Joseph 

Kony, head of the Lord’s Resistance Army in East Africa. It sounds 

like a commonsense expansion of the program, especially given the 

committee’s record on Joseph Kony. I look forward to hearing more 

about the bill, including our witnesses’ thoughts on how expanding 

the program might facilitate their mission. 

And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership. I yield 

back. 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Connolly. 

We are joined today by three representatives from the State Department. First is Mr. Robert Hartung. He serves as assistant director for the Threat Investigations and Analysis Directorate in the 

Bureau of Diplomatic Security. In this capacity, he oversees all diplomatic security programs that analyze or investigate or disseminate information on threats directed against U.S. diplomatic personnel around the world. 

Before becoming a diplomatic security special agent back in 1985, 

he worked as a staffer to former Senator Paul Trible of Virginia. 

Ms. Brooke Darby is the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State in 

the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs. During her career, she has been responsible for numerous 

programs in the bureau, including the Criminal Justice Capacity 

Building Program in the Balkans, the program in Afghanistan, and 

the one in Iraq. She has also served on the National Security Staff. 

We welcome her. 

And we have Ambassador Stephen Rapp, who heads the Office 

of Global Criminal Justice. Prior to his appointment, he served as 

prosecutor of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, leading the case 

against Charles Taylor. During his time serving in the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, he led the team that won 

the first convictions in history for public incitement to commit 

genocide via the media, the hate broadcasts that were broadcast 

out over Rwanda. So it is good to see the Ambassador again. I 

might add, we are awaiting the announcement of the Charles Taylor verdict, hopefully in April. It is slated to come down, and it is 

about time. 

So we thank our witnesses all for being with us. I will remind 

them that their complete testimony will be included in the record. 

So if they keep their oral presentation to 5 minutes, that would be 

appreciated by the committee. We will then go to questions. 

So we will begin with Mr. Hartung. Thank you. 

8

STATEMENT OF MR. ROBERT A. HARTUNG, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, THREAT INVESTIGATIONS AND ANALYSIS DIRECTORATE, BUREAU OF DIPLOMATIC SECURITY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Mr. HARTUNG. Chairman Royce, members of the subcommittee, 

good afternoon. 

I am honored to appear before you today to discuss the role that 

the Bureau of Diplomatic Security plays in the fight against international terrorism through its Rewards for Justice Program. I 

would like to thank you for your continued support and interest in 

our program, as this collaboration helps enable Diplomatic Security 

fulfill its worldwide mission. 

Operating from a global platform in 25 U.S. cities and 159 foreign countries, the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, or DS, ensures 

that our country can conduct diplomacy safely and securely while 

assuring the integrity of our borders. DS plays a vital role in protecting U.S. Embassies and personnel overseas, investigating passport and visa fraud, securing critical information systems, and 

fighting terrorism. 

To this end, Diplomatic Security’s counterterrorism rewards program, known as RFJ, is considered by the Department of State to 

be one of the U.S. Government’s most valuable assets in the fight 

against international terrorism. The mission of the program is to 

prevent terrorist acts, to disrupt terrorist planning, and to bring 

terrorists to justice in a court of law, U.S. or foreign. 

The secondary goals of the program are also important, to deter 

terrorist operations, to decrease geographic safe havens for terrorists, and to restrict terrorists’ freedom of movement. 

Rewards may be paid to individuals who provide information 

leading to the arrest or conviction of those conspiring, attempting, 

or committing an act of international terrorism against U.S. persons or property or those aiding or abetting in the commission of 

such acts. A reward may also be paid for the information that prevents such acts from occurring in the first place, for information 

identifying or locating those holding key leadership positions in a 

terrorist organization, and for the disruption of the financial mechanisms of a foreign terrorist organization. 

Since the program began in 1984, RFJ has garnered a number 

of successes throughout the years. RFJ has paid over $100 million 

to more than 70 individuals who have provided vital information. 

Although the program’s efforts are often classified for the safety 

of its participants, I can share some of its landmark cases with you 

today. In 1995 RFJ paid a $2-million reward to a source that provided information to Diplomatic Security special agents in Pakistan 

for the location of Ramzi Yousef, mastermind of the 1993 World 

Trade Center bombing. Pakistani authorities, assisted by Diplomatic Security agents, arrested Yousef in Pakistan and extradited 

him to the United States. He is currently serving a life sentence 

in prison in Colorado. 

In 2003, RFJ paid a $30-million reward for information on the 

exact whereabouts of Uday and Qusay Hussein. The 101st Airborne 

Division conducted an operation to capture these individuals. A 4-

hour fire fight ensued, which resulted in the deaths of the two 

9

brothers. In this instance, an RFJ campaign was initiated, and in 

18 days, the source came forward, the fastest result in RFJ history. 

And in 2007, the program paid a $10-million reward to courageous Filipino citizens who provided information on the locations of 

Abu Sayyaf group leaders, Khadaffy Janjalani and Abu Solaiman. 

These two notorious high-ranking leaders of the Abu Sayyaf group 

were killed by the armed forces of the Philippines as a result of information provided by the sources. 

Last year, DS generated four new reward offers. These offers 

were for the following individuals: Harakat-ul-Jihad al-Islami leader Ilyas Kashmiri; North Caucasus based Caucasus Emirate senior 

leader and military commander, Doku Umarov; al-Qaeda in Iraq 

leader Abu Dua; and Yasin al-Suri, a senior al-Qaeda facilitator 

and financier based in Iran. RFJ’s $10-million reward offer for alSuri was the first made for a terrorist financier. 

As is evident, Mr. Chairman, the DS Rewards for Justice Program is and will remain a valuable asset to the U.S. Government 

in its fight against international terrorism. RFJ’s mission to prevent terrorist acts, disrupt terrorist financing, and bring terrorists 

to justice remains paramount. RFJ is engaging new media, new 

partners, and developing new practices in its effort to meet the 

challenging security situation we face in the ever-changing world. 

Every day, in all corners of the globe, the men and women of the 

Bureau of Diplomatic Security continue to work tirelessly to bring 

terrorists to justice. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before 

you today, and I would be pleased to answer any questions you 

may have. 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you for your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hartung follows:]

10


73278a-1.eps
11


73278a-2.eps
12


73278a-3.eps
13


73278a-4.eps
14


73278a-5.eps
15

Mr. ROYCE. Ms. Darby. 

STATEMENT OF MS. M. BROOKE DARBY, DEPUTY ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY, BUREAU OF INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS AND 

LAW ENFORCEMENT AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Ms. DARBY. Chairman Royce, Ranking Member Sherman, and 

members of the subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to discuss the Department of State’s Narcotics Rewards Program, how it 

helps to bring major violators of U.S. narcotics trafficking laws to 

justice, and your legislation to expand the reach of our rewards 

program to capture other transnational criminals. 

The Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, INL for short, which I help to lead is well known for our efforts to build the capacity of foreign governments to fight crime. 

We also administer key anticrime tools like the Narcotics Rewards 

Program. 

Let me start where the Narcotics Rewards Program began and 

then tell you a bit about how it works. In 1986, Congress authorized the Secretary of State to offer rewards for information leading 

to the arrest or conviction of major narcotics traffickers outside the 

United States. The rewards program quickly proved to be a valuable tool for U.S. law enforcement, helping to develop critical information on key targets as well as putting pressure on drug trafficking organizations, disrupting their activities, and leaving them 

more vulnerable to law enforcement efforts. 

Every step of the program is closely coordinated with U.S. law 

enforcement agencies who serve on the Narcotics Rewards Program 

committee, and in fact, the program operates from the field up. 

Generally U.S. Federal agents working overseas propose that the 

program target a fugitive from justice that they are working to apprehend. The program committee validates each request in Washington and develops an approach to publicize a reward where appropriate. 

When an informant’s information has proved useful to U.S. Federal agents, the agents can submit a request that a reward payment be made to the informant. The Interagency Review Committee then weighs a variety of factors, including the importance 

of the trafficker targeted, the role played by the informant, details 

of the arrest or interdiction operation, risks taken by the informant 

to assist in effecting the arrest or interdiction, and the suggested 

reward amount. 

If the Secretary of State agrees with the committee’s recommendation to pay the informant, the Secretary will then seek 

concurrence of the Attorney General before transferring any funds 

to the U.S. law enforcement agency managing the informant. 

INL has developed a rigorous certification process for law enforcement to validate and confirm when payments have been made. 

We then notify Congress in classified form of each reward payment 

before closing our case file. The Narcotics Rewards Program has 

helped to bring many important narcotraffickers to justice. One example is Arturo Beltran-Leyva and members of his organization, 

who not only distributed shipments of hundreds of kilograms of 

narcotics to the United States but also were culpable for the rising 

violence just south of our border in Mexico. That organization is 

16

now in shambles as a result of successful law enforcement operations, informed by our program, to take down the head and other 

members of the organization. 

In some cases, the perceived or actual threat from the publication of a reward has driven criminals to seek protection from U.S. 

law enforcement, and as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, one captured trafficker, who was the subject of a $5-million advertised reward, told DEA agents that after he was sought by the Narcotics 

Rewards Program, he began to distrust everyone. And his ability 

to maintain control of his organization was diminished, and he felt 

like a hunted man. 

Our U.S. and foreign law enforcement partners recognize the 

Narcotics Rewards Program is a valuable tool to help bring drug 

traffickers to justice and disrupt their operations. Since 1986, however, transnational criminals other than narcotics traffickers have 

escaped the reach of the rewards program. On July 25th, President 

Obama introduced a National Strategy to Combat Transnational 

Organized Crime, which describes the significant and evolving 

threat to the United States and the global community that these 

transnational criminals pose and advocates for additional tools to 

counter the threat. 

The legislation that you have introduced, Chairman Royce, and 

that you have cosponsored, Congressman Sherman, is such a tool. 

By updating the successful rewards program to include 

transnational organized crime targets, you will extend the reach of 

justice to major criminals who have transcended borders with near 

impunity. These criminals victimize Americans through Internet 

crimes, launder money, traffic arms and people, and pirate America’s intellectual property. To illustrate the impact of these illicit 

activities, in an average year, the United States seizes hundreds of 

millions of dollars in counterfeit goods, estimated to be a mere fraction of what is produced worldwide and imported for sale into the 

United States. 

Counterfeit products wreak havoc on our economy and, in some 

cases, such as counterfeit pharmaceuticals, jeopardize the health 

and safety of our citizens. 

Under the President’s strategy, we are committed to pursuing 

transnational organized criminals and their networks wherever 

they hide across the globe. Our Treasury Department has already 

designated four major transnational criminal organizations, the 

Yakuza, the Brothers Circle, Los Zetas, and the Camorra for financial sanctions. With your support, a future transnational organized 

crime rewards program could help U.S. law enforcement do much 

more, dismantle these networks and apprehend those who lead 

them. 

Chairman Royce, Ranking Member Sherman, and members of 

the subcommittee, thank you for your interest in and support of 

this important initiative to help our Nation combat transnational 

organized crime. I look forward to working with you to advance 

your legislation to provide new tools to counter transnational crime 

and protect our national security interests. 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Ms. Darby. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Darby follows:]

17


73278b-1.eps
18


73278b-2.eps
19


73278b-3.eps
20


73278b-4.eps
21


73278b-5.eps
22


73278b-6.eps
23


73278b-7.eps
24

Mr. ROYCE. Ambassador. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE STEPHEN J. RAPP, AMBASSADOR-AT-LARGE, OFFICE OF GLOBAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE 

Ambassador RAPP. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, 

I would like to thank you and the subcommittee members for your 

continued support and interest in the U.S. Department of State’s 

rewards program. 

We welcome the legislation that you have introduced, H.R. 4077, 

which would allow the Department of State to better use these programs to pursue and help bring to justice individuals who have 

committed acts of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. 

The current War Crimes Rewards Program has been instrumental in bringing to justice some of the most notorious and brutal 

fugitives sought by the United Nations International Criminal Tribunals for Yugoslavia, the ICTY, and for Rwanda, the ICTR. In the 

last 2 years alone, we have made 14 payments at an average of 

$400,000 per payment, ranging from $75,000 to $2 million for information leading to the arrest and conviction of these fugitives. 

This program has been and continues to be very successful in 

generating information that has led to the arrest of the world’s 

worst criminals. 

However, the present statutory authority of the War Crimes Rewards Program is limited to fugitives from the ICTY and ICTR and 

the Special Court for Sierra Leone. From these tribunals, which indicted more than 250 people, there remain only nine targeted fugitives at large, all from the Rwanda tribunal. After the capture of 

these fugitives, this program will cease to be useful as a tool to ensure accountability. 

The State Department would like to expand this program to bolster our ongoing efforts to bring other alleged war criminals to justice. 

The proposed legislation, sponsored by you, Mr. Chairman, would 

do just that. It would authorize the Secretary of State to publicize 

and pay rewards for information leading to the arrest and conviction of specifically identified foreign nationals accused of war 

crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide before any international criminal tribunal, including hybrid or mixed courts. 

Let me be clear: Under the proposed authority, fugitives would 

only be added to the rewards program after careful review and approval by an interagency committee and the Secretary of State or 

designee. This is similar to the interagency committee that now 

makes the decisions about the amounts of rewards to be granted 

and that makes decisions about selection of individuals upon which 

rewards may be provided in the terrorism and narcotics programs. 

This committee would have representatives of the State Department, DOD, DOJ, DHS, and the intelligence community. 

I want to focus on a few specific cases where this authority would 

help our foreign policy objectives. You, Mr. Chairman, mentioned 

the case of Joseph Kony of the Lord’s Resistance Army. As you 

noted, for two decades, he has carried on a campaign of murder 

and terror and the abduction and brainwashing of women and children; the women to become sex slaves, the boys to become fighters. 

25

The U.N. estimates that some 465,000 people were displaced or living as refugees across three countries in 2011 as a result of the 

LRA threat. 

The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for 

Joseph Kony and other top LRA leaders on charges of war crimes 

and crimes against humanity, and although the United States is 

not a party to the Rome statute establishing the ICC, we support 

the ICC’s efforts to bring the LRA leaders to justice and believe 

they could be apprehended and held to account for their actions. 

You mentioned the group of U.S. military advisers, consistent 

with the LRA Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act, 

that have now been deployed in Central Africa and are working 

with our partners, particularly the Ugandans, but other forces as 

well in LRA-affected areas, helping to enhance the capacity to 

bring these top commanders to justice. 

The proposed expansion of the program would bolster our efforts 

to generate information about the whereabouts of Joseph Kony and 

other LRA commanders by giving lower level fighters a material incentive to provide information. If Kony and other commanders were 

added to the programs through the interagency process I described, 

we could work to publicize the rewards using leaflets, radio broadcasts, and other publicity tools, like we have done with other fugitives. 

Another individual is Abdullah al-Senussi, the head of, the 

former head of Libyan military intelligence, who was the head of 

one of the most powerful and efficient organs of repression in 

Libya. And he is wanted by the ICC for his alleged responsibility 

for crimes against humanity committed last February. It has been 

reported that he has fled Libya, and he is in hiding. 

Of course, this will allow rewards not just in ICC cases but to 

any court that has international presence as a mixed court or hybrid tribunal. It will be crime-specific, not court-specific, and as required under our ASPA law, our American Service members Protection Act, it will be consistent with that and being a case-by-case 

determination that is allowed by ASPA where we can provide assistance to international justice. 

The War Crimes Rewards Program, at the moment, we are advertising rewards up to $5 million, although rewards up to $25 million could be paid in exceptional cases, but as I note, the average 

amount is some $400,000, and the amount of the reward depends 

upon a number of factors, including which war criminal is apprehended, the quality of the assistance provided, and the risk taken 

by the informant. We believe that the funding for the rewards authorized by this new legislation could be provided through currently available resources and transfer authorities. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the War Crimes Rewards Program 

is and we hope will remain a valuable asset to the U.S. in its fight 

to ensure that foreign nationals who commit serious violations of 

international humanitarian law are held to account, and we will 

continue to work tirelessly to bring these perpetrators to justice. 

We thank you for the opportunity to appear before you and to 

thank you for your continued leadership in this area. 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Ambassador. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Rapp follows:]

26


73278c-1.eps
27


73278c-2.eps
28


73278c-3.eps
29


73278c-4.eps
30


73278c-5.eps
31


73278c-6.eps
32

Mr. ROYCE. I think it was back in 2004 that we commissioned 

some studies to look at the media to see how we could better utilize 

technology in order to bring people to the bar of justice through 

this rewards program. I would ask if there has been thought since 

then—well, first, let’s just maybe review what the studies told us, 

but now with the advent of social media, maybe some thoughts on 

how that could be deployed in order to assist worldwide in these 

efforts. Could I get some responses to that? 

Ambassador RAPP. Yeah, I certainly agree with you, Mr. Chairman, we don’t want to die with the secret that we have these rewards on offer. And I have been involved in getting the message 

out in Central Africa through community radio and other media 

that people have access to there. But I think we need to leave no 

stone unturned to make sure that people are aware of these rewards, and we use every possible media that is effective with a specific population. 

Mr. ROYCE. One of the thoughts I have on this is the host government cooperation used to be needed. In 2010, I know that VOA 

began the process of actually broadcasting and could effectively do 

that whether or not you had the host government in support. 

Well, as you begin to look at the use of social media, again, you 

have the ability to work around whether or not the state thinks it 

is important to track down the Viktor Bouts of the world, and so 

I would appreciate any observations on that methodology. 

Ambassador RAPP. Well, we would certainly be supportive of 

that, and we will be glad to follow up and report to you, but I think 

the social media—I mean, it is true that throughout the world, 

even in areas where electric power isn’t necessarily reliable, people 

are having access to the Internet, there are hundreds of millions 

of subscribers to these sites. And we want to make sure that we 

get the information out there and that people understand it. 

Mr. ROYCE. Do you have any thoughts on that, Ms. Darby? 

Ms. DARBY. Only to say that we absolutely agree that we need 

to use all of the publicity tools at our disposal, and that is an excellent recommendation and one we definitely will take into account. 

Mr. ROYCE. One of the things I have thought about also is from 

a diplomatic aspect, when dealing with host countries, we have 

longstanding relationships with, you know, maybe countries like 

Italy where the Cosa Nostra is operating and no opposition, but 

when we begin to talk about organized crime, international, 

transnational organized crime operating out of Russia or operating 

out of China, you can run into a situation in the State Department 

where if you are overt, are you rocking the boat vis-a`-vis the relationship with Russia and so forth. 

On the other hand, with these additional technologies that might 

be available to us, there is a way to get at the target without confronting the state, but I would just ask you, any experience in the 

past with resistance in the State Department to rocking the boat, 

if you will? I watched the reaction on the part of the Russian Government just over this Viktor Bout issue, and it truly was extraordinary the lengths they went to, to try to suppress his apprehension, his transfer to custody, his conviction, so I know that some 

of these figures have their own supporters in certain host governments, and it has complicated efforts to bring them to justice. 

33

Mr. HARTUNG. If I just may add, with social networking, in December, we held a press conference at the State Department with 

the Department of Treasury on announcing that Yasin al-Suri 

would be added to the list of the Rewards for Justice Program, and 

at that time, working with an office within the Department of 

State, we actually tweeted that information. So we started using 

social network, and also we partnered with Voice of America. As 

part of one of their broadcasts that goes into Iran and other countries in the region, we conducted a short interview with that program, and that has since been broadcast in that region, and we are 

now exploring the use of Facebook to get the message out even further. 

Mr. ROYCE. One of the interesting aspects of Ms. Darby’s testimony, and I think you all might agree, is the way in which the aspect of feeling hunted, being hunted, if you are a transnational, if 

you are a criminal, can cripple an organization, the idea that you 

can’t depend upon the people in your organization, in your operation because whatever you are paying them, it is not this amount 

of money. And so someone could turn on you. 

I was going to ask in terms of the applicability of that to 

transnational organized crime beyond the example you gave us, 

which was a drug cartel, if you could give us your thoughts on that. 

Ms. DARBY. Certainly, Mr. Chairman. 

That is absolutely true. I mean, one of the benefits of rewards 

is to encourage informants to come forward, obviously, but the 

other chief benefit of a rewards program is disrupting the operations of these drug trafficking organizations, and with the new 

proposal on the table, transnational organized criminal organizations, forcing them to change the way they do business, which 

leaves them more vulnerable to law enforcement efforts to go after 

them. So absolutely, we would agree. 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you. I think my time has expired. 

I will turn to Mr. Sherman. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. 

In the imagination of a few nationalists in Islamabad, everyone 

in Pakistan speaks Urdu. In reality, the Punjabi and Sindhi languages are spoken by far more people than Urdu. Are you reaching 

out in Pakistan only in the Urdu language or are you equally 

reaching out to Punjabi and Sindhi and Baloch, for that matter, or 

do you know? If you don’t know, tell me you don’t know, and I will 

make you answer for the record. 

Mr. HARTUNG. Through Rewards for Justice, we reach out in all 

languages in Pakistan. Now, we do not have a program specifically——

Mr. SHERMAN. It can’t be all languages. 

Mr. HARTUNG. Well, not—the main primary languages. 

Mr. SHERMAN. So you are doing as much in Punjabi and Sindhi 

as you are doing in Urdu? 

Mr. HARTUNG. Well, let me backtrack a little bit. We do not have 

a post-specific program in Pakistan, but we do have a program——

Mr. SHERMAN. What does it mean you don’t have a post-specific 

program? 

34

Mr. HARTUNG. Well, in some countries, like Afghanistan, we have 

partnered with the government to undertake an advertisement 

campaign in that country. We have not done that in Pakistan. 

Mr. SHERMAN. So you are saying you don’t advertise in Pakistan 

because——

Mr. HARTUNG. No. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Or you just don’t—it is just not a cooperative effort? 

Mr. HARTUNG. We advertise as far as our global program. 

Mr. SHERMAN. What are you doing to advertise in Pakistan and 

in what languages? 

Mr. HARTUNG. I know we push information on our Web site in 

the primary languages. I can get you the information about how 

that is divided up and into what languages. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Other than Web site, what are we doing to inform 

Pakistanis? 

Mr. HARTUNG. We do not have a program in Pakistan, sir. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Wow. 

Mr. HARTUNG. In order to——

Mr. SHERMAN. Is there a country where there are more—well, I 

guess you could also argue about Iran. But can you name many 

countries where there are more terrorists bent on killing Americans? 

Mr. HARTUNG. In order to have that program in Pakistan, we 

need the permission of the Government of Pakistan to operate 

within that country. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Have we asked—okay, have we publicized to the American people that a country getting over $1 billion in American 

aid is prohibiting us from distributing matchbooks? 

Mr. HARTUNG. I am not aware of that, sir. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Well, perhaps this hearing could illustrate that 

and could be added to the list of things we would expect to change. 

What formal action has been taken to ask the Pakistani Government, if not for their help, at least for their permission to buy advertising in local media outlets, to distribute matchbooks or whatever? Can you tell me what has been asked for? 

Mr. HARTUNG. I do not have that information. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Okay, so the first question for the record is in 

what languages do you have the Web page, which, you know, I 

know the whole world is being wired, but you are here showing us 

the matchbooks. These guys are all dead. The guys that are still 

alive are mostly in Pakistan, and you don’t do the matchbooks in 

Pakistan. So you will want to respond for the record. 

Have we hit—have we pushed the Pakistanis hard? Have they—

is it illegal for us to distribute matchbooks in Pakistan? If so, are 

we doing it in other languages? 

Speaking of matchbooks, I assume that these were in Arabic as 

well? 

Mr. HARTUNG. That is correct. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Okay. Now, it occurs to me and everyone that 

folks getting these rewards might find their country of origin to be 

a dangerous place. Does the State Department have the legal authority to provide visas as part of the reward, visas to live in the 

United States? 

35

Mr. HARTUNG. All of our rewards, the information that is advertised indicates that we are willing to relocate the person who provides us the information or family members if it is determined that 

their lives may be in danger. We have worked——

Mr. SHERMAN. But there is no guarantee that if you provide the 

information, the State Department will reach that conclusion. Let’s 

say you do determine that their lives are in danger and you find 

that no other country wants to give them refuge, do you have the 

authority to give them permanent visas to live in the United 

States? 

Mr. HARTUNG. We have actually had cases where we have 

worked with, for example, with the FBI and the Department of 

Justice where visas have been issued to the individuals who have 

provided us information. 

Mr. SHERMAN. But if we really provided the fine print on the 

Web site the way you would in a securities offering, we would have 

to asterisk and say whether or not we help you avoid death is subject to our sole determination as to whether you are in danger, and 

whether or not we can let you live in the United States, even if we 

think that is necessary for your protection, is subject to the determination of other agencies. I don’t recommend necessarily that you 

put that on the Web site, but are both those statements true? 

Mr. HARTUNG. We work—the examples I gave are other agencies 

that we have worked with that we have issued for those individuals to come to the United States. 

Mr. SHERMAN. But, first, if the person feels they are going to get 

killed and you don’t agree with them, they are not getting a visa, 

even if they are getting the reward; and even if you think they are 

going to get killed, if you can’t persuade other agencies to give 

them a visa, they are not getting a visa. 

Mr. HARTUNG. No, the visa would be issued by the Department 

of State. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Okay. So you work with those other agencies——

Mr. HARTUNG. We do work with them. 

Mr. SHERMAN. But you have the final determination; if somebody 

convinces State that they are going to get killed, you have the authority to do that? 

Mr. HARTUNG. We have our Intergovernment Rewards Committee that is made up of various U.S. Government agencies, law 

enforcement, intelligence, military, DoD, and that information is 

discussed, and that determination is made. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Please get back to me soon on Pakistan, how hard 

have we pushed? What is the official slam the door, not just to cooperation, but even to allowing us? I mean, I can buy an ad in a 

Pakistani newspaper selling a motorcycle, but apparently, you can’t 

buy one selling a reward. And so let’s see, what have we asked for? 

What has been the response? How hard have we pushed? And what 

languages are we doing this Web site in, although if it is just a 

Web site, it is pretty much a secondary question? I yield back. I 

thank the chairman for the additional time. 

Mr. ROYCE. We appreciate that. 

If we go to the Basic Authorities Act, Section 36, paragraph 

(e)(5), the sense of it, as written, is if the Secretary determines that 

the identity of the recipient of the reward or members of the recipiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:16 Apr 26, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\WORK\TNT\030712\73278 HFA PsN: SHIRL
36

ent’s immediate family must be protected, the Secretary may take 

such measures in connection with the payment of the reward as 

the Secretary considers necessary to effect such protection. But it 

is my understanding that in the past, there are a number of cases 

where that, in fact, has taken place, but as we work out the final 

language, if there is any additional thoughts on that, we would be 

happy to work with the department. 

Let’s go to Mr. Connolly for his questions. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Hartung or Ambassador Rapp—and welcome to all three of 

you—were any of these programs used in the identification of the 

location of Osama bin Laden? 

Mr. HARTUNG. The Rewards for Justice was not. I mean, we advertised through Rewards for Justice, but we did not pay a reward 

for information concerning Osama bin Laden. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Ambassador? You have no additional information? 

Ambassador RAPP. Nothing, no further information. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Ms. Darby, with respect to the program under 

your purview, obviously, we are growing increasingly anxious about 

what is happening in northern Mexico, the southern part of our 

border, with respect to narcotics traffickers and uncontained violence, violence against public officials, law enforcement officials 

with impunity. Has your program been used in a situation in 

northern Mexico, and if so, how so? 

Ms. DARBY. Without getting into too much information on specific 

cases, I can tell you we certainly have used rewards. We have paid 

rewards and promoted, publicized rewards that have resulted in 

the bringing to justice of Mexican drug traffickers, for example 

Javier Arellano Felix, head of one of the most violent criminal drug 

trafficking organizations in Mexico, was the subject of one of our 

rewards and was brought to justice. So, yes, absolutely, sir. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And presumably, we are coordinating with the 

Mexican Government in the utilization of this program, among 

other levels of cooperation. 

Ms. DARBY. I don’t know the specifics of that, sir. I imagine that 

is the case, but we will get back to you with more detailed information on that. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I would appreciate that. Because it seems to me 

if one were just looking at the situation and one was aware of your 

program, this rewards program, one would think it could be a very 

useful tool in the kit bag. So I think we would like to know a lot 

more about, well, how, without in any way jeopardizing ongoing activities, but in general is it, in fact, effectively being deployed and, 

candidly, could it be expanded, because I think there would be, 

again, a fair amount of receptivity up here to doing just that given 

what is happening on our southern border? Ambassador Rapp, you talked about a range of between $5 mil- lion and $25 million depending on certain circumstances in your 

testimony. 

Ambassador RAPP. What I said is our rewards have basically 

been between—the ones that I have dealt with in the last 2 years, 

the 14, we have made an evaluation basically looking at $5 million 

as the maximum, and we have—and these have involved like 12 

37

different fugitives, 14 rewards paid. We made an evaluation in 

terms of the level of the person that was being brought in, the risk, 

et cetera, and made the award accordingly. And, as I said, as we 

publicized the program and as it has been discussed at some 

length, we have viewed it as a $5-million program. We understand 

that we could have the capacity in the truly extraordinary case to 

go to $25 million. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Okay. And you have sort of answered my question, which is, how does one decide the range? You look at seriousness of the target and risk involved and so forth? 

Ambassador RAPP. You know, it is an—I mean, to some extent, 

some of the ones that we have had most recently have involved relatively lower level Rwandan individuals, certainly alleged to be responsible for very, very serious crimes, and then, you know, if we 

were—right now, for instance, there are three high-value fugitives 

of the Rwandan tribunal, the former head of the presidential 

guard, Protais Mpiranya, Felicien Kabuga, who was the head of 

hate radio, the chairman of it and the alleged financier of the genocide, the former minister of defense. If those individuals are 

brought in, they would be potentially higher value because of the 

crimes for which they are alleged and the level of responsibility 

they had. And then we would look at how much risk the individual 

took, what kind of risk they have, what kind of things they did in 

terms of it. There are seven factors under our analysis as we come 

up with a number. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Very helpful. Perhaps you could give us those 

seven factors for the record. 

In the very brief period of time I have left, I wonder if you could 

just—let’s say I am in the bush with Joe Kony and I somehow hear 

about this program and I want to do the right thing, and I want 

to help bring Joe Kony to justice. I am a member of the LRA, and 

I am far away from the capital city perhaps and modern communications. Can you walk me through, what would such an individual have to do? What would be the process whereby that person 

might try to participate in the program and help us in our mutual 

goals? 

Ambassador RAPP. Well, obviously, to the extent you have people 

that are truly being compelled against their will as slaves and they 

have no access outside, indeed, it could be difficult. But people do 

periodically escape from Joseph Kony’s control, that is one of the 

ways that we obtain some intelligence now. Now you have got another reason to get away when you hear about this and to reach 

places where you could make a phone contact with the sort of information that we would then provide to you, the sort of contact information that we provided in the case of the Yugoslavian and Rwandan tribunals, numbers you could call, that kind of thing. People 

do have access to cell phones even in some very remote areas of 

Africa. So there are ways to do that. And that information could 

be certainly then acted upon much more quickly because of this operation in which we are providing advisers in cooperation with the 

governments out there and helping with intelligence and logistics 

in order to be able to operate on that quickly and potentially get 

an arrest. 

38

Of course, our program is focused on arrests and transfer and 

eventual conviction, this we will pay if Mr. Kony or the other two 

commanders that are alive and that are also indicted are brought 

to justice, and then we will evaluate what it is worth. First, of 

course, I should note that if we do get the expansion that is proposed here, we will be making a determination about these other 

courts. In the past, we have just said anybody indicted by the 

Yugoslavia tribunal, Rwandan tribunal, we will pay a reward of 

some kind or another. If we get this authority, obviously, we are 

going to have to deal with whether we want to pay it in all ICC 

cases, in some ICC cases, whether the Bosnia war crimes court has 

some fugitives there that is a mixed chamber that we can pay in. 

We will make that determination in the committee. Then we will 

publicize it. Then we will provide the access in ways that people 

can use it. And then if we get success, we will pay it. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. If the chair would allow one follow-up question, 

and hopefully it is a relatively brief answer, but how does it work 

operationally vis-a`-vis the State Department here and the folks on 

the ground in Embassies and consulates abroad? Are they actively 

promoting this program, and do they make material available in 

whatever the local language may be, or do they leave that up to 

sort of headquarters? 

Ambassador RAPP. Well, I mean, we are involved with developing 

the materials and have contracts and work with people that can 

advise us on the most effective ways to do that, but I do want to 

salute Mr. Hartung’s agency, the Diplomatic Security Bureau. We 

work very closely in all of our Embassies with the regional security 

officers, and those people are, frankly, in half a dozen Embassies 

regularly receiving information in our Rwanda program and evaluating and following it up and really then providing the real legwork 

in making this program work. 

So it is in Washington, but it is out in the field, and then whenever I am in an area where there may be fugitives, we are doing 

everything we can to show the posters, to interview about it, to talk 

about the fact that this is a real program and people are being 

paid. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you so much. 

And Mr. Chairman, thank you for your indulgence, a very interesting topic, and I look forward to working with you on it. 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Connolly. 

Ambassador, if we went back to the circumstances that we are 

talking about right now with respect to Joseph Kony, you have a 

situation where he has been indicted, where we have now passed 

legislation creating the wherewithal to bring him to justice, where 

we have passed legislation on disarmament, demobilization, reintegration. And one of the aspects of this that is interesting is the 

fact that there are increasingly ever larger numbers of defections. 

Now, if we turn back the clock to when he started as a war lord, 

there are a total of 65,000 children that he has abducted, but it is 

the use of technologies like mutilation that make him so feared, 

that create an environment in which people are fearful of coming 

forward. So if we create an incentive for people and if they know 

as part of this legislation that they and their immediate families 

will be protected, if they also know that these defections are on the 

39

increase so that they are not alone, they can see the fact that the 

day will come when Kony and the other senior commanders are 

brought to the bar of justice, then there is more than one reason 

why this program could be effective. I thought you might speak to 

the thoughts of the State Department in this and also the Department of Defense, which right now are working directly, under the 

legislation that we passed out of this committee, working directly 

with the Ugandan forces in order to retire this Lord’s Resistance 

Army from the field and tell us why they are enthusiastic about 

these changes in the legislation which we seek to make with this 

bill. 

Ambassador RAPP. Well, I think you are quite correct, Mr. Chairman, that there are a lot of defections, there is a public campaign 

going on encouraging people to leave Kony. This would add, I 

think, a critical element in that because at the moment, if people 

defect, they are interested in their own situation. Obviously, they 

want to take advantage of perhaps going back to Uganda and perhaps not—having amnesty under the Ugandan law. They are looking out for their own interests after the horrible experience they 

have been through. This would add an element there where there 

would be a great incentive for them to provide information on 

where Kony was, what his favorite spots are, where he is likely to 

move, and to—and by doing that, if that leads to his arrest, give 

themselves the opportunity for substantial reward that can truly 

change the life of themselves and their family, and indeed as we 

note, I mean, if people are going to be at risk, we can work to relocate them, and we have worked in a variety of ways, sometimes not 

relocation to our country, but to other places with the other reward 

programs that we have, and so we would—this would, I think, provide a real incentive to gather that information, to bring something 

useful in, and then for us to operate on it. And I think, as you note, 

AFRICOM, which is working on this in support of this military adviser mission in which we are partnering with regional forces, is 

extremely supportive of this legislation. And I think it could help 

make this operation a success. 

And in the case of Kony—I mean, there are other movements, 

where you may take out two or three people, and then somebody 

else pops up. I really do think if you take out Kony and these key 

commanders, that is the end of the LRA. This is a critical thing 

that we need to do. 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Ambassador. 

Ms. Darby, did you want to make any remarks on that subject? 

Ms. DARBY. I would just say that the U.S. Law enforcement community is very excited about the prospect of having this tool. They 

have seen how effective the Narcotics Rewards Program, in particular, has been in helping them to capture criminals, bring them 

to justice, and they are very excited about the opportunity that is 

presented in your legislation. 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you. I think this is an issue we can solve if 

we persevere on it. 

I want to thank our witnesses for appearing here today. 

I want also to mention, without objection, that members may 

have 5 legislative days to submit their statements and questions, 

40

and if you don’t mind responding to any additional questions, that 

would be appreciated. So this hearing now stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:11 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(41)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

42

f


73278n.eps
43


73278m-1.eps
44

Æ


73278m-2.eps