Datasets:

gtfintechlab
/

CoCoHD_transcripts

	<html>
	<title> - DEPARTMENT OF STATE BUDGET PRIORITIES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004</title>
	<body><pre>
	[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
	[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




	DEPARTMENT OF STATE BUDGET PRIORITIES
	FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

	=======================================================================

	HEARING

	before the

	COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
	HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

	ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

	FIRST SESSION

	__________

	HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, FEBRUARY 13, 2003

	__________

	Serial No. 108-4

	__________

	Printed for the use of the Committee on the Budget


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

	U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
	WASHINGTON : 2003

	85-019 PDF

	For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
	Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
	Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001




	COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET

	JIM NUSSLE, Iowa, Chairman
	CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut, JOHN M. SPRATT, Jr., South
	Vice Chairman Carolina,
	GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota Ranking Minority Member
	MAC THORNBERRY, Texas JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
	JIM RYUN, Kansas DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon
	PAT TOOMEY, Pennsylvania TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
	DOC HASTINGS, Washington DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
	ROB PORTMAN, Ohio JOHN LEWIS, Georgia
	EDWARD SCHROCK, Virginia RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts
	HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South Carolina ROSA DeLAURO, Connecticut
	ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida CHET EDWARDS, Texas
	ADAM PUTNAM, Florida ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
	ROGER WICKER, Mississippi HAROLD FORD, Tennessee
	KENNY HULSHOF, Missouri LOIS CAPPS, California
	THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado MIKE THOMPSON, California
	DAVID VITTER, Louisiana BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
	JO BONNER, Alabama JIM COOPER, Tennessee
	TRENT FRANKS, Arizona RAHM EMANUEL, Illinois
	SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama
	GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina DENISE L. MAJETTE, Georgia
	THADDEUS McCOTTER, Michigan [Vacant]
	MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
	JEB HENSARLING, Texas
	GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida

	Professional Staff

	Rich Meade, Chief of Staff
	Thomas S. Kahn, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel


	C O N T E N T S

	Page
	Hearing held in Washington, DC, February 13, 2003................ 1
	Statement of:
	Hon. Colin L. Powell, Secretary, U.S. Department of State.... 11
	Prepared statement and additional submissions of:
	Hon. Adam H. Putnam, a Representative in Congress from the
	State of Florida........................................... 4
	Hon. Denise L. Majette, a Representative in Congress from the
	State of Georgia........................................... 5
	Hon. Rosa L. DeLauro, a Representative in Congress from the
	State of Connecticut....................................... 7
	Hon. David Vitter, a Representative in Congress from the
	State of Louisiana......................................... 9
	Hon. Roger F. Wicker, a Representative in Congress from the
	State of Mississippi....................................... 10
	Secretary Powell:
	Prepared statement....................................... 18
	Letter in response to Mr. Edwards' question regarding the
	administration's veto on the U.N. Family Planning Funds 43
	Letter in response to Mr. Emanuel's question regarding
	the United States' efforts to secure nuclear material.. 55

	DEPARTMENT OF STATE BUDGET PRIORITIES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

	----------


	THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2003

	House of Representatives,
	Committee on the Budget,
	Washington, DC.
	The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:07 a.m. in room
	210, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Jim Nussle (chairman of
	the committee) presiding.
	Members present: Representatives Nussle, Shays, Gutknecht,
	Thornberry, Hastings, Portman, Brown, Putnam, Wicker, Hulshof,
	Vitter, Bonner, Barrett, McCotter, Diaz-Balart, Hensarling,
	Brown-Waite, Spratt, Moran, Hooley, Baldwin, Moore, Lewis,
	Neal, DeLauro, Edwards, Scott, Ford, Capps, Thompson, Baird,
	Davis, Emanuel, and Majette.
	Chairman Nussle. The committee will come to order.
	This is the House Budget Committee hearing on the
	Department of State budget for fiscal year 2004.
	Before we begin, I would like to welcome Chris Shays to the
	committee. He has been appointed by the Speaker of the House to
	be the Speaker's representative on the Budget Committee. He is
	appointed as the vice chairman. We welcome Chris Shays from
	Connecticut and other members who have been appointed in the
	interim period.
	Today we are very pleased to have before us again the very
	distinguished Secretary of State, Colin Powell.
	Mr. Secretary, we look forward to hearing your testimony on
	the President's international affairs budget request for 2004.
	But before I begin I would like to thank you on behalf of all
	of us for you taking time to come to the Congress during what
	must be an amazing period of time, not only for our country,
	but for the Department of State, and we want to thank you.
	America is eternally grateful that you are where you are at
	this moment in our history, and we appreciate that.
	It goes without saying that you have a team behind you as
	well, and everyone at the Department of State is working
	overtime these days on Middle East peace, on the ongoing war on
	terrorism, the developing situation in Iraq, as well as a
	number of other functions carried out by the Department of
	State that don't make the headlines every day of the week. We
	thank you and appreciate all of the efforts of the fine people
	who work for the Department of State.
	Today we will look specifically at how the budget addresses
	the global war on terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of
	mass destruction, HIV/AIDS pandemic and other key initiatives
	of the Department of State.
	Mr. Secretary, as the global war on terrorism continues to
	unfold, the Department of State faces an increasingly complex
	task of maintaining and expanding support of the international
	coalition on the global war on terrorism and providing safe,
	secure, and functional facilities for the employees at
	diplomatic missions worldwide. Mr. Secretary, these are very
	challenging times, but there is no question that our Nation is
	being well served by the diplomatic team that the President has
	put together.
	Today we will also examine how the President's budget
	supports international assistance programs, including the
	increased economic and security assistance for our coalition
	partners and front-line states on the war against terrorism;
	expanding the Andean Counterdrug Initiative to stem the flow of
	cocaine and heroin from Colombia and its Andean neighbors;
	countering the spread of weapons of mass destruction through a
	new 10-year, $20-billion initiative and the G-8 Global
	Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction.
	The President's budget also includes the first installments
	toward an emergency plan for AIDS relief, a 5-year, $15-billion
	initiative to turn the tide in the global effort to combat HIV/
	AIDS. This initiative virtually triples the United States'
	funding to fight the international AIDS pandemic.
	Mr. Secretary, I was just in Africa 3 weeks ago, had the
	opportunity to help lead a trade delegation to the AGOA
	Conference, the African Growth and Opportunity Act Conference.
	Let me just report to you, Mr. Secretary, first of all, I
	support the President's goals and initiatives with regards to
	AIDS and HIV. I was in Namibia in South Africa, visited AIDS
	clinics. There are 8 million--8 million orphan children in
	Africa, as the Secretary knows, but for my colleagues' benefit,
	8 million children that are orphans, no parents. One-fourth in
	some countries, one-third in many, and even one-half in some
	countries of the population has HIV.
	The human toll is obvious. In some areas, the goal is
	keeping mothers alive long enough to get their kids into
	school, if you can imagine that as the only goal they think
	being reasonable. Just keeping the kids--keeping the mothers
	alive long enough to get their kids to the school door.
	One of the, I think, lost arguments in favor of this
	program that I would just like to highlight for the Secretary
	and for my colleagues is that those 8 million children will
	grow up to be 8 million young adults in the not-too-distant
	future, and it will be a recruiting ground of unbelievable
	proportions for terrorism. That is why I believe we need to
	support what the President is doing.
	I would also like to add that food is an important issue
	here as well, as the Secretary knows; and I would just like to
	report to you, Mr. Secretary, that I am shocked at the level of
	scare tactics that are being used against foods enhanced
	through biotechnology on the African continent with absolutely
	no scientific data to back it up. There are 40 colonies of
	European nations that are using the scare tactics and the non-
	tariff barrier scare tactics of the Europeans to actually
	prevent free food through nongovernment organizations from
	reaching starving people. They are dying as a result of the
	scare tactics that some in Europe are providing. It is an
	outrage, and I believe that this country should step forward.
	These are scare tactics without any scientific basis, and I
	support what the administration is doing to promote food
	getting to hungry people in the African continent. As the
	Secretary knows, the United States is first in the world--
	before this budget was introduced, we are first in the world in
	our efforts to assist with regard to AIDS, HIV/AIDS, as well as
	food assistance to the African continent.
	So I just want to support what the Secretary has put
	forward. You testified about this last year, you put your words
	into deeds, and this budget is proof of that. And we appreciate
	the support that you are providing. We obviously have to find
	ways to pay for it. We have a budget that has needs in a number
	of other areas with deficits and challenges with regard to our
	economy, but that is the job of the Budget Committee, to make
	sure that that fits.
	Mr. Secretary, we face a possible war. Terrorist strikes
	are still very possible. We face challenges around the globe,
	as I was just talking about and you have talked about much more
	eloquently than I have with regard to Africa. With all of that
	facing us, we appreciate the time that you are spending with us
	today; and I look forward to your testimony.
	With that, I would turn to my friend and colleague, Mr.
	Moran, for any opening comments he would like to make at this
	time.
	Mr. Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Spratt will join us
	later. He is in a leadership meeting.
	Secretary Powell, you know that both sides of the aisle are
	members of your fan club, and we appreciate your leadership.
	This function in the budget is not generally the most
	politically popular, but it is a critical one, increasingly so.
	We are all united in this Nation's battle against terrorism. We
	know that we have to provide for our Nation's security
	foremost, and this budget and the activity that it supports are
	fundamental in that effort. Support for the international
	affairs budget starts right here in this committee, and you can
	be assured you will have our support in providing whatever is
	necessary to meet our Nation's goals.
	For appropriated international affairs programs, your
	request is about $29 billion, about $3 billion more than the
	administration's request for last year. I wish I could say more
	than was actually appropriated last year, but we don't have an
	appropriations bill. In fact, it is going to come to the floor
	today, the omnibus conference bill. You might tell us how you
	feel about that, if there are any particular problems in the
	State Department area. But it is an 11-percent increase over
	last year's request.
	We want to make sure two things, one, that the resources
	are adequate to support this Nation's foreign policy goals; and
	second, does it adequately represent the anticipated costs of
	our policies. I think many of us are concerned that it may not
	adequately reflect costs that we know are going to be incurred.
	For example, the budget doesn't include the humanitarian and
	reconstruction costs that would arise from a war with Iraq. So
	we are interested to know what your estimates are that--the
	cost that might be incurred, how long those costs might be
	expected to last, and what percentage of those costs is the
	United States likely to have to bear.
	Additionally, we know that there are discussions going on
	with a number of our allies about the possibility of additional
	foreign assistance in connection with the possible war with
	Iraq. Press reports--and it is not just press reports. Many of
	us have had meetings with people from Jordan, Turkey, and
	Israel. That seems absolutely clear that this budget does not
	reflect any additional assistance for that purpose.
	For example, the funding for Israel in the key accounts of
	foreign military financing and the economic support fund simply
	reflects the glide path that was established back in 1998,
	almost 5 years ago. For Jordan, the request includes no
	increase in the economic support fund relative to the 2003
	request and only an $8-million increase in foreign military
	financing. For Turkey, there is $50 million in foreign military
	financing and $200 million for the economic support fund, but
	we know, you know, we know, that there is going to be a much
	larger assistance package for Turkey. So we would like to know
	how much of that is anticipated in this budget, whether it be
	in a 2003 supplemental or in 2004.
	We had a defense appropriations meeting with Secretary
	Rumsfeld yesterday, and the thing that was most noticeable by
	its absence in his testimony was any money for Iraq. There is
	nothing in the defense budget for Iraq, and yet we hear reports
	that we are going to go to war within weeks, not months. We
	need to be prepared to know and particularly this budget
	committee needs to get some sense of what it is going to be
	required to provide in the way of financial resources.
	Now there are any number of other questions that I, and I
	know my colleagues on both sides of the aisle want to ask you,
	so at this point we ought to get into the testimony, but we
	would appreciate ensuring that this is as complete and candid
	an assessment of what resources Function 150 may need now and
	in the near future.
	Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
	Chairman Nussle. All members at this point in the record
	will have the opportunity to put in a statement.
	[The information referred to follows:]

	Prepared Statement Hon. Adam H. Putnam, a Representative in Congress
	From the State of Florida

	Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that we have convened today to receive
	the fiscal year 2004 budget priorities for the U.S. Department of State
	from Secretary Colin Powell. I am humbled and honored to be here with
	you, Ranking Member Spratt, and the rest of the committee, to exchange
	views on the State Department budget for the coming year. Thank you,
	Secretary Powell, for appearing today to discuss the needs of your
	Department in this era when it occupies the front lines in the war on
	terrorism. I want to commend you on your work and the work of all those
	at the Department that is so crucial in protecting American citizens
	from future acts of terrorism.
	The September 11 attacks shook this Nation's innocence about
	foreign threats, and your efforts have translated this renewed
	awareness into more resources for diplomacy. The painstaking work of
	foreign policy and the indispensable role that diplomacy plays in our
	strategic effort to win the war on terrorism unfortunately is still
	lacking from the general American awareness.
	Mr. Secretary, even as we convene here to discuss numbers and
	dollars, there is not a person in this room who is not aware that you
	are on the eve of a crucial deadline at the United Nations. While we
	discuss Iraq, North Korea, and the war against terrorism, I urge all of
	us to keep in mind the connection between the immediate crises and the
	broader question of our foreign policy capabilities. The ability of our
	military to defeat Iraq is without question. My concerns are related to
	our diplomatic position and our reputation with the world at large.
	Can we limit anti-American reactions to war in the Arab world? Can
	we secure allied participation in the work of reconstructing Iraq after
	a war? Successful answers to these questions depend largely on the
	diplomatic work done by your Department. They depend upon the work
	funded by the very budget that we discuss today.
	Mr. Secretary, we will do all that is necessary to win the war on
	terrorism. Our soldiers around the world are fighting--bravely,
	selflessly, and successfully. However, to continue to win the war
	against terrorism, the United States must use its economic and
	diplomatic capabilities to the same extent as its military
	capabilities.
	The investments made in recruiting, embassy security, foreign
	assistance, and other tools of foreign policy are very important. If we
	can commit greater resources, prevent the bombing of our embassies,
	secure peacekeeping efforts, and improve detection of terrorists
	seeking visas, then we are on the right track. Simultaneously, we need
	to ensure that weapons of mass destruction are not transferred to
	terrorists from nation-states, and that we continue to reinvigorate the
	world's commitment to freedom.
	We will win this war when the people of every nation unite and
	rally against the darkness of terrorism. When the terrorists' message
	of hate and intolerance no longer strikes a responsive chord in the
	world and states that harbor emerging threats no longer exist, we will
	have victory. Military force, no matter how well conceived and
	dedicated, cannot succeed alone. Military strength coupled with a
	strong and effective foreign policy will win this war on terrorism.
	Finally, Mr. Secretary, on a side note, I must express my utter
	disgust with the manner in which our European allies have treated their
	former African colonies with regard to food aid. The pressure they have
	exerted to prevent American food from reaching starving children
	because of a baseless concern over biotechnology is sinful. Words
	cannot adequately express my anger over this matter.
	Mr. Secretary, I look forward to your testimony and I am sure you
	will provide all of us with a clear picture of the State Department's
	will, capacity, and resources necessary to win the war on terrorism and
	advance the cause of freedom.

	Prepared Statement and Questions for the Record Offered by Hon. Denise
	L. Majette, a Representative in Congress From the State of Georgia

	Mr. Secretary, I would like to personally thank you for taking the
	time out of your schedule to come before this committee, particularly
	given the current state of foreign affairs. I applaud your current
	service and history of service to our Nation--and I do have my
	passport.
	Let me say for the record that I believe our foreign policy must
	have two components. First, there is a moral component. As the world's
	most prosperous and powerful nation, we have a moral obligation to use
	that wealth and power to promote high ideals. We must champion human
	rights, democracy and economic and social freedom. All those things
	that have made America great.
	Unfortunately, our record in this area is mixed. On the one hand, I
	am pleased to note that we are the world's leading provider of
	development assistance and the leading aggregate contributor to
	international institutions such as the U.N. and the International
	Atomic Energy Agency. We have done the hardest work in establishing
	peace around the world, often at the cost of American lives. Yet we
	have also failed to champion democracy and human rights at times when
	we should have. This is perhaps because of the second component of our
	foreign policy.
	The second component to our foreign policy is the national interest
	component. We most promote our national and economic security to
	preserve our way of life. The moral and national interest components to
	our foreign policy often conflict, or at least there is sometimes
	tension between the two. We see this most clearly in our relations with
	states like China or Saudi Arabia. The natural tension between these
	elements of our foreign policy has hurt us in our relations around the
	world. The promotion of our national interest over our moral
	obligations might explain why many in the Moslem world have failed to
	appreciate that American soldiers have shed blood in the defense of
	Moslems in places like Kosovo or Somalia. It might also explain why
	some of our traditional allies like France and Germany have forgotten
	that Americans died so that they could be free. It certainly must
	explain why the Pew Research Center reports that global criticism of
	the United States is on the rise.
	Mr. Secretary, I am convinced that there is a way we can balance
	the moral and national interest components of our foreign policy in a
	way that will reaffirm our status as the world's beacon of democracy.
	Yet I am concerned that we may not be doing enough in the budget you
	have presented today to achieve this balance.
	iraq
	Question--This Nation is preparing to spend billions in an effort
	to bring about regime change in Iraq, but is it also prepared to spend
	the billions necessary to restore Iraq in its aftermath?
	Answer--The United States is committed to assist the Iraqi people
	in the reconstruction and development of their nation once Saddam
	Hussein is no longer in power. Iraq's liberation would be the
	beginning, not the end of our commitment to its people. We will supply
	humanitarian relief, bring economic sanctions to a swift close, and
	work for the long-term recovery of Iraq's economy. The United States
	will ensure that Iraq's natural resources are used for the benefit of
	their owners, the Iraqi people.
	A fundamental advantage that Iraq has is its natural resources that
	are capable of providing a significant revenue stream to assist the
	Iraqi people in financing the reconstruction of their country. Once the
	situation stabilizes, Iraq should be able to restore revenues from oil
	sales.
	Prior to the liberation of Iraq, it is very difficult to estimate
	what the cost of reconstruction will be and how much the United States
	will be asked to contribute. Though the coalition military campaign is
	designed to minimize the impact on Iraqi civilians and the country's
	economic infrastructure, we cannot predict what Saddam Hussein will do
	to his own people or national resources. He has proven before that he
	has no regard for the welfare or wellbeing of the Iraqi people.
	The United States is committed to sharing costs with a broad
	coalition of partners and much work has been done to lay the
	foundations necessary to move quickly. The Department will quickly seek
	new Security Council Resolutions to encourage broad participation in
	the process of helping the liberated Iraqi people build a free and
	prosperous Iraq.
	We will continue to consult fully with the Congress as further
	information develops in the coming months.
	millennium challenge account
	Question--More importantly, is it possible to spend more on aid or
	on programs like the Millennium Challenge Account in a fiscally
	responsible manner to prevent the types of problems in other regions of
	the world that we see in Iraq and North Korea today? Is it not cheaper
	to prevent war than to wage war?
	Answer--Economic assistance programs will always be an important
	part of our country's multifaceted defense strategy. Unfortunately,
	there are some situations, and I believe that Iraq and North Korea are
	examples, where problems cannot be solved through economic means,
	including assistance. Diplomacy is America's preferred means to ensure
	peace and advance our foreign policy objectives. However, even
	exhaustive diplomatic efforts cannot always resolve problems and we
	must resort to other means to defend ourselves and protect our
	interests. Our Armed Forces are an instrument of national power, but
	they must be the last resort when nations disagree.
	However, in many cases economic assistance has been a very
	effective tool, and we will continue to use it appropriately throughout
	the world.
	For example, the Freedom Support Act has been a significant factor
	in promoting stability in the Former Soviet Union. We expect to see
	similar success in the Near East as we implement the Middle East
	partnership initiative. We have requested $145 million for the
	Partnership Initiative in fiscal year 2004. This money will be used to
	help develop democracies and pluralism, promote educational reform
	opportunity, and encourage economic reform and liberalization. While we
	cannot realistically expect this initiative to prevent every problem in
	the region, we do expect it to be a significant force for peace and
	stability in the Middle East.
	future threats
	Question--What is the potential Iraq of tomorrow, and what are we
	doing today to address that potential problem?
	Answer--The President has said, ``The gravest danger to freedom
	lies at the crossroads of radicalism and technology'' (West Point, June
	1, 2001). The states that are most likely to threaten us in the future
	are the rogue states described in the President's National Security
	Strategy. He identified these as states that brutalize their own
	people, disregard international law, threaten their neighbors, violate
	treaties, are determined to acquire weapons of mass destruction,
	sponsor terrorism, and reject basic human values and reject the values
	which form the foundation for this Nation. Confronting the threat of
	rogue states is a top priority for this administration. Each situation
	is unique, and we must work carefully to find the course of action in
	each instance that will promote peace and stability and prevent these
	states from threatening our security.
	In addition, there is an increasing threat from terrorist groups
	that operate independently of any state. We are working hard on the
	diplomatic, intelligence, law enforcement, economic and military fronts
	to deter, disrupt and defeat these terrorist groups. For example, the
	U.N. 1267 Sanctions Committee has now included over 325 names on its
	list of individuals and entities whose assets U.N. member states are
	obligated to freeze because of links to al Qaida and the Taliban. We
	and our allies have frozen their assets and we continue to work
	together to halt their operations. This is one of the many ways in
	which the international community, led by the United States, has acted
	to stop terrorists and those who support them.

	Questions for the Record Offered by Hon. Rosa DeLauro, a Representative
	in Congress From the State of Connecticut

	united states' relationship with its allies
	Question--We are currently facing a serious rift with our
	transatlantic alliance that may or may not be reparable. In view of
	this, and perhaps prematurely assuming that nations such as France,
	Germany, and Russia do not join the fight against Saddam Hussein, how
	do you think the apparent schism with our allies will impact our
	efforts in the aftermath of the war in Iraq?
	Answer--While we are seriously concerned by differences between the
	United States and some European countries on the best way to achieve
	our agreed goal of Iraqi disarmament, it is important to point out that
	a much greater number of European countries support the U.S. position
	than oppose it. In addition, there are many areas in which the U.S.-
	European relationship is as strong as ever. These areas include the
	campaign against global terrorism, promotion of free trade and market
	economies, and support for democracy and human rights. Our economic
	relationship with Europe amounts to about $2 trillion in trade and
	investment. We work closely with our European friends and allies,
	including France, Germany, and Russia, on efforts to promote regional
	stability in the Balkans, the Caucasus, Afghanistan, and the Middle
	East through the quartet.
	The disagreement over Iraq is serious, but we have had
	disagreements with our European friends before, and we have
	consistently overcome these hurdles and moved on to continued
	cooperation.
	As far as a potential conflict with Iraq is concerned, beyond the
	very significant British contribution, a number of countries across
	Europe and Eurasia have pledged forces and specialized units to the
	coalition. We are talking privately with many European governments
	about possible coalition action. In a number of cases, acting on a
	bilateral basis, we requested and obtained base access and overflight
	and transit clearances. In fact, the French Foreign Ministry said that
	they would consider assistance in the event of an Iraqi chemical or
	biological attack. We also will look to our allies and friends in
	Europe for post-conflict support, including humanitarian assistance,
	and reconstruction. As in Afghanistan, we expect that the post-conflict
	phase in Iraq will be a cooperative effort. Fourteen members of NATO
	have deployed forces in support of Operation Enduring Freedom in
	Afghanistan, and we have worked particularly closely with the member
	states of the European Union. We are exploring with our allies the
	possibility of a greater role for NATO in the International Security
	Assistance Force (ISAF).
	In Iraq, we plan to work in close partnership with international
	institutions, including the United Nations, as well as our Allies,
	partners, and bilateral donors. If conflict occurs, we plan to seek the
	adoption of new United Nations Security Council resolutions that would
	affirm Iraq's territorial integrity, ensure rapid delivery of
	humanitarian relief, and endorse an appropriate post-conflict
	administration for Iraq. We are also proposing that the Secretary
	General be given authority, on an interim basis, to ensure that the
	humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people continue to be met through the
	Oil for Food Program.
	iraq
	Question--Who is going to be there to help us shoulder the costs of
	rebuilding Iraq? Further, how will the corrosion of our relations with
	nations that have been our partners for the past 50 years, affect our
	global war on terrorism and future foreign policy decisions connected
	to our national security? What are the estimates of the cost of
	rebuilding Iraq, particularly if the United States has no support from
	the allies.
	Answer--The United States is committed to assist the Iraqi people
	in the reconstruction and development of their nation once Saddam
	Hussein is no longer in power. Iraq's liberation would be the
	beginning, not the end of our commitment to its people. We will supply
	humanitarian relief, bring economic sanctions to a swift close, and
	work for the long-term recovery of Iraq's economy. The United States
	will ensure that Iraq's natural resources are used for the benefit of
	their owners, the Iraqi people.
	A fundamental advantage that Iraq has is its natural resources that
	are capable of providing a significant revenue stream to assist the
	Iraqi people in financing the reconstruction of their country. Once the
	situation stabilizes, Iraq should be able to restore revenues from oil
	sales.
	Prior to the liberation of Iraq, it is very difficult to estimate
	what the cost of reconstruction will be and how much the United States
	will be asked to contribute. Though the coalition military campaign is
	designed to minimize the impact on Iraqi civilians and the country's
	economic infrastructure, we cannot predict what Saddam Hussein will do
	to his own people or national resources. He has proven before that he
	has no regard for the welfare or wellbeing of the Iraqi people.
	The United States is committed to sharing costs with a broad
	coalition of partners and much work has been done to lay the
	foundations necessary to move quickly. The Department will quickly seek
	new Security Council resolutions to encourage broad participation in
	the process of helping the liberated Iraqi people build a free and
	prosperous Iraq.
	We will continue to consult fully with the Congress as further
	information develops in the coming months.
	north korea
	Question--I am deeply concerned about the threat posed by North
	Korea, and I have trouble understanding how the administration is
	handling this crisis. If it is true, as CIA Director George Tenet said
	yesterday, that North Korea may have one or two nuclear weapons capable
	of reaching U.S. targets on the west coast, why are we dealing with
	this seemingly imminent threat with such tentative resolve? How do you
	justify our forceful case for war with Iraq, which most experts believe
	does not currently possess nuclear weapons, and our more passive
	approach and possible minimization of the threat that North Korea poses
	to our national security?
	Answer--North Korea and Iraq represent aspects of the extremely
	serious problem the President identified in last year's State of the
	Union Address: the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and
	their delivery systems to states with a history of support for
	aggression and terrorism; there is however, no ``one-size-fits-all''
	solution to the problem.
	We are not underestimating the danger inherent in a nuclear-armed
	North Korea. After discovering that North Korea was covertly pursuing
	nuclear arms through uranium enrichment technology, we faced the issue
	head on. We informed the North Koreans in October 2002 that we were
	aware of their secret program, and that it must be verifiably ended if
	North Korea wished to enjoy the benefits that accrue to responsible
	members of the international community. Instead, North Korea lifted the
	freeze on its nuclear facilities at Yongbon, which use reprocessing
	technology to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons.
	Given North Korea's violations of existing agreements against
	nuclear arms programs, a new approach is needed that deals with the
	nuclear question on the Korean Peninsula once and for all. The solution
	must come with a consensus of those most directly affected by this kind
	of North Korean activity, incluidng the South Koreans, the Japanese,
	the Chinese, and the Russians. For that reason, we are actively
	pursuing a multilateral diplomatic end to the North Korean nuclear
	program, one that is verifiable and irreversible.
	While Iraq has defied the international community for 12 years, we
	are only at the beginning of a diplomatic process to end North Korea's
	nuclear program since learning of its violation last year of existing
	agreements. We are giving diplomacy the opportunity to work, and have
	good reasons to believe that it will.
	hiv/aids
	Question--I was very glad to hear the President's announcement of a
	new global AIDS Initiative. The United Nations Joint Program on HIV/
	AIDS (UNAIDS) estimates that last year 2.4 million Africans died of
	AIDS-related illnesses, while 29.4 million continue to live with the
	disease. Heavily affected countries in sub-Saharan Africa are
	struggling to provide care and treatment for over a third of their
	populations. In the Caribbean, an estimated 440,000 people are infected
	with HIV/AIDS, a number that is continuing to climb. I have several
	questions regarding the President's announcement of this $15 billion
	``new'' initiative:
	<bullet> How much of this is actually new money?
	<bullet> How is this money going to be spent? I know the funding
	will come through the State Department, which will have a coordinator
	who will coordinate funding with other agencies. How much will go
	through other agencies and how much will go through State?
	<bullet> I understand that in 2003 the United States is going to
	contribute about $250 million to the Global Fund. Will this be enough
	to meet the needs of the Global Fund? Didn't the Fund request $2.1
	billion from the United States?
	<bullet> The President's proposal covers 12 countries in Africa
	and 2 in the Caribbean. Are you providing any funding for countries
	like China, Russia and India, which have burgeoning epidemics, so that
	we can take action before the problem explodes as it has in Africa?
	Answer--The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, announced
	by the President in his State of the Union Address, is a $15 billion,
	5-year plan to prevent 7 million new infections, treat 2 million HIV-
	infected people with anti-retroviral medications, and care for 10
	million HIV-infected individuals and AIDS orphans. Of the $15 billion,
	$10 billion are new, additional resources.
	Regarding the role of the coordinator in disbursing funds, we
	envision that once funds are appropriated, the coordinator will be in a
	position to decide quickly how the resources will be allocated. The
	U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the U.S.
	Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will continue to play
	their key roles in helping confront this pandemic.
	The administration remains strongly committed to the Global Fund.
	The 5-year, $1-billion pledge that is part of the President's emergency
	plan is the most sustained to date and sends the strong message that
	our commitment to the Fund is not short-lived. The United States'
	contributions to the Fund thus far, even without the fiscal year 2003
	appropriation, represents roughly a third of all money the Fund has on
	hand. Pledges by the United States represent 50 percent of all
	commitments made to date. The United States is the only country to have
	made three pledges thus far and only two other countries (Germany and
	Ireland) have even made a second pledge. The United States has shown
	its commitment; it is now for others to follow suit, especially in
	Europe, and we are actively encouraging others to do so. The election
	of Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson as chair of the
	Fund's board is further proof that support for the Fund comes from the
	highest levels of the administration. The Fund has made no request to
	the United States to contribute $2.1 billion.
	The situation in Africa and the Caribbean is so severe that it
	qualifies as a crisis and requires special attention, which is the
	purpose of the Emergency Plan. The countries included in the plan
	represent 50 percent of the HIV/AIDS burden in the world.
	At the same time, Russia, China, and India are of concern and we
	will continue our normal bilateral efforts in those as well as in other
	countries. National leadership will be vital in ensuring that the
	problem does not explode; outside assistance does not work in the
	absence of leadership from within.

	Question for the Record Offered by Hon. David Vitter, a Representative
	in Congress From the State of Louisiana

	u.n. conference on disarmament
	Question--Is there anything in the administration's budget request
	that addresses the need for real, fundamental reforms at the United
	Nations?
	Answer--The administration's budget request includes funds for
	payment of our assessed contributions to the U.N., some of which are
	channeled to the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), which
	conducts and supervises objective audits, inspections, and
	investigations of U.N. programs and operations. We consider the
	successful implementation of OIOS as the greatest single U.N. reform of
	the past decade, and continue to press for sufficient resources for it
	to accomplish its important work. OIOS's efforts have resulted in
	significant progress in creating a culture aimed at accountability,
	efficiency, and effectiveness--making the U.N. a much stronger
	organization. Implementation of OIOS's recommendations has saved the
	U.N. and member states millions of dollars.
	Although much has already been accomplished in reforming the U.N.;
	more needs to be done. With our encouragement, the Secretary General
	(SYG) has committed to implementing better evaluations of programs,
	which will require staff to be more accountable for their work (with an
	eye to shrinking or eliminating some programs that have outlived their
	usefulness, in order to fund more important programs); establishing a
	more efficient budget process; and instituting management improvements
	in several key departments/offices. We will continue to press the SYG
	to implement these and a number of reforms that he announced last fall
	including a major review of the Department of Public Information (which
	the State Department has long considered bloated and inefficient), as
	well as other efforts to improve the flow of information and save money
	(e.g., by consolidating some offices).
	We also plan to expand our efforts to place more Americans in the
	U.N. system, which we believe is not only a matter of our fair share
	relative to our financial contributions to the U.N., but something
	which will increase its efficacy.

	Question for the Record Offered by Roger F. Wicker, a Representative in
	Congress From the State of Mississippi

	the goals of the war on terrorism
	Question--The events of September 11 have committed our Nation to
	fighting an enemy unlike any we have ever faced. This loose network of
	radical Islamic terrorists does not restrict its recruitment to the
	slums of the Middle East; its presence is alive throughout Europe,
	Southeast Asia, and even here in the United States.
	What are our goals in this conflict and with no real lines of
	demarcation, when will we know if we have achieved those goals?
	Answer--The goals of the war on terrorism are first, defeat
	terrorist organizations; second, deny sponsorship, support, and
	sanctuary to terrorists; third, diminish the underlying conditions that
	terrorists seek to exploit; and fourth defend the United States, our
	citizens, and our interests from terrorist attacks. No hard and fast
	timeline can be placed on this campaign. As the President has said on
	numerous occasions, this will be a long struggle, requiring the United
	States and its partners to bring all the tools of government to bear
	consistently over time to be successful. We will not rest until all
	terrorist groups that threaten our way of life have been found,
	disrupted, and defeated.
	the commitment on the war on terrorism
	Background--The tools for the war on terror will not be limited to
	military armaments. We will have to continue to make significant
	commitments in humanitarian aid and foreign assistance. This year the
	President's budget commits more than $25.6 billion or approximately .2
	percent of the gross domestic product to international affairs.
	Question--Does this amount show a sufficient commitment to
	achieving our objectives in the war on terrorism and if not what
	percentage will be necessary to achieve our desired goals?
	Answer--The President's budget request for fiscal year 2004
	reflects my Department's needs for the year. Fighting terrorism,
	however, is a fluid challenge. If other needs develop, the
	administration will work with Congress to ensure that the United States
	has the tools it needs to counter the threat of terrorism effectively.
	nuclear proliferation
	Question--The instability of the world has increased the risk and,
	by that, the possible consequences of nuclear proliferation. Could you
	comment on our country's efforts to reduce the risk of nuclear
	proliferation and do you believe that we have made a sufficient
	commitment to reducing these threats?
	Answer--We are vigorously pursuing strong policies and programs to
	reduce the risks of nuclear proliferation. We want to reduce the
	availability of dangerous nuclear materials and know-how, as well as
	reduce the demand for them.
	On the supply side, we are focusing on the still sizable residual
	stocks of dangerous materials from the massive nuclear weapons
	establishment of the former Soviet Union. The Departments of Energy,
	Defense, and State have collaborated under the Cooperative Threat
	Reduction and other authorities, to lock down threats that arose from
	the former Soviet arsenal. This administration has accelerated funding
	for a number of projects, although there remains much more still to do,
	and we must continue boldly down this path. The United States is
	spending nearly $1 billion a year to improve security at Russian
	storage facilities, to consolidate stored fissile materials, to stop
	new production and to purchase or down-blend former nuclear weapons
	material to reduce supply. My State Department team provides the
	diplomatic lead for several threat reduction programs of the Defense
	and Energy Departments. Early this month, Energy Secretary Abraham
	signed the Plutonium Production Reactor Agreement, which will lead to
	permanent closure of Russia's three plutonium production facilities.
	Also, the State Department itself runs the International Science
	Centers in Russia and Ukraine, which employ former Soviet weapons
	scientists in peaceful, commercial projects--to reduce the temptation
	for those scientists to hire themselves out to proliferators.
	Beyond Russia and the other states of the former Soviet Union, we
	also run two important global programs. One is the Nonproliferation and
	Disarmament Fund (NDF), which tackles tough, urgent problems, such as
	the removal of highly enriched uranium from Vinca, in Serbia to safe
	storage in Russia. The NDF has also created a computer system,
	``Tracker,'' that already enables nine countries and 66 ministries to
	inventory and account for weapons-sensitive exports, and is expanding.
	Second, our Export Control and Related Border Security Assistance
	Program (EXBS) runs programs in 35 countries, aiming to help our
	partners control the flow of dangerous technologies and materials in
	the most dangerous parts of the world.
	Another important area is our partnership with the International
	Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), whose safeguards program aims to ensure
	that civilian nuclear facilities remain exactly that--civilian--and to
	enable the IAEA to ferret out covert weapons efforts. We are prepared
	to back tough safeguards with increased funding.
	We are constantly working to make the international nuclear
	nonproliferation regimes more effective. We are aggressively engaged in
	multinational efforts to strengthen export control partnerships such as
	the Nuclear Suppliers Group and the Zangger Committee. But that is not
	enough. We also are pressing the importance of other governments
	protecting their security interests as well as ours by exercising
	greater scrutiny over their exports and to use their diplomacy more
	actively to dissuade proliferators. But we have other tools as well,
	when appropriate: interdiction, sanctions and positive measures, such
	as the commitment of G-8 leaders last summer to a new Global
	Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass
	Destruction. Under the Global Partnership, the leaders pledged to raise
	$20 billion over the years for cooperation on nonproliferation,
	disarmament, nuclear safety, and counterterrorism projects, initially
	focused on Russia. We are working to encourage full implementation of
	that initiative.
	On the demand side, the bedrock of countering the nuclear threat
	remains adherence to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). The
	news has been grim from South Asia, Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, but
	most of the 188 nations inside the NPT (India and Pakistan are not
	signatories) have made irrevocable decisions to forgo the nuclear
	option. Several states have actually turned back from nuclear weapons
	programs, others have abandoned weapons inherited at the fall of the
	Soviet Union. We will stick, firmly, by the treaty, and the IAEA
	safeguards programs necessary to give confidence to it. Meanwhile, we
	are pursuing vigorous diplomacy to unite the international community to
	turn back the nuclear weapons ambitions of Iran and North Korea, even
	as we carefully monitor their actions.
	India and Pakistan are two very different countries with which we
	are pursuing boldly different relationships. Ongoing tensions between
	them make especially important their controls on sensitive
	technologies, and we are also mindful that nuclear weapons could be
	used, either intentionally or accidentally, in a crisis. We discuss
	these issues regularly with both governments, weighing our mutual
	interest in cooperation against our obligations under the NPT, U.S. law
	and our commitments to international regimes.

	Chairman Nussle. Mr. Secretary, welcome back to the Budget
	Committee. We sincerely do appreciate the time you are spending
	with us today, and you are welcome to proceed with your
	testimony.

	STATEMENT OF SECRETARY OF STATE COLIN L. POWELL

	Secretary Powell. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
	thank you for your opening remarks and you, too, Mr. Moran.
	Let me begin by telling you what a pleasure it is for me to
	be back. I am not kidding. I am glad to be here; you are the
	IG. It is my responsibility to appear before the Congress to
	tell you why we need the funds that you are going to provide to
	us and how we are going to use them, how we are going to be
	good stewards of the people's treasury, make sure we apply it
	in the right way, and that we are good managers of the funds
	that you provide us.
	Let me also express my sincere thanks for the support that
	this committee and, frankly, all Members of Congress have
	provided to the State Department over the last couple of years.
	We have seen some real improvements in the management of our
	people, in the way we are running our overseas building
	operations, what we are doing with information technology--I
	will talk about all of that in a moment--but we could not do
	any of this if we did not have the support of Congress.
	As was mentioned by Mr. Moran a minute ago, it is not
	always politically attractive to support our efforts. I am
	going to help you make it politically attractive. This function
	really does support the American people and their dreams and
	aspirations for a better, more peaceful world.
	Some of the issues that the chairman talked about with
	respect to HIV/AIDS and poverty and famine, all of which are
	interlinked, which I will get into, ultimately affect the
	American people. A stable world of people committed to
	democracy and economic freedom and our supporting those efforts
	through such programs as the Millennium Challenge Account,
	which I will also talk about, ultimately, this benefits the
	American people. We are no longer isolated.
	If I could figure out a way to get rid of the term
	``foreign aid,'' I would do it. It is probably too embedded in
	literature and history, but it isn't an accurate reflection of
	what these funds are really used for.
	What I would like to do, Mr. Chairman, is talk to the
	specific issues you mentioned in a moment. But I would like to
	offer my prepared testimony for the record and then do a
	summary of that testimony. Then we can get right into your
	questions and answers.
	Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am pleased to
	appear before you to testify in support of the President's
	international affairs budget for fiscal year 2004. Funding
	requested for 2004 for the Department of State, USAID, and
	other foreign affairs agencies is $28.5 billion.
	The President's budget will allow the United States to
	target security and economic assistance to sustain key
	countries supporting us in the war on terrorism and helping us
	to stem the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
	Funds will also allow us to launch the Millennium Challenge
	Account, a new partnership generating support to countries that
	rule justly, that invest in their people and encourage economic
	freedom.
	It will also allow us to strengthen the United States and
	our global commitment to fighting HIV/AIDS and alleviating
	humanitarian hardships.
	It will also allow us to combat illegal drugs in the Andean
	region of South America, as well as bolster democracy in one of
	that region's most important countries, Colombia. It will
	reinforce America's world-class diplomatic force, focusing on
	the people, places and tools needed to promote our foreign
	policies around the world.
	I am particularly proud of that last goal, and I am
	particularly committed to that last goal. Mr. Chairman, for the
	past 2 years I have concentrated on each of my jobs: primary
	foreign policy advisor, and chief executive officer--the boss--
	the leader of the State Department. And that last goal connects
	to my leadership responsibilities to make sure that we have a
	world-class diplomatic force.
	We are asking for $8.5 billion of the $28.5 billion overall
	request to run the Department of State. Let me give you some
	highlights of that and begin with our diplomatic readiness
	initiative, an initiative to bring more people into the
	Department. With your assistance, we will hire another 399
	professionals this year, the same number as last year; and over
	a 3-year period it will result in the addition of 1,100
	professionals, Foreign Service Officers, civil servants and
	others, to support the Department's efforts around the world.
	I cannot tell you how important this single initiative is
	to the morale of the Department, but beyond the morale of the
	Department, the esprit de corps of the Department, it allows us
	get our job done. During the 1990s, there were years when no
	one was hired into the Foreign Service. This was a disaster.
	You can't have a professional service that doesn't have blood,
	fresh blood, fresh life, coming into it.
	Even when I was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and I
	was cutting 500,000 troops out of the force structure at the
	end of the cold war, we still were bringing in second
	lieutenants and privates. Why? Because if you want a battalion
	commander in 15 years, you have to bring in a second lieutenant
	today. If you want a squad leader in 9 years, you have to hire
	a private today. Yet in the State Department, even though we
	know we are going to need ambassadors in the future, we are
	going to need political counselors in the future, we are going
	to need all of those professionals in the future, we stopped
	hiring for years.
	We turned that around. Over the last 2 years we have given
	the Foreign Service written exam to 80,000 young Americans;
	80,000 young Americans have stood up and said, I want to be a
	part of this outfit. I want to be a part of America's
	diplomatic force. I want to be part of our diplomatic offensive
	troops, out there taking our case to the world; 80,000
	youngsters have signed up to take this test. Some of them are
	not such youngsters. Some of them are kind of old geezers like
	me, but they all wanted to serve the country.
	The last time we gave the test, 38 percent who passed were
	minorities. We are drawing from all parts of America's great
	diversity so that the State Department, USAID increasingly and
	all of our other agencies increasingly look like America and,
	look like the rest of the world as well.
	Nothing would be more disastrous to my efforts than to have
	somebody say, sorry, we are going to line that item out. You
	can't hire anybody.
	Don't do that. I know you won't. This committee wouldn't
	ever think of doing such a thing, but it has been done in the
	past. Please support my Diplomatic Readiness Initiative with
	all the energy you can muster.
	It also gives me flexibility to deal with surges, problems
	that come along, and not constantly stealing from one office or
	embassy to take care of a new problem that just emerged in
	another office or embassy. It gives me some flexibility to
	train people so that I can take them out of their assignments,
	send them to school, get the qualifications they need, in an
	increasingly complex world, to get econ officers trained and
	information specialists trained and get language training. I
	need some flexibility in the force, and the Diplomatic
	Readiness Initiative does that for us.
	Second, I promised to you a couple years ago that I was
	going to make information technology available to every single
	member of the State Department. Everybody in the Department at
	every embassy, every mission, I don't care where they are, they
	are going to have an Internet-capable computer, classified/
	unclassified, on their desk, so that they can be in this fast-
	moving world that we live in.
	It was illustrated to me again last week when I spoke at
	the U.N. within minutes after my speech, Ambassador Boucher, my
	press spokesman, and the whole international information
	program part of the Department of State, was translating it--
	immediately uploading it, downloading it, backloading it,
	sending it to every embassy in the world, and in every language
	we could think of. We had brochures coming out to get the
	message out and every ambassador being instructed to go talk to
	your counterparts about what the Secretary said. It is
	instantaneously done now, and that is the way the world is.
	Looking at the papers the day after my presentation, the
	picture of me holding a little vial, for example, but the
	picture that touched me the most was the picture that was
	either in the Post or Times. It was a picture of an aircraft
	carrier ready room. One of those ready rooms from the old war
	movies. All those pilots sitting there, getting their
	instructions on their little clipboards to go out and fly their
	mission. But in this instance, in this pilot ready room--they
	looked like F-18 pilots--and they were sitting there all
	looking at a screen in front of them that was of me the day
	before making my presentation at the U.N.
	A lot of people watched this presentation with interest.
	These guys had more than a passing interest because I was
	talking about their lives, and what they might be doing in the
	near future. They were not waiting to read it in tomorrow's
	newspaper, or waiting for some brilliant talking head to tell
	them what they saw. They were watching it in real time,
	instantaneously in the Persian Gulf, aboard an aircraft carrier
	while I was saying those words. That is the nature of modern
	information technology and modern communications, and I have to
	make sure that every service person in the State Department has
	access to that kind of information technology so that they can
	do their job. It is for that reason we are making such an
	investment in modern information technology throughout the
	Department of State.
	Finally, with respect to my CEO role, I would touch on one
	other area. There are lots of things I could talk about and
	will in response to your questions, but I want to talk about
	something that the chairman talked about, and that was our
	overseas building operations. How we build our embassies and
	how we take care of our people, how we secure our facilities
	and thereby secure our people.
	Our people live and work in danger. I lost three members of
	my State Department family to terrorism last year. I have got
	to take care of our troops just like the military takes care of
	its troops with force protection. We spend $1.5 billion a year
	on our embassy programs. They are now under the control of Gen.
	Chuck Williams, an old friend of mine of many years' duration,
	who is a Corps of Engineers officer in the Army and is a master
	of modern construction techniques and knows everything that is
	going on in the civilian side of construction. We are bringing
	the best practices from the civilian world into our overseas
	building operation.
	Our new embassies are now being completed on time, and
	significantly under cost. A program that I think was in some
	disarray--and members of this committee pointed thats out to me
	when I took over--I think is now being run in a very efficient
	way, and we are looking for even better ways to make sure that
	we are spending that money properly.
	Mr. Chairman, as the principal foreign policy advisor to
	President Bush, I have budget priorities that are a little bit
	different, of course, than my CEO priorities. These have to do
	with our foreign policy issues. The 2004 budget proposes
	several initiatives in this regard that will serve to advance
	U.S. national security interests and preserve American
	leadership. The 2004 foreign ops budget that funds programs for
	State, USAID and other foreign affairs agencies is $18.8
	billion. Today, our number one priority is to fight and win the
	global war on terrorism. This budget request furthers this goal
	by providing economic, military and democracy assistance to key
	foreign partners and allies, including $4.7 billion to
	countries that have joined us in the war on terrorism.
	Of this amount, the President's budget provides $657
	million for Afghanistan, $460 million for Jordan, $395 million
	for Pakistan, $255 million for Turkey, $136 million for
	Indonesia, and $87 million for the Philippines.
	As was noted by Mr. Moran, of course there are other
	programs being looked at. There are other needs we will have
	that are not in the President's budget at the moment and will
	have to be dealt with by supplemental funding at some point in
	the future.
	In Afghanistan, the funding will be used to fulfill our
	commitment to rebuild Afghanistan's road network. In addition,
	it will establish security through a national military and
	national police force, establish broad-based and accountable
	governance throughout democratic institutions and throughout an
	active civil society in Afghanistan, ensure a peace dividend
	for the Afghan people through economic reconstruction; and we
	will work closely in all these efforts with the United Nations
	and other international donors.
	That is kind of a bureaucratic statement, but the reality
	is we should be very proud of what we have done in Afghanistan
	over the past year and a half. The glass may be half full or
	half empty, depending on your point of view, and it is still a
	fragile situation. Al Qaeda and Taliban elements are still on
	the loose, and we are chasing them down. General Franks and his
	troops are still working that problem.
	But when you look at what we have accomplished, we have put
	in place a new government, responsive to the people. A Loya
	Jirga has been held. They are getting ready for full elections
	in the not-too-distant future. We are constructing roads that
	connect this country together once again, economically and
	politically. We are training a national army that is now
	starting to send battalions out to other parts of the country
	to provide stability. A million people have returned to
	Afghanistan, who were refugees in camps in Pakistan and
	elsewhere. We have allowed women to participate in the life of
	Afghanistan. It is incredible. Schools are going up. Hospitals
	are going up. The international community is unified behind
	this effort.
	Even though there are still very difficult days ahead for
	Afghanistan, we should be proud about what we have done since
	we took out the Taliban and put al Qaeda on the run.
	Mr. Chairman, I also want to emphasize our efforts to
	decrease the threats posed by terrorist groups, rogue states
	and other nonstate actors, with regard to weapons of mass
	destruction and related technology. To achieve this goal we
	have to strengthen our partnerships with countries that share
	our views in dealing with the threat of terrorism and in
	resolving regional conflicts.
	The 2004 budget requests $35 million for the
	Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund, more than double the
	2003 request, increases funding for overseas export controls
	and border security to $40 million, and supports additional
	funding for science centers and bio-chem redirection programs.
	Funding increases requested for these programs will help us
	prevent weapons of mass destruction from falling into the hands
	of terrorist groups or states. It will do so by preventing the
	movement of these kinds of technologies across borders and by
	destroying or safeguarding known quantities of such weapons or
	source material in various states such as some of the former
	states of the former Soviet Union.
	The science centers and bio-chem redirection programs
	support the same goals by engaging former Soviet weapon
	scientists and engineers in peaceful scientific activities. To
	not allow the knowledge they have in their head to be used for
	the wrong purposes but to give them an opportunity to use that
	knowledge for good and to help their own society sbenefit from
	such knowledge and not use it for weaponry.
	The budget also promotes international peace and prosperity
	by launching the Millennium Challenge Account, funded at $1.3
	billion. Frankly, this will be a brand-new kind of development
	aid; assistance to nations in need. It will go to developing
	nations, but the difference between it and previous foreign
	assistance, is that this will go to those nations that have
	made a commitment to democracy, that believe in the rule of law
	and are demonstrating that belief, that are rooting out
	corruption, that are committed to economic market activity and
	that will build the infrastructure of their society to teach
	children the skills they need for a 21st century economy. In
	other words, those countries that have said, we are now going
	to move down the right path. We need to help.
	The Millennium Challenge Account help will go to those
	countries greatest in need but also who have made this
	commitment to the right kind of governance and to the values
	that I have just described; and it will go to helping them
	build their infrastructure, education, clean water, health care
	systems, those things needed to improve the ability of their
	people to join in the 21st century world.
	This budget also offers hope and a helping hand to
	countries facing health catastrophes, poverty, despair and
	humanitarian disasters. The budget includes more than $1
	billion to meet the needs of refugees and internally displaced
	peoples.
	The budget also provides more than $1.3 billion to combat
	the global HIV/AIDS epidemic. The President's total budget for
	HIV/AIDS is $2 billion, which includes the first year's funding
	for the new emergency plan for HIV/AIDS relief that he
	announced in his State of the Union Address. Those funds will
	target 14 of the hardest hit countries in Africa and the
	Caribbean.
	We should be very proud about what we have been doing as a
	nation over the last 2 years. Participating with the global
	health fund, working with the Secretary General, Kofi Annan,
	the President's program with respect to helping mothers with
	the antiviral drugs, mother-to-child transmission, and now with
	the President's new global initiative directed at these 14
	specific nations.
	The chairman talked about this in his opening remarks, and
	I couldn't agree with him more that HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan
	Africa, the Caribbean, and other parts of the world will become
	a serious problem, including India, China. That is the major
	challenge before the world today. Notwithstanding all of the
	other crises we are facing, nothing rises to the challenge that
	we are presented through this horrible disease and the related
	diseases that come along with it.
	When people start to be weakened by this virus and when
	they are also weakened by poverty, when they are weakened
	because they can't grow food because there is drought or
	because there are bad political policies or stupid policies
	having to do with denying biotechnology to enhance food
	production, it all links together. Poverty, famine, HIV/AIDS
	and other infectious diseases, these all come together to
	create a catastrophe that is facing the world. Its something
	that the United States recognizes, and we are doing a lot
	about, but it is something the whole world needs to recognize
	and do something about.
	I am pleased, Mr. Chairman, that you and members of this
	committee are committed to helping us do something about it. It
	is a challenge for the American people, a challenge we must not
	step aside from.
	Anybody who has traveled in sub-Saharan Africa knows
	exactly what you were talking about earlier, Mr. Chairman.
	Orphans--orphans who are sitting there without care providers,
	without education. Their teachers are dying at a faster rate
	than the parents are. A whole level of society being removed at
	the sexually active level, who are also those individuals at
	the peak of their capacity to contribute to society, 20 through
	40. They are supposed to be getting skills, they are supposed
	to be working, they are supposed to be providing the economic
	activity within that society. They are being taken out, and you
	are left with orphans and grandparents.
	This is not only a health problem. It is societal problem,
	a political problem, a destabilizing problem. It leads to
	terrorism, as you noted, Mr. Chairman, and it leads to all
	other sorts of social pathologies that, if we don't do
	something about, we are going to pay the consequences of at
	some point in the future. I certainly applaud your commitment
	and the commitment of all the members of this committee to help
	us attack this multifaceted problem in every way that we can.
	Mr. Chairman and colleagues, the budget also includes half
	a billion dollars for Colombia. This funding will support
	Colombian President Uribe's unified campaign against terrorists
	and the drug trade. To accomplish his goals and to help him
	requires more than simply funding Colombia itself. We need to
	help him with the surrounding countries, and that is why our
	total Andean Counterdrug Initiative, to help Colombia and the
	other nations in the region, is $731 million. This will also
	include resumption of the air bridge denial program, to stop
	internal and cross-border aerial trafficking.
	Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, to advance
	America's interest around the world, we need the dollars in the
	President's budget for fiscal year 2004.
	To Mr. Moran's point, we need the omnibus bill badly,
	quickly, soon for 2003; and we hope that action will take place
	in the next day or two so that we can get on with our efforts
	and on with our programs.
	We have no specific additional needs that we would like to
	identify for you at this moment, Mr. Moran, but I will go back,
	check and see if there is any gap or any problem that we have
	that we should bring to your attention.
	Mr. Chairman, I think I will stop at this point. We all
	know that we are living in difficult times, but we are also
	living in times of enormous opportunity. While we worry about
	Iraq, the Middle East, North Korea, and the other issues that I
	am sure we will be discussing here today, I also lean back late
	at night and think about the opportunities presented by the end
	of the cold war and the defeat of communism, the defeat of
	fascism, and the fact that it is democracy and free economic
	market programs and philosophies that are moving countries in
	the right direction. We have got to be there to help them. We
	help them by providing a security shield with our wonderful
	military forces around the world, but we also help them by what
	your State Department and all of its related agencies do every
	single day.
	We also help them when Members of our Congress travel and
	learn about what is going on in these sometimes seeming faraway
	places. This Secretary of State will never criticize any Member
	of Congress for traveling and taking your staff with you and
	taking other Members of Congress with you. In my judgment, they
	are not junkets. They are an essential part of our foreign
	policy operation around the world. And anybody that doesn't
	have a passport, I have passport applications with me and I am
	more than happy to provide them.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Chairman Nussle. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
	[The prepared statement of Secretary Powell follows:]

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

	Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am pleased to appear
	before you to testify in support of the President's International
	Affairs budget for fiscal year 2004. Funding requested for fiscal year
	2004 for the Department of State, USAID, and other foreign affairs
	agencies is $28.5 billion.
	The President's budget will allow the United States to:
	<bullet> Target security and economic assistance to sustain key
	countries supporting us in the war on terrorism and helping us to stem
	the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction;
	<bullet> Launch the Millennium Challenge Account--a new
	partnership generating support to countries that rule justly, invest in
	their people, and encourage economic freedom;
	<bullet> Strengthen the U.S. and global commitment to fighting
	HIV/AIDS and alleviating humanitarian hardships;
	<bullet> Combat illegal drugs in the Andean Region of South
	America, as well as bolster democracy in one of that region's most
	important countries, Colombia; and
	<bullet> Reinforce America's world-class diplomatic force,
	focusing on the people, places, and tools needed to promote our foreign
	policies around the world.
	I am particularly proud of the last bullet, Mr. Chairman, because
	for the past 2 years I have concentrated on each of my jobs--primary
	foreign policy advisor to the President and Chief Executive Officer of
	the State Department.
	Under my CEO hat, we have been reinforcing our diplomatic force for
	2 years and we will continue in fiscal year 2004. We will hire 399 more
	professionals to help the President carry out the Nation's foreign
	policy. This hiring will bring us to the 1,100-plus new foreign and
	civil service officers we set out to hire over the first 3 years to
	bring the Department's personnel back in line with its diplomatic
	workload. Moreover, completion of these hires will allow us the
	flexibility to train and educate all of our officers as they should be
	trained and educated. So I am proud of that accomplishment and want to
	thank you for helping me bring it about.
	In addition, I promised to bring state-of-the-art communications
	capability to the Department--because people who can't communicate
	rapidly and effectively in today's globalizing world can't carry out
	our foreign policy. We are approaching our goal in that regard as well.
	In both unclassified and classified communications capability,
	including desktop access to the Internet for every man and woman at
	State, we are there by the end of 2003. The budget before you will
	sustain these gains and continue our information technology
	modernization effort.
	Finally, with respect to my CEO role, I wanted to sweep the slate
	clean and completely revamp the way we construct our embassies and
	other overseas buildings, as well as improve the way we secure our men
	and women who occupy them. As you well know, that last task is a long-
	term, almost never-ending one, particularly in this time of heightened
	terrorist activities. But we are well on the way to implementing both
	the construction and the security tasks in a better way, in a less
	expensive way, and in a way that subsequent CEOs can continue and
	improve on.
	Mr. Chairman, let me give you key details with respect to these
	three main CEO priorities, as well as tell you about other initiatives
	under my CEO hat:
	the ceo responsibilities: state department and related agencies
	The President's fiscal year 2004 discretionary request for the
	Department of State and Related Agencies is $8.497 billion. The
	requested funding will allow us to:
	<bullet> Continue initiatives to recruit, hire, train, and deploy
	the right work force. The budget request includes $97 million to
	complete the Diplomatic Readiness Initiative by hiring 399 additional
	foreign affairs professionals. Foreign policy is carried out through
	our people, and rebuilding America's diplomatic readiness in staffing
	wisll ensure that the Department can respond to crises and emerging
	foreign policy priorities. This is the third year of funding for this
	initiative, which will provide a total of 1,158 new staff for the
	Department of State.
	<bullet> Continue to put information technology in the service of
	diplomacy. The budget request includes $157 million to sustain the
	investments made over the last 2 years to provide classified
	connectivity to every post that requires it and to expand desktop
	access to the Internet for State Department employees. Combined with
	$114 million in estimated expedited passport fees, a total of $271
	million will be available for information technology investments,
	including beginning a major initiative--SMART--that will overhaul the
	outdated systems for cables, messaging, information sharing, and
	document archiving.
	<bullet> Continue to upgrade and enhance our security worldwide.
	The budget request includes $646.7 million for programs to enhance the
	security of our diplomatic facilities and personnel serving abroad and
	for hiring 85 additional security and support professionals to sustain
	the Department's Worldwide Security Upgrades program.
	<bullet> Continue to upgrade the security of our overseas
	facilities. The budget request includes $1.514 billion to fund major
	security-related construction projects and address the major physical
	security and rehabilitation needs of embassies and consulates around
	the world. The request includes $761.4 million for construction of
	secure embassy compounds in seven countries and $128.3 million for
	construction of a new embassy building in Germany.
	<bullet> The budget also supports management improvements to the
	overseas buildings program and the Overseas Building Operations (OBO)
	long-range plan. The budget proposes a Capital Security Cost Sharing
	Program that allocates the capital costs of new overseas facilities to
	all U.S. Government agencies on the basis of the number of their
	authorized overseas positions. This program will serve two vital
	purposes: first, to accelerate construction of new embassy compounds
	and second, to encourage Federal agencies to evaluate their overseas
	positions more carefully. In doing so, it will further the President's
	Management Agenda initiative to rightsize the official American
	presence abroad. The modest surcharge to the cost of stationing an
	American employee overseas will not undermine vital overseas work, but
	it will encourage more efficient management of personnel and taxpayer
	funds.
	<bullet> Continue to enhance the Border Security Program. The
	budget request includes $736 million in Machine Readable Visa (MRV) fee
	revenues for continuous improvements in consular systems, processes,
	and programs in order to protect U.S. borders against the illegal entry
	of individuals who would do us harm.
	<bullet> Meet our obligations to international organizations.
	Fulfilling U.S. commitments is vital to building coalitions and gaining
	support for U.S. interests and policies in the war against terrorism
	and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. The budget request
	includes $1 billion to fund U.S. assessments to 44 international
	organizations, including $71.4 million to support renewed U.S.
	membership in the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
	Organization (UNESCO).
	<bullet> Support obligations to international peacekeeping
	activities. The budget request includes $550.2 million to pay projected
	U.N. peacekeeping assessments. These peacekeeping activities ensure
	continued American leadership in shaping the international community's
	response to developments that threaten international peace and
	stability.
	<bullet> Continue to eliminate support for terrorists and thus
	deny them safe haven through our ongoing public diplomacy activities,
	our educational and cultural exchange programs, and international
	broadcasting. The budget request includes $296.9 million for public
	diplomacy, including information and cultural programs carried out by
	overseas missions and supported by public diplomacy personnel in our
	regional and functional bureaus. These resources are used to engage,
	inform, and influence foreign publics and broaden dialogue between
	American citizens and institutions and their counterparts abroad.
	The budget request also includes $345.3 million for educational and
	cultural exchange programs that build mutual understanding and develop
	friendly relations between America and the peoples of the world. These
	activities establish the trust, confidence, and international
	cooperation with other countries that sustain and advance the full
	range of American national interests.
	The budget request includes $100 million for education and cultural
	exchanges for states of the former Soviet Union and Central and Eastern
	Europe, which were previously funded under the FREEDOM Support Act and
	Support for East European Democracy (SEED) accounts.
	As a member of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, I want to take
	this opportunity to highlight to you the BBG's pending budget request
	for $563.5 million. Funding will advance international broadcasting
	efforts to support the war on terrorism, including initiation of the
	Middle East Television Network.
	Mr. Chairman, I know that your committee staff will go over this
	statement with a fine-tooth comb and I know too that they prefer an
	account-by-account laydown. So here it is:
	diplomatic and consular programs (d&cp)
	<bullet> The fiscal year 2004 request for D&CP, the State
	Department's chief operating account, totals $4.164 billion.
	<bullet> D&CP supports the diplomatic activities and programs that
	constitute the first line of offense against threats to the security
	and prosperity of the American people. Together with Machine Readable
	Visa and other fees, the account funds the operating expenses and
	infrastructure necessary for carrying out U.S. foreign policy in more
	than 260 locations around the world.
	<bullet> The fiscal year 2004 D&CP request provides $3.517 billion
	for ongoing operations--a net increase of $132.7 million over the
	fiscal year 2003 level. Increased funding will enable the State
	Department to advance national interests effectively through improved
	diplomatic readiness, particularly in human resources.
	<bullet> The request completes the Secretary's 3-year Diplomatic
	Readiness Initiative to put the right people with the right skills in
	the right place at the right time. New D&CP funding in fiscal year 2004
	of $97 million will allow the addition of 399 professionals, providing
	a total of 1,158 new staff from fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year
	2004.
	<bullet> The fiscal year 2004 D&CP request also provides $646.7
	million for Worldwide Security Upgrades--an increase of $93.7 million
	over last year. This total includes $504.6 million to continue
	worldwide security programs for guard protection, physical security
	equipment and technical support, information and system security, and
	security personnel and training. It also includes $43.4 million to
	expand the perimeter security enhancement program for 232 posts and
	$98.7 million for improvements in domestic and overseas protection
	programs, including 85 additional agents and other security
	professionals.
	capital investment fund (cif)
	<bullet> The fiscal year 2004 request provides $157 million for
	the CIF to assure that the investments made in fiscal year 2002 and
	fiscal year 2003 keep pace with increased demand from users for
	functionality and speed.
	<bullet> Requested funding includes $15 million for the State
	Messaging and Archive Retrieval Toolset (SMART). The SMART initiative
	will replace outdated systems for cables and messages with a unified
	system that adds information sharing and document archiving.
	embassy security, construction, and maintenance (escm)
	<bullet> The fiscal year 2004 request for ESCM is $1.514 billion.
	This total--an increase of $209.4 million over the fiscal year 2003
	level--reflects the administration's continuing commitment to protect
	U.S. Government personnel serving abroad, improve the security posture
	of facilities overseas, and address serious deficiencies in the State
	Department's overseas infrastructure.
	<bullet> For the ongoing ESCM budget, the administration is
	requesting $524.7 million. This budget includes maintenance and repairs
	at overseas posts, facility rehabilitation projects, construction
	security, renovation of the Harry S. Truman Building, all activities
	associated with leasing overseas properties, and management of the
	overseas buildings program.
	<bullet> For Worldwide Security Construction, the administration
	is requesting $761.4 million for the next tranche of security-driven
	construction projects to replace high-risk facilities. Funding will
	support the construction of secure embassies in seven countries--
	Algeria, Burma, Ghana, Indonesia, Panama, Serbia, and Togo. In
	addition, the requested funding will provide new on-compound buildings
	for USAID in Ghana, Jamaica, and Nigeria.
	<bullet> The ESCM request includes $100 million to strengthen
	compound security at vulnerable posts.
	<bullet> The request also includes $128.3 million to construct the
	new U.S. embassy building in Berlin.
	educational and cultural exchange programs (ece)
	<bullet> The fiscal year 2004 request of $345.3 million for ECE
	maintains funding for exchanges at the fiscal year 2003 request level
	of $245 million and adds $100 million for projects for Eastern Europe
	and the States of the Former Soviet Union previously funded from
	Foreign Operations appropriations.
	<bullet> Authorized by the Mutual Educational and Cultural
	Exchange Act of 1961 (Fulbright-Hays Act), as amended, exchanges are
	strategic activities that build mutual understanding and develop
	friendly relations between the United States and other countries. They
	establish the trust, confidence, and international cooperation
	necessary to sustain and advance the full range of U.S. national
	interests.
	<bullet> The request provides $141 million for academic programs.
	These include the J. William Fulbright Educational Exchange Program for
	exchange of students, scholars, and teachers and the Hubert H. Humphrey
	Fellowship Program for academic study and internships in the United
	States for mid-career professionals from developing countries.
	<bullet> The request also provides $73 million for professional
	and cultural exchanges. These include the International Visitor
	Program, which supports travel to the United States by current and
	emerging leaders to obtain firsthand knowledge of American politics and
	values, and the Citizen Exchange Program, which partners with U.S.
	nonprofit organizations to support professional, cultural, and
	grassroots community exchanges.
	<bullet> This request provides $100 million for exchanges funded
	in the past from the FREEDOM Support Act (FSA) and Support for East
	European Democracy (SEED) accounts.
	<bullet> This request also provides $31 million for exchanges
	support. This funding is needed for built-in requirements to maintain
	current services.
	contributions to international organizations (cio)
	<bullet> The fiscal year 2004 request for CIO of $1.010 billion
	provides funding for U.S. assessed contributions, consistent with U.S.
	statutory restrictions, to 44 international organizations to further
	U.S. economic, political, social, and cultural interests.
	<bullet> The request recognizes U.S. international obligations and
	reflects the President's commitment to maintain the financial stability
	of the United Nations and other international organizations that
	include the World Health Organization, the North Atlantic Treaty
	Organization, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the
	Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
	<bullet> The budget request provides $71.4 million to support
	renewed U.S. membership in the United Nations Educational, Scientific,
	and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). UNESCO contributes to peace and
	security in the world by promoting collaboration among nations through
	education, science, culture and communication and by furthering
	intercultural understanding and universal respect for justice, rule of
	law, human rights, and fundamental freedoms, notably a free press.
	<bullet> Membership in international organizations benefits the
	United States by building coalitions and pursuing multilateral programs
	that advance U.S. interests. These include promoting economic growth
	through market economies; settling disputes peacefully; encouraging
	nonproliferation, nuclear safeguards, arms control, and disarmament;
	adopting international standards to facilitate international trade,
	telecommunications, transportation, environmental protection, and
	scientific exchange; and strengthening international cooperation in
	agriculture and health.
	contributions for international peacekeeping activities (cipa)
	<bullet> The administration is requesting $550.2 million for CIPA
	in fiscal year 2004. This funding level will allow the United States to
	pay its share of assessed U.N. peacekeeping budgets, fulfilling U.S.
	commitments and avoiding increased U.N. arrears.
	<bullet> The U.N. peacekeeping appropriation serves U.S. interests
	in Europe, Africa and the Middle East, where U.N. peacekeeping missions
	assist in ending conflicts, restoring peace and strengthening regional
	stability.
	<bullet> U.N. peacekeeping missions leverage U.S. political,
	military and financial assets through the authority of the U.N.
	Security Council and the participation of other states that provide
	funds and peacekeepers for conflicts around the world.
	broadcasting board of governors (bbg)
	<bullet> The fiscal year 2004 budget request for the BBG totals
	$563.5 million.
	<bullet> The overall request provides $525.2 million for U.S.
	Government nonmilitary international broadcasting operations through
	the International Broadcasting Operations (IBO) account. This account
	funds operations of the Voice of America (VOA), Radio Free Europe/Radio
	Liberty (RFE/RL), Radio Free Asia (RFA), and all related program
	delivery and support activities.
	<bullet> The IBO request includes funding to advance broadcasting
	efforts related to the war on terrorism. The request includes $30
	million to initiate the Middle East Television Network--a new Arabic-
	language satellite TV network that, once operational, will have the
	potential to reach vast audiences in the Middle East. The request also
	includes funding to double VOA Indonesian radio programming,
	significantly increase television programming in Indonesia, and expand
	BBG audience development efforts.
	<bullet> The IBO request reflects the shifting of priorities away
	from the predominantly cold war focus on Central and Eastern Europe to
	broadcasting in the Middle East and Central Asia. Funds are being
	redirected to programs in these regions through the elimination of
	broadcasting to countries in the former Eastern Bloc that have
	demonstrated significant advances in democracy and press freedoms and
	are new or soon-to-be NATO and European Union Members.
	<bullet> The IBO request also reflects anticipated efficiencies
	that achieve a 5-percent reduction in funding for administration and
	management in fiscal year 2004.
	<bullet> The fiscal year 2004 request also provides $26.9 million
	through Broadcasting to Cuba (OCB) for continuing Radio Marti and TV
	Marti operations, including salary and inflation increases, to support
	current schedules.
	<bullet> The fiscal year 2004 request further provides $11.4
	million for Broadcasting Capital Improvements to maintain the BBG's
	worldwide transmission network. The request includes $2.9 million to
	maintain and improve security of U.S. broadcasting transmission
	facilities overseas.
	That finishes the State and Related Agencies part of the
	President's budget. Now let me turn to the Foreign Affairs part.
	the foreign policy advisor responsibilities: funding america's
	diplomacy around the world
	The fiscal year 2004 budget proposes several initiatives to advance
	U.S. national security interests and preserve American leadership. The
	fiscal year 2004 Foreign Operations budget that funds programs for the
	Department State, USAID, and other foreign affairs agencies is $18.8
	billion.
	Today, our number one priority is to fight and win the global war
	on terrorism. The budget furthers this goal by providing economic,
	military, and democracy assistance to key foreign partners and allies,
	including $4.7 billion to countries that have joined us in the war on
	terrorism.
	The budget also promotes international peace and prosperity by
	launching the most innovative approach to U.S. foreign assistance in
	more than forty years. The new Millennium Challenge Account (MCA), an
	independent government corporation funded at $1.3 billion will redefine
	``aid.'' As President Bush told African leaders meeting in Mauritius
	recently, this aid will go to ``nations that encourage economic
	freedom, root out corruption, and respect the rights of their people.''
	Moreover, this budget offers hope and a helping hand to countries
	facing health catastrophes, poverty and despair, and humanitarian
	disasters. It provides $1.345 billion to combat the global HIV/AIDS
	epidemic, more than $1 billion to meet the needs of refugees and
	internally displaced peoples, $200 million in emergency food assistance
	to support dire famine needs, and $100 million for an emerging crises
	fund to allow swift responses to complex foreign crises.
	Mr. Chairman, let me give you some details.
	The United States is successfully prosecuting the global war on
	terrorism on a number of fronts. We are providing extensive assistance
	to states on the front lines of the anti-terror struggle. Working with
	our international partners bilaterally and through multilateral
	organizations, we have frozen more than $110 million in terrorist
	assets, launched new initiatives to secure global networks of commerce
	and communication, and significantly increased the cooperation of our
	law enforcement and intelligence communities. Afghanistan is no longer
	a haven for al Qaeda. We are now working with the Afghan Authority,
	other governments, international organizations, and NGOs to rebuild
	Afghanistan. Around the world we are combating the unholy alliance of
	drug traffickers and terrorists who threaten the internal stability of
	countries. We are leading the international effort to prevent weapons
	of mass destruction from falling into the hands of those who would do
	harm to us and others. At the same time, we are rejuvenating and
	expanding our public diplomacy efforts worldwide.
	assistance to frontline states
	The fiscal year 2004 International Affairs budget provides
	approximately $4.7 billion in assistance to the Frontline States, which
	have joined with us in the war on terrorism. This funding will provide
	crucial assistance to enable these countries to strengthen their
	economies, internal counterterrorism capabilities and border controls.
	Of this amount, the President's budget provides $657 million for
	Afghanistan, $460 million for Jordan, $395 million for Pakistan, $255
	million for Turkey, $136 million for Indonesia, and $87 million for the
	Philippines. In Afghanistan, the funding will be used to fulfill our
	commitment to rebuild Afghanistan's road network; establish security
	through a national military and national police force, including
	counterterrorism and counternarcotics components; establish broad-based
	and accountable governance through democratic institutions and an
	active civil society; ensure a peace dividend for the Afghan people
	through economic reconstruction; and provide humanitarian assistance to
	sustain returning refugees and displaced persons. United States
	assistance will continue to be coordinated with the Afghan government,
	the United Nations, and other international donors.
	The State Department's Anti-Terrorism Assistance (ATA) program will
	continue to provide frontline states a full complement of training
	courses, such as a course on how to conduct a post-terrorist attack
	investigation or how to respond to a WMD event. The budget will also
	fund additional equipment grants to sustain the skills and capabilities
	acquired in the ATA courses. It will support as well in-country
	training programs in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Indonesia.
	central asia and freedom support act nations
	In fiscal year 2004, over $157 million in Freedom Support Act (FSA)
	funding will go to assistance programs in the Central Asian states. The
	fiscal year 2004 budget continues to focus FSA funds to programs in
	Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan, recognizing that Central Asia
	is of strategic importance to U.S. foreign policy objectives. The
	fiscal year 2004 assistance level for Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and
	Tajikistan is 30 percent above 2003. Assistance to these countries has
	almost doubled from pre-September 11 levels. These funds will support
	civil society development, small business promotion, conflict
	reduction, and economic reform in the region. These efforts are
	designed to promote economic development and strengthen the rule of law
	in order to reduce the appeal of extremist movements and stem the flow
	of illegal drugs that finance terrorist activities.
	Funding levels and country distributions for the FSA nations
	reflect shifting priorities in the region. For example, after more than
	10 years of high levels of assistance, it is time to begin the process
	of graduating countries in this region from economic assistance, as we
	have done with countries in Eastern Europe that have made sufficient
	progress in the transition to market-based democracies. U.S. economic
	assistance to Russia and Ukraine will begin phasing down in fiscal year
	2004, a decrease of 32 percent from 2003, moving these countries toward
	graduation.
	combating illegal drugs and stemming narco-terrorism
	The President's request for $731 million for the Andean Counterdrug
	Initiative includes $463 million for Colombia. An additional $110
	million in military assistance to Colombia will support Colombian
	President Uribe's unified campaign against terrorists and the drug
	trade that fuels their activities. The aim is to secure democracy,
	extend security, and restore economic prosperity to Colombia and
	prevent the narco-terrorists from spreading instability to the broader
	Andean region. Critical components of this effort include resumption of
	the Airbridge Denial program to stop internal and cross-border aerial
	trafficking in illicit drugs, stepped up eradication and alternative
	development efforts, and technical assistance to strengthen Colombia's
	police and judicial institutions.
	halting access of rogue states and terrorists to weapons of mass
	destruction
	Decreasing the threats posed by terrorist groups, rogue states, and
	other non-state actors requires halting the spread of weapons of mass
	destruction (WMD) and related technology. To achieve this goal, we must
	strengthen partnerships with countries that share our views in dealing
	with the threat of terrorism and resolving regional conflicts.
	The fiscal year 2004 budget requests $35 million for the
	Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund (NDF), more than double the
	fiscal year 2003 request, increases funding for overseas Export
	Controls and Border Security (EXBS) to $40 million, and supports
	additional funding for Science Centers and Bio-Chem Redirection
	Programs.
	Funding increases requested for the NDF and EXBS programs seek to
	prevent weapons of mass destruction from falling into the hands of
	terrorist groups or states by preventing their movement across borders
	and destroying or safeguarding known quantities of weapons or source
	material. The Science Centers and Bio-Chem Redirection programs support
	the same goals by engaging former Soviet weapons scientists and
	engineers in peaceful scientific activities, providing them an
	alternative to marketing their skills to states or groups of concern.
	millennium challenge account
	The fiscal year 2004 budget request of $1.3 billion for the new
	Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) as a government corporation fulfills
	the President's March 2002 pledge to create a new bilateral assistance
	program, markedly different from existing models. This budget is a huge
	step toward the President's commitment of $5 billion in annual funding
	for the MCA by 2006, a 50-percent increase in core development
	assistance.
	The MCA supplement U.S. commitments to humanitarian assistance and
	existing development aid programs funded and implemented by USAID. It
	will assist developing countries that make sound policy decisions and
	demonstrate solid performance on economic growth and reducing poverty.
	<bullet> MCA funds will go only to selected developing countries
	that demonstrate a commitment to sound policies--based on clear,
	concrete and objective criteria. To become eligible for MCA resources,
	countries must demonstrate their commitment to economic opportunity,
	investing in people, and good governance.
	<bullet> Resources will be available through agreements with
	recipient countries that specify a limited number of clear measurable
	goals, activities, and benchmarks, and financial accountability
	standards.
	The MCA will be administered by a new government corporation
	designed to support innovative strategies and to ensure accountability
	for measurable results. The corporation will be supervised by a board
	of directors composed of Cabinet level officials and chaired by the
	Secretary of State. Personnel will be drawn from a variety of
	government agencies and nongovernment institutions and serve limited-
	term appointments.
	In fiscal year 2004, countries eligible to borrow from the
	International Development Association (IDA), and which have per capita
	incomes below $1,435, (the historical IDA cutoff) will be considered.
	In 2005, all countries with incomes below $1,435 will be considered. In
	2006, all countries with incomes up to $2,975 (the current World Bank
	cutoff for lower middle income countries) will be eligible.
	The selection process will use 16 indicators to assess national
	performance--these indicators being relative to governing justly,
	investing in people, and encouraging economic freedom. These indicators
	were chosen because of the quality and objectivity of their data,
	country coverage, public availability, and correlation with growth and
	poverty reduction. The results of a review of the indicators will be
	used by the MCA Board of Directors to make a final recommendation to
	the President on a list of MCA countries.
	africa education initiative
	With $200 million, the United States is doubling its 5-year
	financial commitment to the African Education Initiative it launched
	last year. The initiative focuses on increasing access to quality
	education in Africa. Over its 5-year life the African Education
	Initiative will achieve: 160,000 new teachers trained; 4.5 million
	textbooks developed and distributed; an increase in the number of girls
	attending school through providing more than a quarter million
	scholarships and mentoring; and an increase African Education
	Ministries' capacity to address the impact of HIV/AIDS.
	increases in funding for multilateral development banks (mdbs)
	The fiscal year 2004 budget provides $1.55 billion for the MDBs, an
	increase of $110 million over the fiscal year 2003 request of $1.44
	billion. This includes $1.36 billion for scheduled payments to the MDBs
	and $195.9 million to clear existing arrears. The request provides $950
	million for the International Development Association (IDA) for the
	second year of the IDA-13 replenishment, $100 million of which is
	contingent on the IDA meeting specific benchmarks in the establishment
	of a results measurement system. By spring 2003, the IDA is to have
	completed an outline of approach to results measurement, presented
	baseline data, and identified outcome indicators and expected progress
	targets. By that same time, the IDA is also to have completed specific
	numbers of reviews and assessments in the areas of financial
	accountability, procurement, public expenditure, investment climate,
	and poverty.
	world summit on sustainable development (wssd)
	The WSSD engaged more than 100 countries and representatives of
	business and NGOs. Sustainable development begins at home and is
	supported by effective domestic policies and international partnerships
	that include the private sector. Self-governing people prepared to
	participate in an open world marketplace are the foundation of
	sustainable development. These fundamental principals guide the U.S.
	approach to Summit initiatives. At the 2002 Summit the United States
	committed to developing and implementing realistic results-focused
	partnerships in the areas of: Water for the Poor; Clean Energy;
	Initiative to Cut Hunger in Africa; Preventing Famine in Southern
	Africa; and the Congo Basin Partnership. At the end of the Summit new
	relationships and partnerships were forged and a new global commitment
	to improve sanitation was reached. The fiscal year 2004 budget supports
	these partnerships with $337 million in assistance funding.
	the u.s.-middle east partnership initiative
	The President's budget includes $145 million for the Middle East
	Partnership Initiative (MEPI). This initiative gives us a framework and
	funding for working with the Arab world to expand educational and
	economic opportunities, empower women, and strengthen civil society and
	the rule of law. The peoples and governments of the Middle East face
	daunting human challenges. Their economies are stagnant and unable to
	provide jobs for millions of young people entering the workplace each
	year. Too many of their governments appear closed and unresponsive to
	the needs of their citizens. And their schools are not equipping
	students to succeed in today's globalizing world. With the programs of
	the MEPI, we will work with Arab governments, groups, and individuals
	to bridge the jobs gap with economic reform, business investment, and
	private sector development; close the freedom gap with projects to
	strengthen civil society, expand political participation, and lift the
	voices of women; and bridge the knowledge gap with better schools and
	more opportunities for higher education. The U.S.-Middle East
	Partnership Initiative is an investment in a more stable, peaceful,
	prosperous, and democratic Arab world.
	forgiving debt--helping heavily indebted poor countries
	The administration request provides an additional $75 million for
	the Trust Fund for Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC). These funds
	will go toward fulfilling the President's commitment at the G-8 Summit
	in Kananaskis, Canada to contribute America's share to filling the
	projected HIPC Trust Fund financing gap. The HIPC Trust Fund helps to
	finance debt forgiveness by the International Financial Institutions
	(IFIs) to heavily indebted poor countries that have committed to
	economic reforms and pledged to increase domestic funding of health and
	education programs. In addition, the President's request provides $300
	million to fund bilateral debt reduction for the Democratic Republic of
	the Congo under the HIPC Initiative, as well as $20 million for debt
	reduction under the Tropical Forest Conservation Act (TFCA).
	The administration believes that offering new sovereign loans or
	loan guarantees to indebted poor countries while providing debt
	forgiveness to those same countries risks their return to unsustainable
	levels of indebtedness--a situation debt forgiveness seeks to resolve.
	In order to address this situation, the administration recently
	invoked a 1-year moratorium on new lending to countries that receive
	multilateral debt reduction. U.S. lending agencies have agreed not to
	make new loans or loan guarantees to countries that receive debt
	reduction for 1 year. The measure will not be punitive. Should
	countries demonstrate serious economic gains before the end of the
	moratorium, lending agencies may, with interagency clearance, resume
	new lending. The administration hopes that this policy will bring to an
	end the historically cyclical nature of indebtedness of poor countries.
	american leadership in fighting aids and alleviating humanitarian
	hardships
	This budget reaffirms America's role as the leading donor nation
	supporting programs that combat the greatest challenges faced by many
	developing countries today. The fiscal year 2004 budget proposes a
	number of foreign assistance initiatives managed by USAID and other
	Federal agencies to provide crucial resources that prevent and
	ameliorate human suffering worldwide.
	fighting the global aids pandemic
	The fiscal year 2004 budget continues the administration's
	commitment to combat HIV/AIDS and to help bring care and treatment to
	infected people overseas. The HIV/AIDS pandemic has killed 23 million
	of the 63 million people it has infected to date, and left 14 million
	orphans worldwide. President Bush has made fighting this pandemic a
	priority of U.S. foreign policy.
	The President believes the global community can--and must--do more
	to halt the advance of the pandemic, and that the United States should
	lead by example. Thus, the President's fiscal year 2004 budget request
	signals a further, massive increase in resources to combat the HIV/AIDs
	pandemic. As described in the State of the Union, the President is
	committing to provide a total of $15 billion over the next 5 years to
	turn the tide in the war on HIV/AIDs, beginning with $2 billion in the
	fiscal year 2004 budget request and rising thereafter. These funds will
	be targeted on the hardest hit countries, especially Africa and the
	Caribbean with the objective of achieving dramatic on-the-ground
	results. This new dramatic commitment is reflected in the
	administration's $2 billion fiscal year 2004 budget request, which
	includes:
	<bullet> State Department--$450 million;
	<bullet> USAID--$895 million, including $100 million for the
	Global Fund and $150 million for the International Mother & Child HIV
	Prevention; and
	<bullet> HHS/CDC/NIH--$690 million, including $100 million for the
	Global Fund and $150 million for the International Mother & Child HIV
	Prevention.
	In order to ensure accountability for results, the President has
	asked me to establish at State a new Special Coordinator for
	International HIV/AIDS Assistance. The Special Coordinator will work
	for me and be responsible for coordinating all international HIV/AIDS
	programs and efforts of the agencies that implement them.
	hunger, famine, and other emergencies
	Food Aid--Historically the United States has been the largest donor
	of assistance for victims of protracted and emergency food crises. In
	2003, discretionary funding for food aid increased from $864 million to
	$1.19 billion. That level will be enhanced significantly in 2004 with
	two new initiatives: a Famine Fund and an emerging crises fund to
	address complex emergencies.
	Famine Fund--The fiscal year 2004 budget includes a new $200
	million fund with flexible authorities to provide emergency food,
	grants or support to meet dire needs on a case-by-case basis. This
	commitment reflects more than a 15 percent increase in U.S. food
	assistance.
	Emerging Crises Fund--The budget also requests $100 million for a
	new account that will allow the administration to respond swiftly and
	effectively to prevent or resolve unforeseen complex foreign crises.
	This account will provide a mechanism for the President to support
	actions to advance American interests, including to prevent or respond
	to foreign territorial disputes, armed ethnic and civil conflicts that
	pose threats to regional and international peace and acts of ethnic
	cleansing, mass killing and genocide.
	summary
	Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, to advance America's
	interests around the world we need the dollars in the President's
	budget for fiscal year 2004. We need the dollars under both of my
	hats--CEO and principal foreign policy advisor. The times we live in
	are troubled to be sure, but I believe there is every bit as much
	opportunity in the days ahead as there is danger. American leadership
	is essential to dealing with both the danger and the opportunity. With
	regard to the Department of State, the President's fiscal year 2004
	budget is crucial to the exercise of that leadership.
	Thank you and I will be pleased to answer your questions.

	Chairman Nussle. For my colleagues' benefit I am going to
	ask that all of us not only stick to the 5-minute rule today
	but let's also please stick to questions. There are a number of
	colleagues who have important questions they want to ask. The
	Secretary is only going to be with us until 12:30. We may have
	a vote on the floor, so let's please do that.
	Mr. Secretary, on the technology issue, just to let you
	know, the Budget Committee has just launched a new, I think,
	exciting program on our Web site. We now provide our Web site
	in eight different languages so that--including an obscure and
	little-used language now, French--I am being very careful. I am
	trying to be. I am holding back.
	Mr. Secretary, on the HIV/AIDS program that the President
	has put forward, I would like to ask you to do two things for
	us. We have a number of constituents who heard the President
	speak at the State of the Union and were surprised maybe by the
	commitment that he made in the State of the Union. They haven't
	been to Africa. Because terrorism, because Iraq, because North
	Korea, because all sorts of things occupy all of the different
	news channels on a daily basis, unfortunately, some of the
	biggest issues that face our world don't always get the
	attention that they should. Many of our constituents don't have
	the same experience that you have and that some of us have in
	having seen it firsthand.
	They ask the question or they wonder out loud, why are we
	doing this? Why is--why aren't we dealing with problems in
	America first, Medicare and even AIDS in America first before
	we start reaching out to the continent of Africa or anywhere
	else? Those are problems they cause for themselves, behavioral
	problems that they caused. Money won't solve it. This is a
	hopeless situation. How could we possibly have enough money in
	our Treasury or pay enough taxes in order to manage this
	disease?
	Would you please respond to those people today in a way
	that can help us all educate our constituents back home, No. 1;
	and, No. 2, would you also talk to us a little bit about how
	this money will be used.
	My understanding from traveling there is that it is not
	just the drugs, it is the counseling, it is the mentoring, it
	is the education, it is the advertising, awareness, it is the
	networking that needs to go on and the trust relationship that
	has to be built in some countries. Because they are using
	erroneous information, suggesting that this is some, you know,
	grassy knoll plot against their country versus some countries,
	that their government officials are directly involved in the
	advocacy case to control HIV. So would you speak to this in a
	lilt bit more depth than you did in your opening testimony?
	Secretary Powell. We spent a lot of money on HIV/AIDS in
	our own programs right here at home. We saw what this disease
	has done right here at home. It is still a problem here in the
	United States. We worked hard to start to get on top of it, but
	it is still a problem for many, many Americans. We are a care-
	giving, compassionate country and people; and we simply cannot
	look out across our oceans and see this kind of plague upon the
	world and think that it has nothing to do with us.
	These children, these are God's children, and we have an
	obligation to help them. We have an obligation as a caring,
	giving, rich society to share our wealth and treasure with
	those who are less fortunate. Even though they may not look
	like us, may not be the same color as most of us, are living in
	a faraway place, speaking a strange language, they are
	nevertheless human beings; and if we have the wherewithal to
	help them, we should.
	And we can help them. It is not money going down a rat
	hole. We need multifaceted programs. As you noted, Mr.
	Chairman, one of the first things we have to do in all the
	countries we are working on is to start educating people with
	respect to the dangers of HIV/AIDS and improper sexual
	activities that will put you at risk of getting the infection.
	That training, that education, has to begin at the earliest
	opportunity in schools. We should teach youngsters how to avoid
	premature sexual activity. We should teach abstinence, but we
	should also teach safe sex. Because, sooner or later, young
	people will become sexually active, and we should not hide from
	that fact. We should teach them to protect themselves and teach
	them abstinence, teach them protection, help these countries
	get beyond some of the cultural taboos that keep them from
	talking about these issues frankly and candidly.
	One of the most successful countries in dealing with this
	problem has been Uganda. President Museveni said, ``I don't
	care what tribal rituals are, or how I am not supposed to talk
	about this. I am going to talk about this. It comes from
	improper sexual activity. It comes from not protecting
	yourself. It comes from not talking to our children. It comes
	from not being socially responsible with respect to sexual
	partners.'' He was candid about it, as candid as I am being
	with you this morning. And he changed the attitude that existed
	within the population of Uganda, and he brought the infection
	rate down significantly, as you well know.
	We have to go beyond just teaching and education and
	training and lecturing. We have got to give people the
	medicines that are increasingly more affordable that will deal
	with the infection and give people hope, that if we work on
	this problem correctly, if we do everything we can to get the
	cost down, there are drugs that can let people have a full,
	productive life, not as full as it might be otherwise or as
	long as it might otherwise, but still make a contribution to
	society.
	We can do something to keep the disease from being
	transmitted from mother to child. That is one of the
	President's major initiatives, with a very high success rate,
	and it is cheap. It would be irresponsible not to give every
	child who is subject to the infection that opportunity to be
	rid of the infection with the kind of treatment and the
	provision of the necessary drugs.
	We also have to be straightforward and say to people there
	should be no stigma associated with being infected, or having
	the disease, or carrying the infection. We have to make sure we
	don't talk down to a group of people and say you are less
	worthy than anyone else because have you this infection.
	We have to fight it at all fronts: protection, abstinence,
	training, education, antiretroviral drugs, dealing with the
	other diseases that flow from it, tuberculosis, malaria and the
	other infections you become susceptible to, and also to avoid
	stigmas.
	In some of the countries, as you noted Mr. Chairman, this
	is the toughest part. People just don't want to talk about
	this. It goes against some of their history. It goes against
	some of their culture. It goes against, in some cases, their
	religion. But when you don't talk about these issues, when you
	don't talk about them head on, you are condemning to death
	millions of your most productive citizens, the citizens you are
	going to need to keep moving forward.
	The United States cannot stand idly by and watch this
	happen. Knowing that if we don't help them, these countries
	will become political problems, they will become economic
	problems that we are going to have to deal with later. As you
	also noted, Mr. Chairman, they will become hotbeds of terrorist
	recruiting.
	If a child has nobody in his or her life, if a child sees
	the richest countries of the world ignore their problem, that
	child will say, well, what should I do? What direction should I
	move into? The first charlatan that comes along and says, we
	ought to take them out, we ought to build bombs, we ought to go
	kill people; what are they doing for you? That charlatan will
	win the argument. We can't let that person win the argument.
	That is why we have $1.3 billion in this budget for my part
	of this battle and Secretary Thompson has more dollars in his
	budget, for what he has to do. Not only here in the United
	States but what we do in the United States ultimately gets
	exported to the world.
	Chairman Nussle. Thank you very much for your leadership.
	Mr. Moran.
	Mr. Moran. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
	I am going to give the Secretary three areas of inquiry and
	he can choose how he decides to emphasize his response.
	The first area I want to ask you about is something that I
	referenced in the opening statement that deals directly with
	our budget responsibilities, and that is the needs of our
	allies and at least friends in the region for additional
	assistance, particularly with regard to the impending Iraq
	conflict. Israel has asked for $12 billion, about $4 billion in
	grants, about $8 billion in loan guarantees. I would like to
	know your assessment of that and the extent to which we are
	going to use that as leverage with regard to settlement
	expansion, et cetera.
	Egypt, we know, is going to want 3 to $5 billion; Jordan, I
	know, has told some of us that they are expecting nearly $2
	billion; and then we have got Turkey and Pakistan. Particularly
	I know you are concerned, rightfully so, that Musharraf is in a
	precarious position because of his perceived friendship with
	the United States; and, of course, a military coup would give
	people sympathetic to the Taliban even within his own military,
	who we know exist, immediate access to a substantial number of
	nuclear weapons. Some--all of these countries we are very much
	concerned with and are going to have to deal with; and I would
	like to get some sense of what you think might be coming,
	whether it is in a supplemental or future budget request.
	Now, with regard specifically to Iraq, I think we were all
	very much impressed by the compelling arguments you made before
	the United Nations Security Council as to the consequences of
	not going to war with Iraq. But just speaking for myself, I
	think you were less clear on what are the consequences if we do
	go to war with Iraq. Even your response this week to the
	message by bin Laden on Al Jazeera television, I don't know
	that the fact that bin Laden is attempting to exploit the
	impending invasion of Iraq for the purpose of his al Qaeda
	terrorist network is proof positive of a hand-in-glove
	relationship with Saddam's despotic use of the Baathist party
	in Iraq.
	So I would--I think what we would like to get a clearer
	sense of is what do we do when we go in and we are told it is
	weeks rather than months, that there needs to be a ratio of
	approximately 1 per 500 citizens. If you have a military
	occupation, we are told it is an indefinite military occupation
	until we find a leader that is to our liking.
	I asked Secretary Rumsfeld yesterday, how many people do we
	have that speak the language? And at best we have about a
	hundred people learning how to speak the language. It is a
	country of 23 million people. You would assume that that means
	we need about 50,000 who can actually communicate with the
	people. We are nowhere near that.
	Now I bring this up because he implied that they are going
	to heavily rely upon State Department personnel for much of
	that function. So I thought I might bring it full circle and
	get some response from you.
	Then, lastly, in the paper today, I understand that the
	North Koreans have sought direct talks with the United States
	but have been rebuffed; and in light of what some of us think
	is our most serious threat in North Korea, the urgency of
	direct talks with North Korea would seem to be imperative. So I
	would like to know what you plan to do in terms of at least
	initiating or responding to North Korea's suggestion for direct
	talks.
	There is enough to deal with. You choose how you want to
	divide your response, Mr. Secretary.
	Secretary Powell. Thank you very much, sir.
	Let me go back to the first one you mentioned in your
	opening statement with respect to the cost once we go into
	Iraq. In terms of how much will the U.S. percentage be, how
	long will it be there and what will we have to provide to our
	allies, which gets to your other question.
	A lot of the answers to these questions are simply not
	known and can't be known until you see how such a conflict, if
	it comes--we still hope it can be avoided--and you find out how
	it unfolds.
	What we are doing is making contingency plans that would
	cover a full range of possibilities, but it is hard to put
	numbers to these various contingency plans, and I don't think
	that we have solid numbers that we should offer to the
	Congress, because they would be embedded in stone, and we
	really are not sure. What we are doing is stockpiling
	humanitarian supplies, working with the U.N., that is also
	stockpiling humanitarian supplies, in close contact with the
	EU, which is also taking action to position itself, and a
	number of other private nongovernmental organizations that are
	preparing themselves for whatever humanitarian needs might be
	required after a conflict in Iraq.
	I don't think that one should assume that the country is
	going to be devastated by a conflict. People talk about the
	reconstruction of Iraq, but it is not going to be like
	Afghanistan. This is a society and a system that right now is
	functioning. It has institutions that function. It has a
	bureaucracy that is very effective. It has a middle class. It
	has an educated population. It has something else. It has $20
	billion of oil revenue a year. So this is not like Afghanistan,
	where everything had to come up from out of the dust. There is
	a functioning society there.
	What it has, though, is a horrible leadership; and I would
	hope that the conflict would be short, it would be directed
	principally at the leadership and not at the society. That
	certainly is our goal. We don't go after people. We don't go
	after societies. We go after weapons, we go after military
	units, and we go after the leadership that is controlling all
	of this.
	If we were to successfully remove the leadership, we would
	try to build as much as we can on the institutions that are
	there. It would not be necessary for us to have 50,000 people
	who could speak the language to go to every village throughout,
	but essentially use the infrastructure that is there. Once it
	has been purged of leadership that does not want to be part of
	a new country, a new political system that has gotten rid of
	its weapons of mass destruction and is committed to live in
	peace with its neighbors and become a responsible member of the
	21st century, once we got rid of those who were not committed
	to that, then I think you have a great deal to work with.
	Then the challenge would be to put in place a
	representative leadership, and this is a country with no
	democratic tradition. That will take some time. There are
	people outside those in the resistance as well as those inside
	who I think can be used to start to put in place a form of
	government that would accomplish the goals that I have just
	described.
	I think at the outset of a military operation, certainly
	the military commander who goes in to remove the leadership
	assumes responsibility for being in charge of the country for
	some period of time. This shouldn't be surprising to anyone. It
	has happened in every other conflict. It happened in
	Afghanistan when General Franks initially went in, but it would
	be our goal to quickly transition from military leadership. We
	don't want an American general running a Muslim country for any
	length of time.
	How long will it take to transition to civilian leadership,
	either an American civilian initially or an international
	figure or an international arrangement of some kind, and to
	transition through that as rapidly as possible to an Iraqi
	government that is representative of its people? Everybody is
	dying to find out the answer to the question.
	One of my undersecretaries the other day said that some aid
	programs can take up to 2 years to come into fruition and to
	show success. That was immediately grabbed on as we saying that
	we are going to be there for 2 years, no longer.
	We just don't know at this point, but we have to be
	prepared for a fairly long-term commitment, a commitment that
	will change in shape, scope and dimension over time. Initially
	military, quickly transitioning to civilian organizations,
	quickly transitioning, I hope, to the international community
	and then never losing sight of as rapid a transition as
	possible to the Iraqi people.
	The advantages here, the reason this situation is
	different, is there is an infrastructure I don't expect the
	country to be devastated. The Oil for Food Program exists as a
	way of delivering supplies to the society if we can keep the
	Oil for Food Program intact and there is money that will be
	available if the oil fields are not destroyed, or if they are
	damaged, we restore them quickly.
	We are looking at a full range of options from a walk in
	the sun, to destruction of the oil fields, much more
	destruction of the infrastructure by the outgoing regime than
	we might have anticipated. We are looking at a full range of
	options to be ready for any one of these, whether it is an
	optimistic outcome or not-so-optimistic outcome. But I can't
	honestly give you a military estimate of how long it will take
	or, for that matter, a State Department estimate or tell you at
	this point what the overall cost would be.
	I do know that we won't bear it alone. There are a number
	of nations who have signed up to be a part of a coalition of
	the willing or under U.N. resolution, and the major
	international organizations. In fact, today Kofi Annan is
	having meetings about this subject. Major international
	organizations are gearing themselves up to be a part of the
	aftermath.
	Mr. Moran. Thank you.
	Secretary Powell. On the various countries and their
	requests, as you rightly noted, Mr. Moran, they are not in our
	budget at the levels that are being suggested. All of them are
	under consideration.
	With respect to your specific question about Israel, we
	know of their requirements. We fully understand their needs. No
	decision has been made within the administration yet as to what
	we will do.
	Mr. Moran. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
	Chairman Nussle. Mr. Shays.
	Mr. Shays. Mr. Secretary, thank you for your good work.
	Secretary Powell. I will get to North Korea later.
	Mr. Moran. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
	Mr. Shays. Mr. Secretary, thank you for your good work.
	I just want to take this opportunity--two seats next to you
	is a gentleman, your Chief Financial Officer, Christopher
	Burnham. I just want to point out that he served in the State
	House after I vacated that seat to be in Congress; and when I
	had to vote on deciding whether or not to send troops to the
	Gulf War, his mom and dad called up and said, don't do this. We
	will lose too many men and women. Chris Burnham, a reserve
	officer in the Marines, called me up and said we need to go.
	When I voted to send our troops into battle, I knew I was
	sending Chris Burnham, and I will never forget that call to me.
	The National Security Subcommittee of Government Reform,
	which I chair, has oversight responsibilities to the Department
	of State; and I want to say to you that I have seen gigantic
	improvement in the morale of the men and women who serve. I
	have seen significant improvement in the management and
	administrative practices of the Department, great improvement
	in technology; and I just want to say, keep it up. I also want
	to say the quality of the men and women who serve you and serve
	our country, they are extraordinarily dedicated, they are
	intelligent, they are competent, they are motivated public
	servants, and I rejoice in the opportunity of meeting with them
	when I go overseas.
	My question involves right-sizing of overseas deployment of
	our presence there. We have lots of different government
	agencies; and I am struck by the fact that the State Department
	is really being asked to house them, protect them at
	significant cost. I keep hearing that the administration--and I
	am aware that OMB is promoting having a surcharge. In other
	words, let the agencies that want to be there pay the costs. I
	would like you to tell us whether we are making progress.
	Secretary Powell. We are working on it, Mr. Shays, and
	making some progress. I fully believe in the cost-sharing idea.
	We have some of our embassies that have as many as 30 other
	government agencies working under the country team concept,
	under the supervision of the ambassador. The ambassador has
	presidential responsibility for the safety, security and
	management and administration of all of these folks. I believe
	it is quite appropriate for these departments to pay their fair
	share, especially when you have a crisis somewhere.
	Say you have an embassy that has normally 150 people, but a
	crisis breaks out, and agency after agency from Washington
	sends over TDY detailees. You can double and triple the size of
	the mission in short order. All of that incremental cost has to
	be dealt with, and just the span of control of the ambassador
	and the ability of his admin officer and security people at the
	embassy to manage that situation becomes more difficult and we
	have to go outside to get more people in just to support people
	from other departments.
	To the extent that we can lay that burden off
	appropriately, not inappropriately, but get others to bear
	their share of the cost is a sensible management technique, and
	we are certainly working on it with OMB.
	Mr. Shays. Yes. It would strike me that a free service is
	basically going to be overutilized.
	I don't want you to go into your red light, but I want to
	ask this question. I made an assumption that we would help pay
	for the cost of going into Iraq by having the oil revenues of
	Iraq pay for that. The administration came out against that;
	and, with hindsight, I am getting the sense that there is just
	a concern that people would misunderstand our motive if we did
	that. So, to make sure there is no question at all, we wanted
	to be clear these reserves are going to be used for the Iraqi
	people?
	Secretary Powell. I think people would misunderstand the
	motive. The more basic issue is that, under international law,
	if we go in as an occupying force for some period of time and
	we assume responsibility for that country, we have an
	obligation to use the assets of that country, the wealth of
	that country for the benefit of its people. For that reason and
	to make sure nobody misstates our motive in this, we are saying
	loud and clear that the oil of Iraq belongs to the people of
	Iraq; and during that period of time when we would have
	responsibility for the country we will protect this asset that
	belongs to the Iraqi people and use it for the right purpose,
	consistent with international obligations that we take on as
	the occupying force.
	Mr. Shays. Thank you. I yield back.
	Chairman Nussle. Ms. Baldwin.
	Ms. Baldwin. Mr. Secretary, thank you for appearing here
	today, and thank you for your service to this country.
	I have two questions. The first reflects a very big
	question that my constituents are asking me, and the other is a
	little bit more specific. Like Mr. Moran, I will invite you to
	choose to emphasize in your time to answer whichever you would
	like or both.
	As you know, I and many Americans are extremely concerned
	about the possibility of war with Iraq. From the onset,
	concerns have been raised about the wisdom of such an armed
	conflict, about the suffering that it would provoke, about the
	wisdom of committing our men and women in uniform to a conflict
	that has the potential to expose them to biological and
	chemical weapons, and perhaps even house-to-house combat. I
	very much share those concerns. I know you have struggled with
	them yourself. But today, Mr. Secretary, I want to focus on the
	impact that this showdown has had on our relationship with the
	United Nations, NATO, our friends, our allies, and our
	adversaries. Because many people have raised serious concerns
	about the negative effects that that is going to have on our
	ability to fight terrorism and to protect the American people,
	where allies in all corners of this globe are so important and
	so vital. So I am being asked just how many bridges and
	relationships we are willing to strain and how we are going to
	repair those strained and sometimes broken relationships.
	Teddy Roosevelt used to say, speak softly and carry a big
	stick, but I don't think anyone is going to accuse the United
	States and this administration of speaking softly at this
	moment in history. Even Henry Kissinger had warned us that, no
	matter how powerful our military is, seen in the terms of
	politics and international relations, we are not strong enough
	to protect ourselves if we are not without friends.
	So, Mr. Secretary, I am highly concerned about the impact
	that this conflict has had on the United Nations, NATO, and
	international law. These are institutions in a system that we
	created and with American leadership in a post-war era to
	provide a framework for peace and security; and I believe that
	this system, while far from perfect, has served us well. Yet
	our current path ignores or disregards some of the spirit of
	these international agreements. It may allow us to get what we
	need in the short run, but it is extremely dangerous for a
	long-term stability in the world.
	So my first question is, how will the administration repair
	relationships with our friends and allies and rebuild and
	strengthen these international institutions?
	My second question relates to what I fear is a subtle
	erosion of the Department's ability to perform some of its core
	functions. I think the President's budget proposal in recent
	actions seem to shift some power from State to the White House.
	Specifically, I am thinking about the President's recently
	signed executive order formalizing the role of the White House
	Office of Global Communications in the Nation's public
	diplomacy overseas. Doesn't this, in fact, take away a vital
	role from the State Department, one of whose roles is public
	diplomacy?
	This combined with the administration's proposal that the
	Millennium Challenge Account not be administered by USAID and
	the Department of State--although you, of course, will chair
	the function--it raises concerns about the Department's ability
	to carry out both parts of its mission as a first line of
	defense and a first line of effective representation of
	American values and interests abroad.
	Are we witnessing a slow or subtle erosion of State
	Department authority through these subtle policy shifts, even
	when the numbers may seem to be increasing?
	Secretary Powell. Thank you, Ms. Baldwin. Let me talk to
	the first issue.
	The President went to the United Nations last September and
	he spoke clearly; one might say softly, one might say directly,
	but he spoke clearly to the international community when he
	said Iraq has been in violation of its obligations through 16
	previous U.N. resolutions, its obligations to disarm its
	weapons of mass destruction. He didn't run out and start a
	unilateral war. He said to the United Nations, what are we
	going to do? What value does this institution have if its
	resolutions repeatedly are simply ignored by one dictator?
	If this institution is to have relevance, we have to be
	prepared to impose serious consequences on a nation that so
	ignores its obligations under the resolutions of this body. It
	isn't just ignoring some little policy item or dictate. It was
	developing weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological,
	nuclear weapons that this dictator had demonstrated a
	willingness to use against his own people, against his
	neighbors.
	He invaded two of his neighbors, used chemical weapons, and
	was known by previous United Nations inspectors to have
	anthrax, botulitum toxin, a lot of other terrible, terrible
	things, and he had not accounted for what he did with it. Then
	created a set of circumstances in 1998 which forced the
	inspectors out.
	The President went to the United Nations and said we have
	to do something about this. That was neither unilateral nor
	heavy-handed. It was an act of leadership on the part of the
	President to do that.
	In the following 7 weeks, we worked very hard. I worked
	very hard, my colleagues in the Security Council worked hard to
	come up with a resolution that is the now famous 1441. It said
	Iraq is guilty. It didn't say where is the evidence? It started
	out in its first operative paragraph by saying Iraq is guilty.
	We have the evidence. Anthrax and botulitum are missing. Iraq
	is guilty. It is guilty of material breaches in the past. Those
	breaches continue into the present.
	Second, we will give Iraq a way to get out of the problem
	if it comes clean. The whole burden of this resolution was
	placed upon Iraq, not on the inspectors.
	The resolution said that we will give inspectors
	strengthened powers to do their job if Iraq cooperates and
	complies with the resolution.
	Fourth, it said if Iraq does not comply and enters into new
	material breaches, serious consequences will follow.
	Iraq started to let inspectors in suddenly after 4 years.
	Why? Because they were persuaded by the logic of the
	resolution? No. They saw American troops moving. They saw that
	we were deadly serious about serious consequences, and suddenly
	Iraq started doing things.
	What they didn't do was what the resolution called for them
	to do, come into compliance and get rid of the weapons of mass
	destruction. If they had done that, we wouldn't be where we are
	right now. If they do it tonight, we wouldn't be where we might
	be in a few weeks. We have demonstrations planned for this
	weekend, and there is a great deal of controversy on this
	issue, but the burden was placed on Iraq, not on the United
	States.
	It is the United States and the United Nations that have an
	obligation to see that the resolutions of the United Nations
	are obeyed. What we have seen so far is continued misbehavior
	by Iraq.
	Even though one can question the strength of the linkages
	between al Qaeda and Iraq, I believe there is enough evidence
	out there that there is something we should be concerned about
	as a minimum because of this nexus between terrorism and
	weapons of mass destruction. Even though individually Osama bin
	Laden and Saddam Hussein might hate each other, they found a
	community of interest here--terrorism and weapons of mass
	destruction.
	I think that the United States is in a strong position here
	with respect to what we think the United Nations should do. We
	are approaching the time when the United Nations cannot ignore
	what Iraq has been doing for the last 3 months. We will hear
	from Dr. Blix and Dr. El Baradei, and then a debate will begin
	as to what should be the next step.
	Some suggest we just double or triple the number of
	inspectors. It isn't a lack of inspectors that is causing a
	problem. It is Iraq's noncompliance. I am sorry but this is a
	diversion. Or give them more technical capability. Dr. Blix
	would love any additional support he gets, but, as he has
	said--he has said, not Colin Powell--he has said Iraq still
	doesn't understand that it has to disarm.
	We have got to stay on the track that we are on, and we
	have to make it clear to Saddam Hussein that he will be
	disarmed of weapons of mass destruction one way or another.
	This has caused strains within NATO and within the United
	Nations, as you have said, but NATO and the United Nations are
	resilient institutions that have undergone strain over their 50
	years of existence. In my roughly 20 years of public service at
	an exceptionally high level, there have always been debates and
	disagreements within NATO and within the United Nations, and we
	will find a way through these disagreements, or if we can't
	fine a way through, then we will have to act.
	NATO and the U.N. have found in previous crises where you
	can't get NATO agreement or U.N. agreement action happens
	nonetheless, with the coalition of the willing, such as
	happened in Kosovo; and sometimes we have to act unilaterally
	as we did in Panama.
	The institutions have a history. They are needed. And
	whatever strains exist now, I think they are strains that can
	be managed and in due course. Because there is such a need for
	these two strong, powerful institutions, and they have such a
	history of success. We will get through these troubled times.
	Let me just talk quickly on your two points. On both White
	House Office of Global Communications and Millennium Challenge
	Account, I don't feel threatened. We need a global
	communications office in the White House, because if it is just
	the State Department doing its thing and saying this is all
	mine, I will do it through my international programs, then we
	aren't always that well coordinated with what the Pentagon
	might be doing and vice versa.
	Communications have become such a complex business in this
	24/7 world where you have got to be up to date, you have got to
	get the information out, that there was a need for an
	overarching communications effort. To show you how it works,
	the Office of Global Communications is putting out now a daily
	sheet of messages on what we should be saying as a government.
	I just instructed my staff this past Monday morning to make
	sure that sheet gets out electronically to every embassy in the
	world. I want every ambassador to see this so they know what
	the whole government is thinking, not just what the State
	Department is thinking.
	I don't feel challenged by that, and we are working closely
	with the new office.
	With respect to the Millennium Challenge Account, I am the
	chairman of the board of directors. What the President wanted
	to do is to make the MCA look different. It was not to be just
	aid as usual, but a new kind of focused aid for those nations
	moving toward democracy.
	We looked at a lot of models and felt that something that
	was free-standing as an independent department, but working
	closely with USAID, and can't just go off by itself. We have to
	reconcile these programs, and I think in my role as chairman of
	the board of directors, I have the opportunity to make sure
	that there is integration and a merger of activities between
	the Millennium Challenge Account and what AID is doing.
	Finally, the President announced the new global initiative
	for HIV/AIDS in his State of the Union Address, and in this
	instance he saw fit to place it wholly within the State
	Department.
	It is a matter of finding the right solution for the
	particular problem, and I don't feel that the White House is
	trying to gut me. And I thank the President for giving me the
	global initiative on AIDS, because we will do it well in the
	Department.
	Chairman Nussle. Mr. Gutknecht.
	Mr. Gutknecht. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and thank you, Mr.
	Secretary, for your service to the country.
	Let me clarify one thing about Teddy Roosevelt, before we
	have too much revisionist history here. He was not bashful
	about using that stick, and I think sometimes we forget that
	part.
	The other thing I want to mention, when you talked about
	the children--and it really is true that the real benefactors
	of our foreign policy I think are children, whether it is in
	sub-Saharan Africa, Afghanistan, or Iraq, the whole benefactors
	are the children.
	One thing that I would add to your list of accomplishments
	of what we have done in Afghanistan, the people need to be
	reminded of, is that for the first time in many parts of
	Afghanistan in almost 20 years little girls are going to school
	for the first time, and that happened because of brave
	Americans like the ones you described aboard that aircraft
	carrier.
	But at the end of the day this is the Budget Committee, and
	our job is to try and squeeze $2.5 trillion worth of requests
	into about a $2 trillion package. So what I want to get at is
	in terms of the budget and how we are going to make this all
	work, because it is about children. We have heard a lot of
	economic theory in the last couple of weeks in terms of tax
	cuts and what it does to the economy, but let me give you an
	economic fact. Government will be paid for. It will either be
	paid for now or it will be paid for in the future by our
	children with interest. So that is a tough job, and I want to
	get to a couple of tough questions for you.
	One is--and I didn't really hear a very good response--and
	that is what commitments has the administration made to some of
	our allies that could be very expensive in the future? Whether
	we are talking about Turkey or whether we are talking about
	Israel, any of the other countries in the region, it seems to
	me the administration does have an obligation to share with us
	what kind of commitments they have made, because the power of
	the purse is vested here.
	Then the second question is, how are we going to pay for
	this effort in Iraq? Many of us are old enough to remember that
	when we had the first confrontation with Saddam Hussein we were
	able to get our allies to literally pick up all of the expenses
	of that military effort, and as I recall the costs were about
	$53 billion. Can you share with us more of who is going to pay
	for this effort?
	Because going back to the effort in the Balkans and in the
	former Yugoslavia, those were NATO efforts, and I think our
	obligation to NATO is to pick up about 25 percent of the cost.
	As I recall, we ended up picking up well over 75 percent of
	those costs. It seems to me we have got to work together to
	make certain we have a clear understanding of how much this is
	going to cost and who will pay for it.
	Secretary Powell. With respect to commitments we have made
	to various countries, we are in discussions with all of the
	countries that were mentioned earlier on what their needs might
	be now or in the event of a conflict, and most of these amounts
	are not yet programmed for in the 2004 request that you have
	before you. There will certainly be a need to come forward
	through supplemental action to request more funds.
	I don't have a specific number that I can give you today,
	sir, because not all of this has been worked out yet. In fact,
	I was having discussions with a Turkish delegation that is here
	this morning before coming up here, but as soon as we have a
	handle on this entire package, we will be coming forward to
	discuss it with the Congress.
	With respect to the cost of this war and how to pay for the
	cost, it is not going to be quite the same, I don't think, as
	the Gulf War. It will be a different kind of coalition. I am
	not sure under what authority it will be conducted under, if we
	do have a conflict, whether it will be under U.N. resolution or
	whether it would not be, just a coalition of the willing, and
	the sources of funds that were available to President Bush back
	in 1991 in various countries isn't quite the same as it is now.
	We have begun discussions within the administration,
	discussions with some of our friends and allies about our
	expectation that they would assist with paying the costs of our
	operation as well as the cost of whatever might be required in
	Iraq afterwards, but I don't have a specific number that I can
	give you today or a percentage.
	Chairman Nussle. Mr. Moore.
	Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here. I am very grateful
	for the experience, for the compassion and for the wisdom that
	you bring to the office, the high office you hold.
	I want to just talk about two or three areas and get you
	again to comment, if you can and if you will, please, as you
	have time.
	Chairman Nussle. If the gentleman, just for--because the
	Secretary is only here for another hour and we have a number of
	members, if we keep asking three questions, use 5 minutes and
	then allow him to answer three questions, we are going to run
	out of time. So I would--obviously, you can use your 5 minutes
	how you would like, but I would ask members to try and keep it
	within that 5 minutes so that the Secretary can answer as many
	questions from members as possible.
	Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief here
	then.
	Recent newspaper reports indicate that North Korea has
	attempted to engage in discussions with our country and that
	they feel that they may have been rebuffed. I would like to
	know if this is true, and are we able to multitask here to
	concentrate and focus on what is happening in Iraq and the
	situation there and at the same time engage in talks with North
	Korea? Because that could be obviously a very hot spot, and I
	know you know that better than any of us here in this room?
	No. 2, news reports again indicate that there have been
	recent discoveries of missiles in Iraq that may have longer
	range than is permissible. What effect might that have on Dr.
	Blix's report tomorrow, as you have indicated?
	Finally, the last question, I will just give you the rest
	of my time to try and answer as you can to comply with the
	chairman's request here. I leave on Saturday with a bipartisan
	group of Members of Congress to meet with parliamentarians and
	the NATO allies. Anything that I can convey to our friends and
	German friends?
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman--or Mr. Secretary.
	Secretary Powell. On the second point, the missiles that
	were found to violate the U.N. restriction of 150 kilometers, I
	won't prejudge what Dr. Blix will say tomorrow, but I think
	this is a serious matter. If that is what he confirms tomorrow
	in his presentation, it shows continued Iraqi noncompliance. I
	think it could be a serious matter, and I look forward to Dr.
	Blix's report. I will be up there at the Security Council to
	hear it.
	With respect to NATO, I hope you will convey to my French
	colleagues, and other members of the alliance the position that
	I took here earlier today, and that is that 1441 has to have
	force behind it. It can't just keep going on and on and on with
	inspections in the presence of Iraqi noncompliance. The issue
	is Iraqi compliance, not how many inspectors for how long. We
	cannot allow ourselves to be diverted from the task at hand,
	which is the disarmament of Iraq. The disarmament of Iraq can
	take place tomorrow morning if Saddam Hussein cooperates in the
	way intended by 1441.
	On your first point with respect to North Korea, we have a
	number of channels that we are using to talk to the North
	Koreans, as well as our own direct channel, a bureaucratic
	channel that we have to talk to the North Koreans.
	What we said to them is that we are deeply concerned that,
	as a result of the previous time we talked directly to you in
	setting up the agreed framework, we thought we had put the
	genie back in the bottle and a cork in the bottle with respect
	to nuclear programs. The previous administration that
	negotiated that agreement was unaware, and we were unaware for
	the first year of this administration that you had another
	bottle with another genie trying to develop nuclear weapons in
	another way, through enriched uranium and not through plutonium
	reprocessing.
	This is a very serious matter. We referred it to the IAEA,
	which yesterday referred it to the United Nations Security
	Council. What we said to the North Koreans is that we are
	willing to talk to you, but it can't just be the United States
	and the DPRK. We have to find a way to have other concerned
	nations involved.
	China is threatened. Russia is threatened. South Korea is
	threatened. They are all encouraging us to talk to North Korea
	as well. We are willing to do that, but we believe this time we
	have to have a regional understanding, a regional settlement,
	and that is what we have been pressing on the North Koreans.
	But the North Korean position so far has been no, that is
	strictly between the United States and the DPRK, and that is
	the only basis upon which we will talk to the United States.
	We believe we have to find a way to broaden that dialogue,
	because so many other countries have an interest in it, and so
	many other countries are affected by it. We still think there
	is a possibility of diplomatic solution. Even the North Koreans
	have said that. We are watching carefully, and we know that if
	they keep moving down the track they have been moving on and
	start up the reactor and then go to reprocessing, then we are
	facing a new and more difficult situation.
	Mr. Moore. I understand and I agree exactly with what you
	said, but I do hope that we can sit down, even if it means the
	United States alone, and begin discussions and then involve the
	other nations on a regional basis. Because, if we don't talk,
	the alternative is not a pleasant one.
	Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
	Secretary Powell. Thank you, sir.
	Chairman Nussle. Thank you.
	Mr. Thornberry.
	Mr. Thornberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Mr. Secretary, I am particularly interested and even a
	little excited about some of the new initiatives in your
	budget. My view is the American people are a generous people,
	but they are a little skeptical about our foreign aid, whether
	it really gets to the people we are trying to help and, once it
	does, is it really helping them? It is a little bit like I
	think we viewed our welfare system in the past, that with good
	intentions sometimes it traps people.
	The Millennium Challenge Account is something that I am
	very interested in and particularly some of the criteria that
	you are going to use to fund that program. For example, I have
	come to believe that the ideas put forward by Hernando DeSoto,
	that property rights is a fundamental building block, are
	absolutely correct and that if you try to help people and yet
	they cannot have the government help them hold on to their
	house or their business, that really you haven't helped
	anything.
	On the other hand, if you can build on things and have
	something to pass along to your children, that not only
	provides stability to society, it provides hope where there may
	be none in a variety of places; and that has implications for
	terrorism and a number of other things.
	I guess what I really want to know is, are property rights
	going to be one of the key criteria that you are going to use
	and encouragements that you are going to use in that account?
	Secretary Powell. I don't know that we have it as one of
	the criteria for consideration of a request, but it is a good
	idea, Mr. Thornberry, and I would like to take it back and put
	it into the staffing process, because I agree entirely with
	you. To take it one step further, when you do have protected
	property rights, protected by the rule of law, and individuals
	can own property and pass property, they also can develop
	equity, and you are releasing the wealth of the nation that is
	held in the form of land and property. And we have seen what we
	can do with that here in the United States. So I believe that
	property rights should be something that we ought to look at as
	part of our program.
	Mr. Thornberry. Well, if we can help build that criteria
	into the funding mechanism, I think we should have that
	dialogue.
	It has been pointed out to me that some of the same
	countries that you all may be looking at have been part of the
	International Development Association loans, and in a 40-year
	period exactly one country has graduated or met their criteria.
	We don't want to repeat the mistakes of the past. We want to do
	better than that and lift people up, and it seems to me we are
	going to have to have different approaches to do that.
	Secretary Powell. Thank you, Mr. Thornberry.
	Mr. Thornberry. Thank you, sir.
	Chairman Nussle. Mr. Edwards.
	Mr. Edwards. Mr. Secretary, thank you for your lifetime of
	distinguished service to our country, both in uniform and out.
	I would like to ask two questions, and then perhaps the
	third one would be for written answer, if we could.
	We know that since 1992 there have been at least 14 cases
	where nuclear material, highly enriched uranium has been stolen
	from Russia, and in those cases Russian authorities found it
	and returned it. But I still think we need to do much more and
	be much bolder in protecting nuclear materials abroad from
	theft by terrorists.
	On another subcommittee I am on, I am with the Nunn-Lugar
	program. I don't think those resources can be used outside of
	Russia. But my question is, do you think, if resources were
	available, would Russia and other former Soviet states be
	willing to be more aggressive in working with us to provide
	better material protection of that nuclear material, possibly
	including major purchases by the United States of that
	material?
	My second question is this. I have the privilege of
	representing Fort Hood that you are familiar with in Texas, the
	only two-division Army in the United States. We are in the
	process of deploying 12,500 soldiers as we speak to the Iraqi
	theatre, and if first cavalry follows suit in the Iraqi theatre
	and Korea, we could have 30,000 soldiers from Fort Hood
	deployed in harm's way.
	Would you please use your influence as the President's
	chief foreign adviser to talk to either the OMB budget analysts
	or someone above that pay grade to tell them it is a horrible
	thing to be sending these troops abroad when, at the same time,
	we are giving them a stub as they get on the plane that says,
	by the way, we are cutting your children's education fund, the
	Impact Aid military education fund, dramatically. The two
	school districts that provide public education for the children
	of those 44,000 soldiers at Fort Hood will be cut under the
	administration budget proposal $31 million.
	I know this isn't under your direct authority, but
	certainly the morale of our servicemen and women is vital to
	success in our standing up to Saddam Hussein. I please urge you
	to use your influence to have that issue addressed; and I think
	the quicker, the better. Normally, we could address this
	through the normal appropriations process and kill that budget
	proposal, because most administrations, Republican and
	Democrat, have proposed it one way or another. But in this
	case, I think for morale purposes, it is hurting morale, and we
	need to deal with it quickly.
	The final question in writing perhaps is, if we have a
	clear U.S. law against using any tax dollars to fund a single
	abortion overseas, then why did the administration in fact
	line-item veto $34 million for U.N. family planning funds for
	maternal health programs and also birth control programs and
	frankly could help prevent abortions? Perhaps maybe in that
	written answer some information about how those funds have been
	used in other programs, hopefully for some of the same
	purposes.
	Secretary Powell. Thank you, Mr. Edwards.
	On the last point, I will provide you a full answer for the
	record. As you know, it is a complex issue, but we have
	reapplied the funds. Whether they will be able to actually flow
	to the accounts which are similar still remains to be seen.
	[The information referred to follows:]

	Letter in Response to Mr. Edwards Question Regarding the
	Administration's Veto on the U.N. Family Planning Funds

	U.S. Department of State,
	Washington, DC, March 26, 2003.
	Dear Mr. Edwards: At the House Budget Committee hearing on February
	13 you asked Secretary Powell why the administration ``* * *[I]n
	effect, line item veto[ed] $34 million for U.N. family planning funds
	[UNFPA] for maternal health programs and also birth control programs
	and, frankly, that could help prevent abortions?'' In addition, you
	also requested the Department supply ``* * *[S]ome information about
	how those funds have been used in other programs, hopefully, for some
	of the same purposes.'' The Secretary indicated that the Department of
	State would provide additional information for the record, and we are
	pleased to do so.
	The Secretary determined in July 2002 that China's national
	coercive abortion and sterilization policies had triggered restrictions
	contained annually in the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act known
	as Kemp-Kasten, which states that financial and other assistance cannot
	be provided to any organization which supports or participates in the
	management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary
	sterilization. After this determination had been made we were precluded
	from providing our planned $34 million in fiscal year 2002 funding to
	UNFPA.
	On September 30, 2002, the President directed that the funds in
	question be transferred to the Child Survival and Health Programs Fund
	with the instruction that the funds be used for maternal and
	reproductive health and related programs. Pursuant to this instruction,
	and keeping in mind the Secretary's intent to use the funds in
	countries with the greatest need and as originally envisaged for the
	purpose of family planning and reproductive health care, the State
	Department selected Afghanistan and Pakistan to receive the funds.
	On January 16, 2003, the Agency for International Development
	notified Congress in the attached congressional notification of our
	intent to fund reproductive health and maternal health and related
	programs in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The January 16 notification
	details our plan to spend $25 million on these programs in Afghanistan
	and $9 million in Pakistan. Afghanistan and Pakistan are priorities of
	the President and of current United States assistance efforts. Focusing
	on programs related to the critical reproductive and maternal health
	needs in these countries will have a significant immediate impact on
	the lives of women and their families, while also helping reshape these
	countries' health programs to promote a longterm and sustainable
	improvement.
	After the attached notification was sent to Congress, holds were
	placed on this funding. Additionally, the enactment of the fiscal year
	2003 omnibus appropriations act contained additional provisions
	relating to the use of these funds. We continue to examine the
	situation and hope to resolve the issue as soon as possible so we can
	obligate the funds to address the critically urgent maternal and
	reproductive health care needs in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
	We hope you find this information useful, please do not hesitate to
	contact us if we can be of further assistance.
	Sincerely,
	Paul V. Kelly,
	Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs.

	UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ADVICE OF PROGRAM
	CHANGE

	Program: Two countries--Afghanistan and Pakistan
	Appropriation Category: Child Survival and Health Programs Fund

	The purpose of this notification is to advise that the $34 million
	transferred to the Child Survival and Health Programs Fund on September
	30, 2002, will be used for reproductive health and maternal health and
	related programs as directed by President Bush. The funds will support
	such activities in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
	In accordance with the decision by President Bush, the $34 million
	originally intended in fiscal year 2002 for UNFPA were transferred to
	the Child Survival and Health Programs Fund.
	Both Afghanistan and Pakistan are in dire need of basic health
	programs including reproductive and maternal health programs. In both
	countries, USAID has recently begun to support a program of maternal
	and child health care and family planning activities. With this
	additional funding, USAID will be able to add more programs in the
	areas of reproductive health and maternal health and related programs,
	including child survival activities, and to integrate them into broader
	basic health initiatives. This expansion of the programs will save or
	improve the lives of many thousands of women and children.
	Focusing the $34 million on Afghanistan and Pakistan will not only
	offer a greater immediate impact in these two countries, but will also
	allow USAID to reshape and expand the health programs in these two
	countries so that future health care will improve throughout both
	countries. Because health indicators in these countries are so poor and
	the needs so great, funds spent here will be very effective in terms of
	results achieved per dollar spent.
	Funding Afghanistan and Pakistan is critical because:
	<bullet> The President has made assistance to Afghanistan a
	priority in the post-Taliban period;
	<bullet> Parts of Afghanistan have maternal mortality rates that
	are the highest ever recorded in the world;
	<bullet> Both Afghanistan and Pakistan have extremely high maternal
	and infant mortality and morbidity ratios, reflecting their critical
	maternal and infant health needs;
	<bullet> Both Afghanistan and Pakistan have a dire need for
	maternal and reproductive health care, including family planning, and
	the two countries are linked together geographically and culturally;
	<bullet> Both countries face a shortfall of country-level resources
	and/or persistent neglect of the social sector (e.g., resources are
	prioritized to military spending and not to social services, including
	health); and
	<bullet> The infusion of these funds will permit the accelerated
	introduction of high quality, culturally-acceptable maternal and
	reproductive health care and child survival interventions in poor and
	underserved regions.
	Specific allocations are based in part on the absorptive capacity
	of local institutions and specific infrastructure needs. In
	Afghanistan, costs are higher due to the substantial investment needed
	to rebuild the local infrastructure for basic health services.
	The funds will be used to accelerate and expand maternal and
	reproductive health care, including family planning and child survival,
	without creating requirements for funds that cannot be sustained.
	Priority investments include on-the-ground training for midwives,
	community health workers and other medical personnel; building,
	equipping and refurbishing clinics, and provision of supplies including
	support for a broad range of family planning methods, micronutrients,
	birthing kits, prenatal, postnatal and neonatal care packages, and
	medical and surgical supplies.
	Providing these types of reproductive and maternal health care and
	child survival interventions will save lives immediately upon
	initiation of the programs. By protecting the lives and health of women
	and children, such care will be a sound base for long term health gains
	for those individuals helped during the next few years. In addition, by
	visibly increasing the quality of maternal and child health care and
	thereby demonstrating the utility of seeking medical care, the program
	will educate the population about the value of health care and
	encourage the population to seek health care in the future, which will
	lead to long-term health gains for the population as a whole.
	program data sheet
	USAID mission: Afghanistan
	Strategic objective and number: TBD
	Planned fiscal year 2003 obligation and funding source: $TBD
	Unobligated prior year funds and funding source: $25,000,000 CSH

	After years of conflict, Afghanistan ranks near the bottom on key
	health indicators\1\:
	---------------------------------------------------------------------------
	\1\ Source for most indicators is the 2002 World Population Data
	Sheet produced by the population Reference Bureau. Maternal mortality
	ratio for Afghanistan is taken from Bartlett, Linda et al, Maternal
	Mortality in Afghanistan: Magnitude, Causes Risk Factors and
	Preventability Summary Findings. November 6, 2002. CDC Press Release.
	---------------------------------------------------------------------------
	<bullet> Maternal mortality rate [MMR]: 1,600 maternal deaths per
	100,000 live births;
	<bullet> Percent of births that take place in the presence of
	trained birth assistance: <10 percent;
	<bullet> Infant mortality rate [IMR]: 154 infant deaths per 1,000
	births.
	The results of a recent study\2\ by the Centers for Disease Control
	[CDC] indicate that overall maternal mortality in Afghanistan is the
	worst in Asia and ranks among the worst in the world. The CDC estimated
	Afghanistan's MMR to be 1,600 and documented a MMR of 6,500--the
	highest ever recorded--in the remote Badakshan region, one of the
	regions where this assistance will be used.
	---------------------------------------------------------------------------
	\2\ Bartlett, Linda et al, op--cit.
	---------------------------------------------------------------------------
	USAID allocated nearly $15 million in fiscal year 2002 to
	developing a comprehensive program of health assistance for Afghanistan
	that is helping reestablish a health infrastructure from the ground up.
	The core program provides integrated services that include
	immunization, care for childhood illness, antenatal and postnatal care,
	and vitamin A supplementation, and other basic health care services.
	The $25 million in this notification will expand the areas of coverage
	and types of care provided by the core health program.
	Midwife: Training and Clinic Program. A key barrier to health care
	is the lack of female health care providers. After years of Taliban
	rule, few trained female health care providers exist and those who
	still practice do not have adequate skills to provide life-saving
	services. Access to maternal and reproductive health care, including
	family planning, has been particularly adversely affected by the lack
	of female providers. The midwife program will expand and accelerate
	access to maternal and reproductive health care by integrating it into
	the national basic health care system.
	The funds will help develop and expand the infrastructure and
	training programs needed to increase rapidly the number of skilled
	female health care providers. The funds will cover start-up costs, such
	as curriculum development and equipment of clinical training sites, for
	the midwife training program, thereby allowing planned budgets for
	future years to manage and support the midwife training with relatively
	low recurrent costs. In this manner, the funds under this notification
	will extend high quality and culturally acceptable maternal and
	reproductive health care, including family planning, to poor and under-
	served regions of Afghanistan.
	The midwife training program will: Recruit, train, and deploy
	auxiliary midwives in poor, under-served regions of Afghanistan. The
	training of these midwives is expected to take 18 months and is in line
	with the National Safe Motherhood Initiative that will expand the
	provision of essential obstetrical care and family planning services
	throughout Afghanistan. This program is expected to train at least 250
	midwives over the first 2 years, with much larger numbers thereafter.
	Each midwife is expected to serve a community of 30,000.
	<bullet> Train teams of master trainers of physicians and midwives.
	Only one such team exists currently; the additional funds will expand
	the number of master trainer teams.
	<bullet> Develop training and educational materials on midwifery,
	pre- and post-natal care, hygiene and nutrition, and family planning,
	and translate these materials into local languages.
	The clinic program will:
	<bullet> Build, refurbish and equip clinical teaching and service
	sites. These sites will provide high quality maternal, reproductive and
	child health care, as well as supplies to support a broad range of
	family planning methods.
	<bullet> Equip at least 250 clinic sites where the trained midwives
	will be posted.
	Complementary activities. The funds will support the following
	activities to complement the clinic and midwife program:
	<bullet> Surveying: USAID will arrange to assess needs, demand and
	provider practices in order to provide a baseline for future
	government, NGO and donor support of maternal and reproductive health
	care, including family planning.
	<bullet> Integrating multiple types of care: Integrate prenatal,
	postpartum and neonatal care, as well as family planning services, into
	ongoing primary health care programs now being implemented. This
	integration will be accomplished by training of providers and by
	providing appropriate equipment and supplies.
	<bullet> Involving NGOs and the private sector: Increase access to
	maternal and reproductive health care, including family planning, and
	child health information and services through grants to NGOs and other
	private sector channels, including private midwives and pharmacists.
	program data sheet
	USAID mission: Pakistan
	Strategic objective and number: Improving Basic Health Services, 399-
	XXX\1\
	---------------------------------------------------------------------------
	\1\ Pakistan's health strategic objective is currently undergoing
	development and has not yet been assigned a numerical symbol.
	---------------------------------------------------------------------------
	Planned fiscal year 2003 obligation and funding source: $TBD
	Unobligated prior year funds and funding source: $9,000,000 CSH

	Key reproductive health indicators for Pakistan have seen little
	change over the 8 years.
	<bullet> Maternal mortality rate [MMR]: 200 maternal deaths per
	100,000 live births (and estimated to be considerably higher in remote
	areas);
	<bullet> Birth assistance rate: approximately 20 percent;
	<bullet> Infant mortality rate [IMR]: 86 infant deaths per 1,000
	births.
	The funds provided under this notification supplement USAID/
	Pakistan's current basic health care program restarted in fiscal year
	2002 after an eight-year hiatus. The current program includes child
	survival, maternal health, and related, basic health care services, and
	HIV/AIDS prevention activities. The funds provided under this
	notification will expand maternal and reproductive health care programs
	and related programs.
	Like the Afghanistan program, the Pakistan program is in the early
	stages of design and implementation. The additional funds will be used
	to accelerate the implementation schedule of planned activities and to
	expand their scope. For example, these funds will cover start-up costs,
	such as refurbishment and equipment, which tend to be higher than
	recurrent costs. The recurrent costs for sustaining the activities will
	be able to be covered by USAID/Pakistan's regular budget.
	The $9 million will support expansion of maternal and reproductive
	health care, including family planning products and services, to poor
	and underserved rural areas. The program will include funding of
	private sector health care providers who will work as partners with the
	Pakistani Government.
	Specifically, the funds will be used to:
	<bullet> Increase number of health care points: Expand maternal and
	reproductive health care, including family planning, to an additional
	300 health care points where the social marketing program plans to
	offer integrated health services including well-baby care,
	immunizations, nutritional supplementation, and pre- and post-natal
	care. The program will work closely with local NGOs to ensure it
	responds to the needs of the communities.
	<bullet> Train midwives: Assist the Government of Pakistan to
	launch an ambitious program to train 50,000 new midwives throughout the
	country. At present there are virtually no trained midwives in Pakistan
	and a trained attendant assists only 20 percent of births. As with the
	midwife training program described for Afghanistan, this program will
	require development of training curricula, preparation of training
	sites and training of trainers.
	<bullet> Train community health workers: Train 1,000 additional
	community health workers through local NGOS to provide basic
	information to rural communities about maternal health care and
	reproductive health care, including family planning.
	<bullet> Integrate multiple types of care: Integrate neonatal care
	and treatment into maternal and post-partum care in all health care
	points.
	<bullet> Integrate post-abortion care: Double the number of sites
	for post-abortion care (which USAID defines to include treatment of
	emergency conditions or injuries caused by abortion) to 542 health care
	sites over 2 years; integrate such care into basic health care, and
	link women receiving emergency care to family planning information and
	supplies in order to help prevent future abortions.
	<bullet> Conduct surveys: Gather health information on infant/child
	and maternal mortality and morbidity to guide the Pakistani government,
	donors, NGOs, and program implementers in making policy and program
	improvements.

	Secretary Powell. On your first question, we are in
	aggressive conversations with the Russian federation on this
	issue with respect to highly enriched uranium and other
	materials left over from the old Soviet Union. Nunn-Lugar is a
	program we support, and we are also working on other programs
	within the G-8 community to provide additional funds for the
	destruction of chemical materials, as well as other kinds of
	weapons of mass destruction materials that might leak out of
	the old Soviet Union. We have funding in our export control
	accounts for another $40 million to train people to intercept
	weapons of mass destruction, giving them the technology, the
	training to identify this kind of leakage of material and
	enhance their border controls.
	With respect to the Fort Hood system and Impact Aid, I am
	very familiar with Impact Aid. In an earlier phase of my life,
	I used to be the superintendent of schools at Fort Campbell,
	Kentucky, and I not only had a full range of titles, six
	schools that were under my responsibility, but as a father of
	three kids in military schools and communities, serving in the
	military, I am familiar with Impact Aid; and I will convey your
	thoughts to my colleagues at OMB.
	Mr. Edwards. Thank you, sir.
	Chairman Nussle. Mr. Hastings.
	Mr. Hastings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and, Mr. Secretary,
	I want to congratulate you for all time that you have taken to
	be on the Hill on both sides of the rotunda. You said at the
	outset that is your responsibility, and it is in a free and
	open society, but your answers to all my colleagues' questions
	I think really illuminate where we are now and why we may have
	to act, and I think the American people appreciate that
	forthrightness.
	I want to change gears, however, and talk entirely--not
	talk about the current time but talk about the past and talk
	about another war, the Second World War. There was a Federal
	appeals court in California that recently ruled that the
	dismissal of World War II-based damage claims against Japanese
	companies against U.S. prisoners of war, they upheld that
	dismissal. Now my understanding is that these claims, whether
	by Americans against Japanese or Japanese against Americans,
	are clearly barred by the 1951 treaty after the Second World
	War.
	Now my question arises, because a California State
	appellate court recently refused to dismiss some of these
	claims, and I wonder that if these cases, if they are allowed
	to proceed to recovery, would abrogate that 1951 treaty.
	Now I am advised that during a past Congress the State
	Department opposed any legislation that would have enabled any
	of these lawsuits in the current Congress. Then can I assume
	that you would continue to oppose those lawsuits, but in lieu
	of such lawsuits, would you support legislation that would
	maybe provide limited payments to these former POWs? So this is
	something that has come up, particularly with those that served
	and were part of the Death March of Bataan.
	Secretary Powell. Yes, sir. I am very familiar with the
	issue and have studied it on a number of occasions over the
	past 2 years. These were our folks, and they suffered mightily
	during the Bataan Death March, and I feel they are entitled to
	some compensation for their suffering.
	The difficult legal situation we find ourselves in is that
	the 1951 treaty, by its terms, resolved all outstanding claims.
	As a matter of precedent and international law, we have to
	defend that principle of the treaty trumping all other claims
	in this matter. That is the reason that the State Department
	has held firmly to the position that the treaty resolve these
	claims and these issues.
	At the same time, we have been trying to find creative ways
	outside of the law and outside of the treaty whereby a form of
	compensation might be provided to these veterans. I can't speak
	specifically to the legislation you might have in mind, sir,
	but I would certainly be more than willing and anxious to take
	a look at it, to see if it is a way forward.
	But I have to stand on the principle of the treaty
	resolving the claims. Otherwise, we would open up all sorts of
	other opportunities for claims that were settled by other
	treaties or by this treaty.
	Mr. Hastings. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
	Mr. Shays [presiding]. Mr. Scott.
	Mr. Scott. Thank you.
	Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you again for your service
	to our country.
	I want to add my voice to the gentleman from Texas about
	Impact Aid. If you are a superintendent--former superintendent
	of schools of an impacted school district, we don't have to
	tell you what to say, but, hopefully, you will say it to OMB.
	Mr. Secretary, I don't know if you are familiar with
	Operation Smile. It is an organization of plastic surgeons
	headed by Bill and Kathy Magee who take missions to at least 20
	different countries, providing plastic surgery for those with
	cleft lip.
	Secretary Powell. I am very familiar with it.
	Mr. Scott. That is a kind of program that, when they leave,
	they have not only impacted a few hundred children and changed
	their lives, but it is also a ton of good will that they leave
	behind. Is that something----
	Secretary Powell. And the training and capacity that they
	leave behind.
	Mr. Scott [continuing]. Is that something that could be
	funded by the State Department? It is basically a volunteer
	operation. They don't charge anything for their services, but
	there are a lot of expenses involved. Is that something that we
	could find something in the State Department to help fund? And
	if so, who would I talk to?
	Secretary Powell. Well, you are talking to the right guy.
	Let me take it back to the Department and look at it. I can't
	answer off the top of my head. It would depend on the nature of
	the organization, the nature of its status, grant applications
	and a rather complicated process. We have so many hundreds and
	hundreds, if not thousands, of organizations that would like to
	receive funding from the government in one form or another,
	from the State Department, the HHS and elsewhere.
	I am very familiar with Operation Smile and other similar
	programs. They have done a great job, especially starting in
	China, and places like that and in the Americas where they have
	done just fantastic work in giving youngsters hope.
	Mr. Scott. We will be in touch with your office directly,
	Mr. Secretary.
	On Haiti, I have a lot of different questions, and it is a
	major issue with the Congressional Black Caucus. Rather than
	talk about this now, could you meet with the Congressional
	Black Caucus Task Force? I think you will be invited shortly.
	If we can get a commitment from you to meet with them, I think
	there are a lot of different issues that we would like to
	discuss with you.
	Secretary Powell. I look forward to the invitation. My
	Assistant Secretary Paul Kelly is here, and I am sure he will
	be looking forward to it coming down.
	Mr. Scott. You mentioned your new hires. Will an effort be
	made to make sure that the new hires reflect the language
	deficiencies and ethnic deficiencies that we have? It seems to
	me that we don't have enough people that speak enough different
	languages so that we could fulfill our mission appropriately.
	Secretary Powell. We are certainly looking at ethnic
	deficiencies. We have a number of programs, the Serrano
	Scholars, Charlie Rangel's program at Howard University, things
	we are doing with the community college system and my old alma
	matter in New York City, and we are also focusing on languages
	as well.
	We still remain a nation of immigrants, and when they come
	they bring those language skills with them. We are trying to
	tap into that as well and also enhance what I believe is the
	finest language training facility in the United States, and
	that is at our Foreign Service Institute.
	Mr. Scott. In the AIDS initiative, there are some ways of
	spending the money where the money can get stretched out a
	little more. Are we making an effort to try and negotiate with
	the drug companies to get better prices?
	Secretary Powell. Yes, and we have been working with Kofi
	Annan who has done great work in this as well. There has been
	quite a bit of success in driving the cost down. At one time,
	providing a year's worth of antiretroviral drugs from somebody
	suffering from AIDS would have been $12,000 a year. It has been
	driven down now to in the neighborhood of $300 a year. But $300
	a year is still a lot of money in some of these undeveloped
	countries. It could be a whole year's worth of income. We have
	to do a better job, and we are working on it.
	Mr. Scott. Now there is some accounts that the money can be
	put in where it is leveraged and others where it is not
	leveraged--the global AIDS initiative, I believe.
	Secretary Powell. Yes. In almost all of our new programs,
	Millennium Challenge Account and others, we are looking to
	leverage through public-private partnerships where we will
	partner the government money with private money,
	nongovernmental organization money. When I went to the World
	Summit on Sustainable Development in South Africa last year, I
	talked about these kinds of public-private partnerships.
	Mr. Scott. There is some concern that some of this money
	may not be new money, it may be shifted from other accounts.
	Can we talk to somebody that can explain----
	Secretary Powell. We can provide that for the record.
	The $15 billion that the President made reference to in his
	State of the Union Address for the global initiative on HIV/
	AIDS, some $5 billion of that would be reallocation of funds
	from existing accounts, and $10 billion is new. Of the $15
	billion, $1 billion would go to the Global Health Fund.
	Mr. Shays. Thank you.
	Next will be Congressman Putnam, and then we will go to
	Congressman Thompson.
	Mr. Putnam. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Secretary Powell, it is a pleasure to have you here; and,
	of course, it is always nice to be midway on the questioning
	standpoint, because all the big ones are out of the way.
	I want to talk to you a little bit about something, though,
	that is a larger issue impacting this country, and that is the
	demographics of the countries that represent emerging threats.
	Iran has somewhere around two-thirds of their population under
	20 or 25. The Gulf States, some of them are 45-percent under
	the age of 15, presenting what I believe is a long-term
	generational conflict, where half of their economic potential
	has been taken off the table by the exclusion of women and the
	young men who remain, as we have talked about earlier with
	regard to Africa, are restless and rife for trouble.
	How through our public diplomacy channels are we reaching
	that generation in a sustained, meaningful way?
	Secretary Powell. There are a number of things we are
	doing, Mr. Putnam. One of our efforts is working in a public-
	private partnership with Radio SAWA. We are starting to tailor
	some of our broadcast efforts, both in the government and
	working with media outlets outside the government to talk to
	that younger population. I am encouraging my ambassadors, and
	the work I do in talking to people I am increasingly trying to
	get into the younger population. The largest audience I have
	had as Secretary of State is when I went on MTV and spoke to
	350 million people at one time, most of whom were under the age
	of 18, I would guess.
	The new partnership initiative that we have created for the
	Middle East will talk about the education of young people and
	turning young people on, to not just a religious education, but
	an education that will get them a job. The demographic facts
	that you laid out a moment ago are absolutely right on. These
	populations are young, they are restless, they are in this
	information age where they can see what is happening elsewhere
	in the world, and they want to know how do I get a part of it,
	how can I be a part of that world, and is my government, is my
	society, is the system in which I am living in tune with the
	world that I can now see instantaneously, and am I being
	prepared for it?
	There are countries in the area that you touch on where
	they still haven't come to the realization that you cannot
	disenfranchise 50 percent of the population because they are
	women; and then among the male population, those who are coming
	up, you don't give them an education that is relevant to the
	kinds of jobs you are going to need to have being performed. We
	are now drilling on this in all of our conversations with
	nations that fall into that category.
	Through our public diplomacy efforts, through our
	partnership efforts with respect to education, in our efforts
	with the Millennium Challenge Account, we are directing all of
	these efforts toward younger and younger elements of the
	population who are still in their formative stage of
	development, when they are still thinking, do they become
	radical or do they see a future because there is a job waiting
	for them? Coming from a society and a political system that is
	committed to democracy, not to ripping off the economy and
	ripping off the wealth of the Nation, and are committed to
	helping them enter into an economic system that will allow them
	to provide a roof over their heads of their family members and
	to let them have a bright future.
	If we don't do that, then they will all be going to
	terrorist camps somewhere.
	Mr. Putnam. I can't imagine a more important long-term
	mission for State and for diplomatic efforts than speaking to
	that emerging population.
	Are we doing an adequate job in our own country of
	preparing young people and educating young people with the
	skills that they need to be good Foreign Service Officers and
	good members of your diplomatic corps with the language skills
	and training, beyond just French and Spanish that most high
	schools offer? Are we preparing them for the languages and the
	cultures that represent the greatest need for our diplomacy?
	Secretary Powell. Probably not in the high schools of
	America. I don't think we spend enough time on geography and
	social studies and language, beyond basic Spanish and French.
	At the same time I am enormously impressed by the
	youngsters, and not so young people that take our Foreign
	Service exam. They come in committed, and to just take that
	exam you have get to have a heck of a background to even think
	you could pass it. You have to develop quite a bit of
	experience and prepare yourself educationally and
	motivationally to working in foreign fields and taking on the
	arduous nature of Foreign Service, and we are getting a heck of
	a turnout. We are getting tens of thousands of youngsters who
	are bringing those skills to the table.
	Either I or Deputy Secretary Armitage swear in every single
	new junior officer class. We believe it is that important that
	I ought to swear them in, or Rich will swear them in if I am
	not around. Before I go up to the ceremony and talk to these
	youngsters, they just look like soldiers from my old career.
	Their eyes are burning and they have got smiles on their faces.
	I look at the files of all of these youngsters before I go up
	and swear them in just to see what the group is like, and they
	will range in age from 25 to 50. Some will come having had full
	careers elsewhere. They may be retired military. They may be
	coming out of corporate life after a successful career and want
	to change and serve after the age of 45. They bring all kinds
	of background experience and very often some considerable
	language skill into the Foreign Service.
	Mr. Shays. We are going to go from Congressman Thompson to
	Congressman Brown.
	Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for being here. I also
	want to thank you for your great service. Although you said it
	was part of your job to be here, I am here to tell you that,
	with the 85 percent poll numbers that you have, you can be
	anywhere that you want.
	I would like to ask you a little bit about Afghanistan and
	the alarming reports that we are getting from there. I am
	heartened by your words in your statement about the progress
	that we are making and the good things that are happening, but
	it seems that we become more and more vulnerable over there,
	and there is a great deal of instability. And I think that
	everybody would believe that President Karzai has provided some
	measure of stability in the area, and now there are rumors that
	he may not seek a second term. I would like to get an idea of
	what that means to you and what pieces aren't effectively
	working over there. How can we fix those, and what sort of
	costs are going to be associated with that?
	Secretary Powell. I don't know what President Karzai might
	or might not do. I heard the same reports, but let me just say
	that he has been a tremendous leader. He was the man we needed
	at the time we needed such an individual. I am so pleased he
	took the risks associated with assuming a leadership position,
	and he has done it very well. I hope he takes a long time to
	decide what he is going to do next, and perhaps I will have a
	conversation with him if he is looking for any advice.
	With respect to the situation in Afghanistan, it is still
	fragile, it is still dangerous, and it is especially dangerous
	in the southeast area, as you get toward the Pakistan border
	and where you find the border is linked up, of course, with the
	tribal areas on the other side of Pakistan, which have never
	been under the same degree of control that other parts of
	Pakistan are. It is still dangerous. You still see American
	soldiers hunting people down in those caves, trying to get them
	out. There are still bombs that go off from time-to-time. We
	are still taking casualties, and we should never forget that.
	The casualty level hasn't been great, although every casualty
	is great for that family. I think slowly but surely we are
	imposing our will and pulling out these al Qaeda remnants, but
	it will take a long time.
	In the 2004 request we have $658 million for Afghanistan.
	When you go back to the 2001 and 2002 Emergency Response Fund
	and supplementals in 2002, and in the 2003 request, we have an
	investment of some $1.66 billion. We are going to be there for
	a considerable period of time.
	When the President went in, he said he would stay with it
	so we don't let Afghanistan fall back to tribalism and fall
	back to being a failed society. We had an obligation when we
	went in, just as we will have an obligation if it is necessary
	to go into Iraq.
	Mr. Thompson. Considerable time and considerable dollars.
	Secretary Powell. Considerable time and considerable
	dollars for years.
	Mr. Thompson. Can you give us any idea of what you think
	our long-term commitment in Iraq will be, if we do go in, after
	the war effort, our stabilizing force and what the cost of that
	is going to be?
	Secretary Powell. I cannot, sir. I can't tell you because I
	think over time the nature of our commitment and the nature of
	our presence will change. Certainly, in the first phase, it is
	military. We will be going in there with soldiers to take out a
	despotic regime, cut out the leadership of this regime, and
	build on the institutions that are remaining. There will be
	institutions remaining and there is a source of money. It is a
	wealthy country, but its wealth has been misspent. Initially
	there will be a strong military component to it. I know that
	the administration will move as quickly as we can to start
	shifting responsibilities to civil organizations of the Iraqi
	society as well as international organizations, nongovernmental
	organizations, and other U.S. agencies coming in to help.
	I know the military is going to want to get out of there as
	fast as they can and not get tied down with another large
	commitment. We shouldn't deceive ourselves that some military
	presence may be necessary for a period of time to ensure that
	there is stability in that country and it doesn't break up.
	I cannot give you an estimate of how many troops that would
	take or for what period of time. Ultimately, and as quickly as
	we can, we want to get it back into the hands of the Iraqi
	people with a responsible government representing all the
	people, living in peace with its neighbors, and then the United
	States can pull out. It will give us a chance to do other
	things in the region in the absence of that kind of regime. We
	won't need that many U.S. troops throughout that part of the
	world.
	Mr. Shays. Thank you. We are going to Mr. Brown and
	Congressman Emanuel. Congressman Brown.
	Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being in this place at this
	time. We are grateful for your support. The question I want to
	ask is regarding our position with Iraq and the war on
	terrorism. What is the mission of the U.N., and what can we do
	to bring accountability to the U.N.? Must we take on the
	enforceability of the U.N. by ourselves?
	Secretary Powell. Right now the violations that Iraq is
	committing are against U.N. resolutions. The U.N. remains an
	important body for stating the will of the world, the will of
	the international community, the 191 nations in the U.N. We
	must continue to support the U.N. because it does reflect the
	will of the international community.
	We have been working hard in recent years to make the U.N.
	a better managed organization and a more accountable
	organization. I think we have been able to satisfy the Congress
	that there has been improvement in the management of the U.N.
	and I think in response, Congress, with considerable wisdom,
	allowed to us pay most of our arrearages to the U.N. I think we
	are on a much better footing with respect to the leadership and
	management activities within the U.N., but it is still an
	organization that has a large number of members. Increasingly
	these members are democratic societies that have to respond to
	the passions of their people and the views of their people.
	Life doesn't get easier the bigger an organization becomes
	and the more democratic it becomes. It requires leadership on
	the part of the United States to set down principles, tell
	people what we believe in, and then work, debate, fight,
	disagree, agree, compromise, find consensus among the
	membership of the U.N. to move forward. That is what diplomacy
	is about.
	It is a big change in my life from being chairman of Joint
	Chiefs of Staff, when I said do it. Now I am Secretary of State
	I have to say, come on guys, let's talk. That is what diplomacy
	is all about. That is what democracy is all about. Sometimes I
	get them to agree easily, sometimes I can't get them to agree
	at all. That is what diplomacy is about and that is what
	alliance management is all about.
	The U.N. is a very important institution for world order
	and for world peace. It is one of the reasons the President
	also made the decision which he announced at his speech last
	September 12 to rejoin UNESCO because it is doing important
	work that we should be a part of.
	Do things happen in the U.N. that annoy the devil out of
	us? Yes. I don't like seeing the Commission on Human Rights
	chaired by Libya, or the possibility that Iraq, because of an
	alphabetical rotation, will suddenly end up as Chair of the
	Conference on Disarmament at the same time we are trying to
	disarm it. You get these anomalies, unacceptable things that
	occur when you have 190 nations pulling together.
	Mr. Brown. I am grateful you are wearing this new hat and
	thank you very much for being here today.
	Mr. Shays. Congressman Emanuel and Congressman Wicker will
	be next.
	Mr. Emanuel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Mr. Secretary, as I remember, you started off with your
	enthusiasm to be here in front of the committee. If the choice
	was between the French Foreign Minister and the Budget
	Committee, I too would be enthused to be here. Never has the
	House Budget Committee looked so good.
	Secretary Powell. I will be seeing him tomorrow.
	Mr. Emanuel. Say hello from all of us.
	Secretary Powell. I shall.
	Mr. Emanuel. I have one statement and a set of questions
	around the nonproliferation area. Though a supporter of if we
	have to militarily move to deal with both Saddam Hussein and
	the weapons of mass destruction, I would hope that before any
	firing is done that NATO does not become the first casualty of
	that possible military conflict. And I would also hope that
	that conflict does not end up doing to NATO what Russia and the
	Soviet Union could not do in 50 years, we do in one conflict.
	As a supporter of the administration, if we end up having
	to have a military effort, I do, I really hope that all effort
	is expended to stitch back what has been an important
	partnership for America. We are secure because of NATO, and I
	think one of the worst things that would happen, finally
	expanding it eastward and having worked on that Poland,
	Hungary, and Czechoslovakia--and finally after 50 years and
	they are getting in, we shut the lights off and shut the door
	on them. I think there would be nothing crueler to people of
	the former Eastern Bloc.
	There are some 40 to 50 research reactors around the world
	with materials very loosely secured. And does the State
	Department have any plan or are you considering one to secure
	these materials? And anything beyond what is in your
	nonproliferation antiterrorism- and antimining-related programs
	budget?
	And second, although it is in DOD, a philosophical
	question, your thoughts about using Nunn-Lugar as a model to
	expand it to deal beyond just the old Soviet Union and Ukraine
	but to other areas, given the conflicts and what we see both in
	between Pakistan and India and obviously in the Korean
	peninsula.
	Secretary Powell. On the first question, with your
	permission, Mr. Emanuel, what I would like to do is go and
	consult with my colleagues at Defense and Energy, and give an
	answer for the record with respect to what plans we might have
	or might want to come up with with respect to controlling the
	material that comes out of the many research reactors that are
	around the world. I especially would want to talk to Spence
	Abraham about that before giving you an answer.
	[The information referred to follows:]

	Letter in Response to Mr. Emanuel's Question Regarding the United
	States' Efforts to Secure Nuclear Materials

	U.S. Department of State,
	Washington, DC, March 26, 2003.
	Dear Mr. Emanuel: This letter responds to the question you asked
	Secretary Powell in the hearing on the Department of State budget
	priorities for fiscal year 2004 on February 13, 2003, concerning U.S.
	efforts to secure nuclear materials at research reactors worldwide. The
	Secretary has asked that I respond on his behalf.
	The U.S. is involved in a number of programs to enhance physical
	security at research reactors. For reactors with U.S.-origin nuclear
	material, the U.S. dispatches interagency teams to the countries on a
	periodic basis to hold discussions with their governments on their
	regulations and oversight of physical protection at nuclear facilities,
	examine the physical protection arrangements, make recommendations and,
	as needed, provide assistance in making necessary upgrades. We are
	working with the managers of this program and the interagency to
	enhance this effort.
	The U.S. also has a longstanding policy to convert research
	reactors from the use of high enriched uranium (HEU) fuel to the use of
	low enriched uranium (LEU) fuel, which is of substantially less
	proliferation and terrorism concern. So far, over 30 foreign research
	reactors have been converted to use LEU fuel. In support of this
	program, the U.S. is accepting back spent research reactor fuel
	containing U.S.-origin nuclear material in order to promote conversion.
	Shipping this fuel to the U.S. and converting the reactors to low
	enriched uranium fuel reduces their attractiveness as a target for
	terrorists.
	The U.S. is also working with Russia and the International Atomic
	Energy Agency (IAEA) on a program similar to the one in the U.S. to
	ship HEU spent fuel from Soviet-era research reactors located in third
	countries to Russia for management and disposition. In cooperation with
	the Russian and Serbian governments, the U.S. led a successful effort
	to move a stockpile of fresh HEU, which represented a possible
	terrorist target, from Serbia to Russia for down-blending.
	The JAEA has a program called the International Physical Protection
	Advisory Service (IPPAS) under which member states can request a
	multinational team to evaluate its physical protection infrastructure
	and make recommendations for improvements. The U.S. actively supports
	this program and often provides technical and financial support to
	implement needed upgrades. This is one part of the IAEA's Action Plan
	to Combat Nuclear Terrorism. The plan also assists IAEA member States
	in other ways, for example, to improve their systems of accounting and
	control for nuclear material, to do a better job of stopping illicit
	trafficking and improving controls on radioactive materials. The U.S.
	has so far contributed $8 million to funding this Action Plan.
	In addition to these programs, the U.S. also has an extensive
	program to ensure the adequate physical protection of nuclear material
	at facilities in Russia and the new independent and Baltic states,
	including research reactors.
	Even as I write this letter, the U.S. is working in Vienna at the
	DKEA on two complementary tracks to help reduce the risk from nuclear
	and other radioactive materials. One track has as its goal amendment of
	the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials to
	extend its coverage to nuclear materials in peaceful uses during
	domestic transport, use and storage. This amendment process will result
	in an international legal obligation to maintain adequate physical
	protection at civilian research reactors and other civilian nuclear
	facilities. The second track is intended to improve controls on
	radioactive sources in civilian use, especially those that are the most
	dangerous, and thereby reduce the risk of radiological terrorism.
	Secretary Abraham announced Monday that the United States would provide
	$3 million to help states bring dangerous sources under control and
	then maintain them safely and securely. This will help to augment the
	IAEA-Russia-U.S. program that will accomplish the same goal in the new
	independent states.
	For the future, we are beginning to promote enhanced efforts to
	regulate, track, secure, and safeguard biological, chemical, nuclear
	and radiological materials and the equipment and know-how needed to
	misuse them. Among the goals of this effort are to secure the storage
	facilities and enhance transportation requirements for dangerous
	materials and to remove dangerous materials from insecure facilities or
	regions. We have substantially increased our funding request for fiscal
	year 2004 for the Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund in order to
	address the priority activities of this new initiative.
	Sincerely,
	Paul V. Kelly
	Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs.

	Secretary Powell. With respect to NATO, we are having a
	rough spot right now. I still have optimism that will solve the
	Turkish support problem in the next several days. I hope that
	will be the case. This alliance has weathered a lot over the
	last 50 years. It has faced some tough issues; it usually finds
	a way to solve them, sometimes not. It won't come apart. It
	won't cease to exist or be destroyed. It links North America to
	Europe. It is a great trans-Atlantic organization that will
	continue to have value for the nations that have been there
	from the beginning as well as the new nations who desperately
	wanted to be members.
	Why did they want to be members so badly? Why? I remember
	in 1989 I was giving speeches when I was just made chairman of
	the Joint Chiefs of Staff before the cold war ended, and I kept
	telling my former generals when the cold war starts to end, all
	of these nations are going to want to be in NATO. They will
	want a branch transfer from the Warsaw Pact to NATO. They said,
	how could you say such a thing? I said, because they want to be
	part of an alliance that includes America. The only alliance of
	a security nature that includes America is NATO. NATO will
	continue to serve a useful purpose for many years and decades
	into the future.
	Did I miss one Mr. Emanuel?
	Mr. Emanuel. The Nunn-Lugar bit. That could be answered
	later.
	Secretary Powell. No, that is easy. I think Nunn-Lugar is a
	great program. It is being supplemented by other programs in
	our nonproliferation efforts. I would say I would have no
	reservation about thinking of ways to expand the Nunn-Lugar
	concept to cover other nations. We may have a need, if and when
	we get into Iraq, to start destroying all the materials that
	are in Iraq.
	Mr. Emanuel. Thank you.
	Mr. Shays. Let's get going. Thank you very much. We will go
	to Congressman Wicker and then Congressman Baird. I thank you,
	Congressman Emanuel.
	Mr. Wicker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	And, Mr. Secretary, thank you once again for the time that
	you have allotted. With all you have going I know that you
	could have begged off and asked for an hour or something like
	that. We probably would have understood. Very important
	testimony today, and I really appreciate it.
	I know from my previous opportunities to hear you testify
	and from hearing you in various forums that you deeply love
	America. And I love America. And it sometimes doesn't compute
	with people like me and my constituents that many in the rest
	of the world don't feel that way. And I am sure you have given
	a lot of thought to this.
	I would like to ask to you comment about that in the
	context of what we do after Iraq--when we are still engaged in
	the larger war. After Afghanistan, certainly there was going to
	always be the larger war which we are still engaged in. Tell us
	the effect of what I am sure will be a successful military
	conclusion on the region, the effect in the short term, the
	effect in the long term, and the effect globally. Will this
	give rise to additional acts of Islamic fundamentalism?
	I noted yesterday a news account saying that members of
	this administration had expressed concern that we are losing
	what we had accomplished over perhaps three decades in terms of
	nuclear nonproliferation, with relatively small nations
	attempting to get a nuclear capability. And we are going to
	have a real problem stopping the global spread of nuclear
	weapons. And in that context, by my calculations we are
	spending .2 percent of our gross domestic product on foreign
	assistance. Is that the way you add it up? Is that going to be
	enough over the long haul?
	And then finally, Mr. Secretary, how will we know when we
	have won the war on terrorism globally?
	Secretary Powell. On the first question with respect to
	fundamentalism, what might happen with the conflict in Iraq, I
	suspect initially there will be some disturbances. There are
	some people who will respond to any such conflict with
	demonstrations and other acts that might put some of our people
	at risk, and there will be expressions of anti-Americanism. I
	think if we do it well, and we do it successfully, and if we do
	it as I know we will do it, with a minimum loss of civilian
	life or collateral damage, we are not going to destroy Iraq in
	order to build Iraq. We are going in to take out a despotic
	regime if we have to go in.
	But I think we can rapidly turn opinion around when people
	see what America does once it is faced with that kind of a
	challenge. We have a pretty good record over the last 60 years
	of leaving places a lot better than we found them when we went
	in.
	It will be the fourth time in a period of 12 years we have
	gone into a Muslim country, a Muslim situation, not to conquer,
	not to take over, not to claim sovereignty, but to help Kuwait,
	Kosovo, Afghanistan, and then Iraq. I think it would give us
	opportunities to change this impression of America.
	I also have to say that as I think about this, and I see
	expressions of anti-Americanism coming from a lot of these
	fundamentalists, fundamental spokespersons, that there still
	are lines outside of every one of my consular offices around
	the world. What for? They want a visa. They want to come to the
	United States. In fact, one of the major problems I have is the
	visa system. Muslim countries complaining that we have made it
	too hard to get visas to come to the United States because of
	our efforts to secure our borders. People are afraid we are
	going to close our doors. So the new slogan in our consular
	affairs operation is: Secure borders, open doors. America is
	open. Come on. We want you to come our hospitals, our schools,
	Disneyworld, Las Vegas, if that is of interest to you. We want
	you to come to America. People want to come to America.
	So the problem we are having right now is people think we
	are getting too tight with respect to who can come in. Why are
	you fingerprinting our people? Why are you making it harder for
	them to go to your schools?
	There is this residual feeling of support, sometimes
	affection, sometimes jealousy, sometimes resentment, sometimes
	admiration, it is all mixed up, for things American and for
	Americans.
	Right now the problem we are having has to do more with
	policies that we are applying rather than we are Americans. We
	generate resistance because of some of the things we believe we
	must do with respect to Iraq, and because some people believe
	we have not done enough with respect to the Middle East peace
	process, and they are expecting to us do more. We will be doing
	more in the near future.
	There is a residual of support and affection for the United
	States that I think we can get into once we deal with some of
	these policies that are objected to by people in the world.
	Mr. Shays. Mr. Secretary, we are going to be getting you
	out at 12:30 as promised. So we have Congressman Baird,
	Congressman Bonner, and then Congressman Neal, and I think that
	is going to be it. Congressman Baird.
	Mr. Baird. Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here and
	thanks to all your people who serve this country so well around
	the world. I will be fairly brief because I want you to have
	time to answer other questions.
	Let me give you several questions, pick them, and make sure
	we stay within our 5 minutes. First of all, the Millennium
	Challenge Account, I think there was a recent study by the
	Center for Global Development suggesting that there may be in
	our efforts to make sure that money is well targeted--and I
	support that--there may be countries who are doing well in
	terms of many of the democratic institutions, rule of law, et
	cetera, but don't have the money to fund on the human capital
	investments, and they may paradoxically be ruled out of the
	very kind of funds MCA is designed to target.
	Real quickly, a second issue. As I look at the countries
	that receive our foreign aid, too often it seems to me we are
	spending on countries that have so many problems and ignoring
	our friends. If I were to contrast Colombia with Costa Rica,
	for example, I would spend a lot more money in Costa Rica which
	has been the bastion of democracy in Central America for years,
	and I might spend less in a country with human rights abuses
	and narco-traffickers, et cetera.
	Third, I am greatly concerned about State Department
	policies and financial spending by this country being set by
	people who are not confirmed by the U.S. Senate, members of
	nongovernment organizations, especially strident anti-choice
	voices associating with U.S. State Department missions and
	setting government policy, particularly regarding family
	planning and birth control, as Mr. Edwards raised.
	And, finally, I hope you can talk a little bit what--if not
	now at some point--what we can do to make our spending more
	effective. We spend more in dollars than almost any other
	country in the world, but I am not sure we get the clout out of
	it in terms of the choices we make with the spending. I welcome
	your responses to any of those.
	Secretary Powell. On the MCA, there is a problem we will
	have to work our way through, there is a challenge. Some
	nations are so committed to democracy and doing everything we
	ask of them, but they still have needs, but they are doing well
	enough so they are not quite as poor as those that we are going
	to put in the first tranche. And we are going to have to find a
	way to balance that, either using our other assistance accounts
	or some public/private partnerships. In the first instance as
	we start the MCA, we really need to focus on those that have
	the lowest GDP but have made the commitment to get them started
	up the road to success. I understand the problem.
	Second, I think with regard to Costa Rica and Colombia, we
	had to make some judgments in all of these instances. In the
	case of Colombia, this was a problem that was directly
	affecting us here in the United States with respect to narco-
	trafficking and narco-terrorism. That is why there has been
	such an investment in Colombia and perhaps not as much in Costa
	Rica, which has been a bedrock of stability in the region for
	many years.
	With respect to anti-choice NGOs, I think you are quite
	familiar with the policy of the administration and the policy
	of the President with respect to these issues. We try to
	operate our family programs and reproductive choice programs in
	a way that is consistent with the President's policies and
	philosophies.
	Finally, I want to make spending as efficient as possible.
	We are trying to constantly cut down on overhead and make sure
	no money is being lost as it dribbles through the pipeline as
	it gets out to where it is needed.
	Mr. Baird. This is also just a question of do we invest it
	in a way that when people see the investment, they say that was
	thanks to the United States of America? I was in Guatemala a
	while back and went to a place where $2,000 would have helped
	people build a school and they would have said thanks to
	America for the next three generations.
	If we can spend our money in ways that are clearly stamped,
	USA got you this, and it matters to you, I think we will
	benefit.
	Secretary Powell. We try to trademark and stencil as much
	as we can.
	Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
	Mr. Shays. We are going to go to Congressman Bonner and
	close with Congressman Neal.
	Mr. Bonner. Mr. Secretary, at the risk of being redundant,
	rather than just thank you for appearing before our committee,
	I want to thank you once again for answering the call to public
	service and also ask that you pass that thanks along to your
	wife.
	Secretary Powell. Thank you, I will.
	Mr. Bonner. You know, Congressman Davis and Congressman
	Lewis, before he went to Georgia to try to help them out over
	there, we were natives of Alabama and we are proud that she is,
	too. So please give her our best.
	Secretary Powell. I shall indeed. Thank you Mr. Bonner.
	Mr. Bonner. I was pleased to note that in the President's
	budget there is funding adequate for the Child Survival and
	Disease Programs Account. I come to this job following
	Congressman Sonny Callahan, who gave birth to this idea when he
	chaired the Foreign Operations Subcommittee on Appropriations.
	It was Congressman Callahan's belief that while there may not
	be popular support with the American people for increased
	foreign aid, there is a great deal of compassion, and anytime
	we can help the children of the world, that we are doing so
	with the support of the American people.
	I am also pleased to note that there is no funding
	requested for the Korean Peninsula Energy Development
	Organization, KEDO, in view of North Korea's resumption of its
	nuclear weapons program. My question is: If North Korea were to
	negotiate in good faith tomorrow and cease its weapon
	activities, would the United States likely revive this
	assistance program? And if so, what level of funding would be
	contemplated and would stronger conditions be placed on this
	aid?
	Secretary Powell. If we were to get into a discussion with
	North Korea, and I expect sooner or later there will be a
	discussion with North Korea, about how to move forward and move
	away from the situation we now find ourselves in, it would have
	to be a comprehensive solution that would deal with the basic
	problem. That is North Korea's development of nuclear
	capability.
	There are other issues we have with North Korea as well:
	sale of missile technology; sale of missiles themselves; and
	the large army that it maintains that is essentially helping to
	bankrupt the country.
	With respect to the nuclear issue, there would have to be a
	comprehensive solution that would have to deal with all of the
	technologies that they have been exploring for the development
	of nuclear weapons.
	I think as part of that comprehensive solution and dealing
	with that, we would have to say to the North Koreans, we
	understand that you have energy needs, which is what they say
	was the reason for them moving down this road. KEDO and
	providing HFO fuel was one way to satisfy that requirement.
	Lightwater reactors was also part of the agreed framework to
	satisfy that requirement.
	I think as we looked into the future we would have to make
	a judgment about what is the best way to satisfy their
	legitimate need for power and also to repair the grid that we
	have to accept such power. Whether the answer remains
	lightwater reactors and HFO supplement or something else in the
	field of energy, I think is an outstanding question, which I am
	not prepared to answer today. There would certainly be a need
	to provide energy to North Korea, part of a comprehensive
	solution, and there would be a cost associated with that, not
	only for us but for our partners in the region who are now our
	partners in KEDO.
	Mr. Bonner. Returning to the crisis at hand with regard to
	the situation in Iraq, it appears that NATO is going to deny
	military assistance to Turkey, a NATO member, because of its
	cooperation with the United States preparation for the possible
	war. It was gratifying that Turkey, despite difficult internal
	politics, agreed to allow the United States to utilize its
	bases. I noted in the budget that there is $200 million
	requested for Turkey based primarily on its role as a frontline
	state in the Afghanistan conflict. In view of Turkey's
	frontline role in Iraq as well and the potential denial of NATO
	support, will consideration be given to enhancing aid to Turkey
	either in the '04 bill or in a supplemental?
	Secretary Powell. Yes. On your first point, I don't think
	it is a given that NATO will deny Turkey. I am hopeful that
	will find a way forward.
	Mr. Bonner. My last question is regarding NATO. Does the
	denial of support, if it continues, to a member nation
	undermine the United States' future participation in this
	organization? I think you have addressed this in other ways.
	Secretary Powell. I think it would be a very bad outcome. I
	think it would to some extent undermine NATO to the extent that
	a member nation came before it and said, look, no war has
	started, we understand that, but in anticipation that we might
	have a threat, is it unreasonable for to us come before our
	allies and say give us some help? And 16 of the allies, 15 plus
	the requesting country say yes, and 3 allies say no, because
	this would look like we are condoning war, or we are ready to
	get into the war. That was an unreasonable position for those
	three nations--France, Germany, and Belgium--to take.
	Luxembourg also had been in that position but realized it was
	not the correct position and moved over. But 16 of the nations,
	to include the requesting country, believe that Turkey has a
	legitimate need for this support, these services. That is what
	being a member of an alliance is all about.
	I hope that we will find a way for the other three nations,
	or two at least of the other three nations, if we have to
	handle it in a slightly different manner, come to that
	conclusion and will provide to Turkey the support that it needs
	under the NATO framework. If that turns out to be impossible,
	we will still find a way to make sure that Turkey is not
	unsupported.
	Mr. Bonner. Thank you again.
	Mr. Shays. Congressman Neal.
	Mr. Neal. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Four and a half minutes and
	I will yield the last 30 seconds to my friend, Mr. Lewis.
	Mr. Secretary, you are held in the highest personal and
	professional regard here and across the country. You have
	mentioned a very ambitious agenda: more security support for
	our embassies, more hiring, more foreign aid, rebuilding Iraq,
	rebuilding Afghanistan. And at the same time, we are talking
	about permanently repealing the estate tax, companies that move
	offshore to Bermuda for the purpose of avoiding corporate
	taxes, a dividend proposal that by all estimates would cost
	$370 billion, and coming now, deficits again as far as the eye
	can see.
	Mr. Gutknecht asked a very pertinent question earlier: How
	are we going to remain consistent to the principle of a
	balanced budget and pay for all of this?
	Secretary Powell. Sir, there are needs that have to be met
	by the American people in foreign assistance and our domestic
	programs.
	Mr. Neal. Which I agree with.
	Secretary Powell. The President believes that the economic
	plan he has put forward, if enacted, recognizing that we are in
	a deficit situation for some time, is the best way to approach
	this problem. And on matters of tax policy, I will have to
	yield to my colleagues in other parts of the administration to
	make the case to the Congress that this is the correct way to
	move forward.
	Mr. Neal. Fair enough, Mr. Secretary. On a positive note,
	if you were to speak to the British Government, as I am sure
	you are, or the Irish Government, they would say that it was
	the American dimension that has brought the Irish peace process
	to the point that it has reached This was a great achievement
	for America in terms of international diplomacy, and bipartisan
	in nature, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II. Could you comment quickly
	on where that stands, knowing that your plate is pretty full
	with Iraq and Afghanistan as well?
	Secretary Powell. Follow it very closely. Ambassador
	Richard Haass is my special envoy, the President's special
	envoy to the process. He was in the area last week. He stays in
	very close touch with all of the different elements that have
	an interest in this, all the different factions. We are working
	with the parties to see if we can get this big bang going. We
	still have some optimism that we might be able to find a
	solution. It is a difficult situation, but I have somebody who
	handles this who is an expert and is well regarded.
	Mr. Neal. He is good to work with. Thanks for your personal
	attention.
	I yeild the last 30 seconds to Mr. Lewis.
	Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for being so courteous
	and so patient. Thank you, my friend and seat mate, Mr. Neal.
	Mr. Secretary, it is good to see you.
	Secretary Powell. Good to see you again, sir.
	Mr. Lewis. Welcome. I don't have a question but I just want
	to take a moment to thank you for your extraordinary
	contribution to our own country and to the world community. In
	addition, I am happy to hear you say that you are going to use
	some of your resources to make the State Department, embassies,
	and consulate look more like America and more like the world.
	Thank you.
	Secretary Powell. Thank you, Mr. Lewis.
	Mr. Shays. Before having you adjourn, Representative
	Spratt.
	Mr. Spratt. Mr. Secretary, I am sorry that I could not be
	here for your opening statement. I did get to hear a lot of the
	examination. Let me say since I followed your career in my 20
	years here, that you have served with distinction in every
	position of leadership you have held and not the least the one
	you hold right now.
	What you are asking for is a fairly tall order. It is an
	11.3-percent increase and $2.9 billion over last year. We will
	do our best to provide it, not least because we believe that in
	your hands it will be handled with good stewardship.
	Secretary Powell. Thank you very much, Mr. Spratt. Thank
	you for the support that you have provided to me personally
	through many incarnations over the last years.
	Mr. Shays. Mr. Secretary, I will say as a new member, the
	questions of the committee I thought were outstanding, I
	thought your answers were outstanding. Thank you very much for
	being here. Our prayers are with you, sir.
	Secretary Powell. Thank you, Mr. Shays.
	[Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

	<greek-d>

	</pre></body></html>