BUDGET REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Hearing of the
House International Relations Committee

February 11, 2004

OPENING STATEMENT OF

HENRY HYDE
A Representative from Illinois, and
Chairman, House International Relations Committee

REP. HYDE: The committee will come to order. Mr. Secretary, welcome to the Committee on International Relations. We're eager to hear your testimony. But before that, I would like to offer a few thoughts and ask my distinguished ranking member, Mr. Lantos, to offer remarks of his own. And any member wishing to make a statement may submit it for the record to allow as much time as possible for questions.

The administration is facing an onslaught of criticism regarding the pre-war intelligence concerning weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Some eagerly proclaim in unflattering haste a more sweeping pronouncement, that the entire conflict was a mistake, an opinion curiously put forward by many, including some members in this House, whose prior support was accompanied by few, if any, qualifications.

But the political season is upon us. And, as in war, truth is often the first casualty. The role of intelligence in the decision to go to war, the costs and benefits of that conflict, and many other facets are the subject matter of legitimate contention. But those originally opposed and those belatedly discovering their doubts equate failure to find these weapons -- that is, to find a loaded gun aimed directly at our head -- with failure of the enterprise as a whole.

At its core, their criticism is that the president took action to defend this country instead of just sitting there. A principal mistake arises for both critics and defenders in viewing the conflict in Iraq as a thing in itself. However, instead of its depiction as a lone adventure of questionable wisdom, a more reasoned view is that our actions in Iraq must be judged in a larger context.

Our actions there are, in fact, part of an incredible success story, one that is still unfolding and one that is due almost entirely to the foresight and determination to act. That is a refreshing characteristic of this administration.

Over the years, I've found myself in ever greater agreement with former Senator Sam Nunn, who has incessantly warned us of the threat of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction being placed into the waiting hands of our enemies.

The Bush administration has transformed our entire approach to this staggering challenge by crafting and implementing an unprecedented multifaceted global and -- this is key -- action- oriented effort of which Iraq is an integral part.

I need not rehearse the arguments regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq other than to point out that every intelligence agency, along with the United Nations, Saddam's own generals, and even the majority of today's critics believed that those weapons existed.

In our vulnerable world, to wait until compelling evidence of a threat is leisurely compiled is to wait for our destruction, to err on the side of annihilation. It's a mistake or evidence of an alarming naivete to talk of intelligence failures as shocking surprises, as though these estimates and extrapolated predictions could ever be more than imperfect.

A far more serious intelligence failure than the one currently in the spotlight became evident in 1991 when, in the aftermath of the Gulf War, we uncovered Iraq's massive weapons-of-mass-destruction programs, including the bone-chilling discovery that Saddam was only an estimated six months away from an operational nuclear device.

Was not that failure of prediction and the inaction it encouraged of greater consequence than the recent conclusion that he still possessed vast arsenals of WMDs, a deception he himself cultivated?

We had valuable but incomplete intelligence preceding September 11th and largely ignored it. Is that the model to which critics of our actions in Iraq would have us adhere? When is it wise to risk the safety of the American people? Because that is the outcome that a demand for certainty will guarantee.

Now making the rounds is the view that the U.S. has lost credibility around the world due to its failure to find evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I suggest the exact opposite is true. We have, in fact, gained enormous, immensely valuable, even decisive credibility from our actions.

For the next time the U.S., or at least this president, warns some foreign despot to cease actions we believe are threatening to our security, my hunch is he'll listen, and listen carefully.

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

The message of those on the receiving end could not be clearer. And unless they are suicidal, they will understand that their options have been radically narrowed.

This isn't theory. Already the administration has won another victory in Moammar Qhadafi's decision to surrender his weapons-of- mass-destruction programs as a direct consequence -- a direct consequence -- of our actions in Iraq.

He himself has said that the example of Iraq was the determining factor in his decision. And it is a powerful precedent, for it is the first time that a state has surrendered these weapons without a regime change.

If he makes good on his promise and if we can in confidence readmit him fully to the international community, the effect on others cannot but be salutary. For we can then offer offenders a stark choice of the sword or the olive branch, of destruction or the rewards of cooperation, with all ambiguity torn away, and thereby refocus their cold calculations of self-interest away from ambition and toward survival.

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

The benefits of this new mode of interaction are evident in the current standoff with Iran. The recent and unexpected exposure of Iran's massive nuclear weapons program has startled that regime into a hastily-constructed policy of stalling and superficial cooperation.

Only a fool would believe that the Iranians will voluntarily abandon their nuclear ambitions. But their coerced cooperation has been helpfully motivated by their fear of U.S. action against them. And in truth, they should be afraid.

Imagine the view from Teheran. Iran battled Iraq for a decade with the loss of hundreds of thousands of men, the end result being a return to their respective starting positions. Yet twice the U.S. has easily demolished the military capabilities of their menacing neighbor.

Iran would be a much different challenge, but no Iranian leader can truthfully say, once the regime was targeted, that his sleep would remain undisturbed. And should sleep come, dreams of the Taliban's fate would invade his fitful slumber.

Here, as well, Iran's adherence to the deal it cut with Britain, France and Germany for a suspension of its programs has been made more likely by the U.S. stance of pressure on Teheran that even the Europeans privately acknowledge to be useful. That situation is far from resolved. But does anyone actually believe that the possibility of halting Iran's march would exist without Saddam's sobering example?

None of this has been lost on the North Korean regime. Our demonstrated willingness to use force to remove a threat, paired with the possibility of reward for cooperation, provides the decision- makers in Pyongyang with useful instruction in the rules of this new world. Once again, this bracketing of the regime's options was made possible by our actions in Iraq.

To this administration must go the credit for many other long- delayed but indispensable actions to reverse our slide toward the chasm. The Proliferation Security Initiative, the cooperative arrangement among countries concerned about WMDs and determined to do something concrete about them, is a muscular enhancement of our ability to halt trafficking in the components of these weapons.

Despite the program's infancy, there have already been notable successes. It was the interception of a vessel loaded with nuclear components for Libya that helped convince Qadhafi that the days of his undisturbed accumulation of the instruments of destruction were over.

I will cite two more praiseworthy innovations in this area by the Bush Administration. The first is a surprisingly successful effort to persuade the leaders of Pakistan to interrupt the proliferation of nuclear materials and assistance that has metastasized unchecked from within that country for many years. The revelations in Pakistan, combined with those emerging from Libya, are beginning to expose the international black market in nuclear technology and know-how, which, prior to this inside information, had been only sketchily understood. We are now in the process of unraveling that network and eliminating the horrors its commerce would otherwise help bring into being.

Here again, action long dreamed of is finally being taken. We are no longer bystanders wringing our hands and hoping that our intelligence will be good enough to somehow uncover it all, no longer waiting for some international court to issue a reluctant warrant or grudging permission to allow us to take measures to protect ourselves.

Taken together, these many elements constitute an extraordinary effort by this administration to put in place a far-seeing, comprehensive, and action-oriented policy focused on preempting our annihilation. Of course, we inherited some very valuable initiatives, such as the Nunn-Lugar program that continues a long-term effort to secure the vast arsenal left in the wreckage of the Soviet empire. But it is simply beyond credibility and simple decency to dispute that this administration has aggressively pursued a vastly increased effort against weapons of mass destruction and their proliferation, that it has drawn bright and unmistakable lines of warning, has recruited committed allies, and has conducted a direct assault on a seemingly impregnable fortress.

The work is not done. We must make up for decades of stillborn plans, of whining excuses, of wishful thinking, of irresponsible passivity. This president has begun to lay the foundation for a comprehensive, multilayered, root-and-branch approach to the mortal danger of the proliferating instruments of our destruction. A global system of overlapping levels of international, multilateral, and unilateral measures is being erected, each using different tools and methods, but all sharing a common purpose. Each and all are needed. For even a single gap might well prove fatal, the hole through which our future is bled away.

We are only at the beginning, but it is an extraordinary beginning. Everyone in this room, everyone in this country, owes this administration their thanks for the fact that this ultimate of threats is not only being battled, but battled successfully.

That is the true context in which our actions in Iraq should be judged. We were not born to suffer a fate molded by our enemies. We cannot be made victims without our consent. If unmet, the terrors of this century will overwhelm us. But although we may at times be uncertain of our path, we have never failed ourselves.

Are we safer now? Measured in this ultimate context, in the successes our actions in Iraq and elsewhere have made possible, in this contest on which our survival rests, the answer cannot be other than "yes." And I am grateful that this president has carried out his duty.

And I now turn to my esteemed college and friend Tom Lantos for any remarks he may choose to make.

OPENING STATEMENT OF

TOM LANTOS
A Representative from California, and
Vice Chair, House International Relations Committee

REP. LANTOS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman I would like to begin by expressing my continued appreciation for the strong and effective manner in which you have run this committee since assuming the chairmanship. As a result of your stewardship, and willingness to work across party lines, last year we passed two critical bills, creating the New Millennium Challenge Account, and authorizing a landmark global HIV-AIDs initiative, that will help save the lives of hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children in the developing world.

This time I want to issue a very special welcome to our distinguished Secretary of State. He's always welcome here, but following your operation we are delighted to see you in such wonderful and robust condition, and we are all anxious to proceed with similar procedures. Mr. Secretary, it is once again a great pleasure to have you before this committee. Neither the global HIV-AIDS bill, nor the Millennium Challenge Account would have happened without you and your hard work. We are deeply grateful for your leadership of the Department of State.

Mr. Secretary, it is gratifying that the United States has just taken an historic step of officially stationing an American diplomat in Libya, a preliminary move towards establishing a full-fledged embassy and normalizing our relations with that country. As I found during my visit to Tripoli two weeks ago, the government there is eager to demonstrate its commitment to its December 19 announcement that it is dismantling its programs to produce weapons of mass destruction, and taking all other steps to rejoin the international community. I would particularly like to thank you, Mr. Secretary, for the support provided by the Department of State for my trip two weeks ago.

I am pleased to report that we are seeing in Libya something that was previously unthinkable, a country with weapons of mass destruction has made the affirmative decision, peacefully, to give up its weapons of mass destruction program. In an hour-and-a-half meeting Colonel Qadhafi made it clear to me that his nation is committed to a 180 degree turn, and that Libya intends, verifiably, I underscore verifiably to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, and all related programs.

The facts, Mr. Secretary, speak for themselves. The Libyans have loaded sensitive nuclear designs, and other nuclear related equipment on U.S. military aircraft bound for the United States. They have welcomed the technical assistance of American and British experts. Based on my meetings in Tripoli, it is clear that Colonel Qadhafi made this historic decision that he and his advisors realized that Libya could no longer afford to be a pariah nation.

Libya's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction was enormously expensive, and has drained its oil wealth, all the while U.S. and international sanctions were a stranglehold on the Libyan economy. Libya's growing economic problems can only be solved by a redirection of its resources and its reintegration into the global economy. But given Libya's past outrageous record over three decades, including the tragic Pan Am 103 bombing, we must tread very carefully. We must be skeptical of Libya's actions at every turn, and we must be relentless in verifying their destruction of weapons of mass destruction programs. American actions to normalize relations must be matched every step of the way by verifiable Libyan action.

In light of Libya's actions since December 19, we should immediately release the ban on travel by Americans to Libya, and we should establish a full-fledged American diplomatic presence in Tripoli.

But removal of Libya from the terrorist list and the complete elimination of U.S. sanctions should only occur after Libya has totally dismantled its weapons of mass destruction program, and agreed to long-term monitoring procedures, and after it has fully satisfied our officials that its links to terrorism have been severed once and for all. As I told Colonel Qadhafi, it is not only insufficient for them to terminate their past terrorist ties, they need to cooperate with us in fighting global terrorism, particularly in Africa.

A public apology for the Pan Am 103 bombing and the significant improvement in the human rights situation would also help pave the way for normal relations between our two countries. As you know, Mr. Secretary, there are several Bulgarian nurses who have been imprisoned for many years and whose release is long overdue.

Mr. Secretary, American policy under Republican and Democratic administrations was a critical factor in Libya's dramatic about-face. The economic, political and diplomatic sanctions imposed against Tripoli were the result of bipartisan agreements involving our last three presidents. And it involved cooperation with the British government and some of our other allies. This clearly indicates that firm and consistent international cooperation against rogue nations does produce significant positive results.

Information that has come out of Libyan WMD programs in the past few weeks is providing our country and the international community with critical insights in our fight against the proliferation of illicit weapons programs. And looking at the larger picture, Libya has established a model that other countries -- North Korea, Iran and Syria -- ought to follow. It is profoundly disappointing that following your visit, and my much less important visit, to Damascus some months ago, Syria's president has yet to respond affirmatively to our suggestions, and I hope that President Assad will look very carefully at the dramatic policy shift of Colonel Qadhafi.

While much remains to be done, I am convinced we are on the verge of a new chapter in U.S.-Libyan relations. When the American flag flies over our embassy in Tripoli once more, and the Libyan flag over an embassy here in Washington, it will be a powerful symbol that historic changes can be wrought by peaceful means -- America's preferred alternative.

Mr. Chairman, I again thank you for calling today's important hearing, and I look forward to hearing the secretary's observations.

REP. HYDE: Thank you, Mr. Lantos. And we salute you for your initiative in your recent historic trip to Libya. I'm encouraged by reports that Libya is taking significant steps to end its support for international terrorism and divest itself of weapons of mass destruction. And I'm also hopeful that cautious re-engagement with Libya, conditioned upon continued and verifiable cooperation, will provide incentives for responsible behavior, not only in Libya but other rogue nations as well.

I'm pleased to announce this committee will convene a public hearing the week of February 23rd to hear from Assistant Secretaries of State Burns and DeSutter (sp) on the future of U.S.-Libyan relations. In this hearing, we will carefully examine the possibility of a restoration of travel links and the encouragement of educational, health and other exchanges with Libya. And we also will examine the extent to which re-engagement should be linked to Libya's fulfillment of pledges to cease support for terrorism, to dismantle weapons of mass destruction programs, and support further investigations into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. We are encouraged by Libya's actions of late, but I concur with my esteemed ranking member, we must trust but verify.

And now, at long last, we come to the main attraction. Secretary of State Colin Powell has a long and distinguished career of public service and is too well-known, and justifiably well-known, to require my recounting today, but we want to thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your public service, for your work with members of this committee, and for your appearance here today. Please proceed with your statement, and then we will ask some questions.

STATEMENT OF

COLIN L. POWELL
Secretary of State

SEC. OF STATE COLIN POWELL: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It's a great pleasure again to appear before the committee. I thank you for your warm welcome. And Mr. Lantos, I thank you for your welcome and for the two opening statements.

Mr. Chairman, I do have a prepared statement for the record, which I would like to submit, and then summarize a statement and a few opening comments.

REP. HYDE: Without objection, so ordered.

SEC. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, before I begin responding to your comments and Mr. Lantos' opening comments and then getting into the body of my statement, let me say to all of the members of the committee how much I appreciate the support you have provided to me personally, but more importantly to the members of the Department of State over the last three years that I have been privileged to lead these wonderful men and women. We've done a lot with the Congress over the last three years. We have started hiring again in significant numbers, and you ought to see the great young people who are stepping forward to become members of the State Department, foreign service, civil service, or foreign service management specialists and technicians. We're giving the Foreign Service exam to more people in a single year than we've ever done before. And the results are showing up, as I watch now youngsters we recruited two years ago, a year ago, go out to their missions and bring such energy, and life, and the American value system out to our missions around the world. We wouldn't have been able to do it if you hadn't supported our Diplomatic Readiness Initiative, and I hope you will continue to do so as we move forward into the future.

Technology -- we have got 44,250 Internet-capable, broadband computers on every desk throughout the State Department. We only had a couple hundred a few years ago. My staff at a staff meeting yesterday morning handed me a plaque showing us that finally, two months ago we got rid of the last Wang computer in the State Department. (Applause.) It took doing, but we couldn't have done it without the support of the members of Congress, and especially without the strong support of this committee. We've got our building plan under control. We're putting up embassies at less cost, and meeting all of the standards that the Congress had put upon us.

And so we're trying to lead and manage the department in a very effective way so that we will always be seen as good stewards of the peoples monies. And I hope, Mr. Chairman, that you will consider that to be the case and will support the president's budget request, which I will get to in a few moments.

But before getting into that part of my statement, let me respond directly to two statements that were made -- one by you, Mr. Chairman, and one by Mr. Lantos. Mr. Chairman, you said at the end of your introductory remarks concerning Iraq, "Are we safer now?" And the answer is "Yes." Mr. Lantos, you ended by saying, "peaceful means, America's preference." Both of these are absolutely true statements. America seeks peace, not war. America always tries to solve things through political and diplomatic means before we take on the burden of war because we know lives will be lost. But a time comes when that may be the only way to solve the problem that is before us, and America must never be unwilling to go to war if that is what is required to protect our nation, to protect our allies, and protect our interests around the world.

With respect to Iraq, yes, we are safer. A dictator is gone. A tyrant is gone. Not only are we safer, the people of Iraq are safer, the region is safer. We can debate weapons of mass destruction all we want to about what was there in the past, but we know they will not be there in the future. Did the president do the right thing? He absolutely did. Did he get the best advice that was available to him, both political policy and intelligence advice? Yes, he did.

As the president went through this process, and as we all went through the process with the president, I think I brought a unique perspective to the debate because I was chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, as you all know, in the first Gulf War.

And I'll never forget on the eve of that war, getting ready for the ground portion of that war, I wondered whether or not the young men and women who would be crossing the line of departure heading north would be struck by chemical weapons. We knew they had them. We knew they had used them before. We knew they had every intention to use them, if they could use them, to affect the outcome of this "mother of all battles," as Saddam Hussein called it.

Our youngsters went across that line of departure fully equipped in chemical gear, because they thought they would be struck. Fortunately, they were not struck with chemical weapons -- but not because the Iraqis didn't have them -- they did have them, and we found them. It wasn't a figment of anyone's imagination. Those weapons were there on the battlefield in the winter of 1991. And it was as a result of discovering those weapons that we had proof, evidence, of what Saddam Hussein was still carrying in his inventories.

I watched this situation for the remainder of my time as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I watched it in my retirement. And I watched it beginning day one after I was confirmed as secretary of State. And as we went through to determine what kind of a threat the region and the nation was facing as a result of Saddam Hussein's continued ignorance of Security Council resolutions, we had to look at it in terms of a threat that is gotten to by an examination of the intent of an opponent and the capability that opponent has. You put those two together and it equals a threat. Intent: There was never any doubt in anyone's mind, and no intelligence agency -- past, present or future -- will ever demonstrate that Saddam Hussein gave up the intent to have such weapons. And since we know he has used them in the past willingly, against his own people and against Iran -- and I have been to Hallabjah where those weapons were used, and I saw the graves of 5,000 people who were gassed in 1988 by Saddam Hussein, there is no question that he didn't have the intent, and he has never lost that intent to have such weapons, and he has demonstrated that if it came to it he would use such weapons, if he had no other choice or if he wasn't stopped in the use of such weapons. The intent never went away, and there was no question about that from any of the president's political advisors, or any intelligence agency that was involved in this matter.

The question is then: Did he have the capability? Capability comes in many forms. Do you have the intellectual ability? Do you have the people who can make these kinds of weapons? The answer is yes, he did. He had the people. The second level is, Did he have the infrastructure, the wherewithal? Yes, he did. There is no question in the intelligence community -- Dr. Kay confirms it, other intelligence agencies in other nations confirm it. The U.N. confirmed it over a period of years of investigation, from 1991 to 1998, before the inspectors left. President Clinton's experts and his analyses that he went through led him to believe that this capability was there. The infrastructure, the knowledge, the know-how, people who could do it. Did he have factories that could be of dual-use nature that could produce this kind of material? Yes, he did. Did he have just-in-time capability, and was he developing it? Yes, he was.

The one question that there is a dispute about is: What was the stockpile level that might be there or not be there? I can assure you that as we went through this analysis, and we looked at all these levels of capability, when it came to stockpiles, the preponderance of all information available to us, available to our many intelligence agencies, available to British intelligence and intelligence agencies of other nations, made it clear that the correct answer was yes, he had such weapons. He had such stockpiles. There was no doubt in my mind.

A year and a few days ago, when I was representing my country before the United Nations to make the case, I spent days out with the best of our analysts -- with Director Tenet, with Deputy Director McLaughlin, out at the CIA, going over the case, making sure that everything I was going to say to the entire world that could be challenges immediately -- everything I said was supported by multi- source intelligence that would back it up. That information was there. There wasn't a word that was in that presentation that didn't represent the consensus view of the intelligence community. There might have been objections on a point or another by one or other or more intelligence agencies. But overall the director of central intelligence, who has a responsibility to break ties and make an informed judgment when there is a disagreement, every word in that presentation was supported by him, by his analysts. And I took it with great confidence into the United Nations.

It was also the same information that was in the National Intelligence Estimate that was provided in the months before -- I think it was November of the year before, 2002, to members of Congress, and was the basis for the resolution that was correctly, rightfully passed by the Congress, supporting the president and his action.

Now, we subsequently have learned that though stockpiles have not yet been found, the work continues. The Iraq Survey Group will continue its work under Mr. Duelfer. Dr. Kay has made a number of statements, and he has presented his impressions and his findings to the world through committee appearances, meeting with the president, and his public appearances. And he says he doesn't think the stockpiles are there. He's also said that there was no question about intent, no question about capability, no question about infrastructure, and no question in his mind that Saddam Hussein was in material breach of his obligations as contained in 12 years of U.N. resolutions. And there was no question in Dr. Kay's mind, just as there was no question in my mind or any of the other president's advisors' -- or certainly in the president's advisors that this was something that had to be dealt with, was dealt with. And, as Dr. Kay said, it was the right thing to do, because this country, under that leader, was a greater threat than anyone might have imagined. So the question of stockpiles yet to be determined as the work of the ISG continues. But the question of whether the president had the right basis of information upon which to take the decisions that he took -- there is no question about this: He had the right basis.

If any of those elements in the equation had changed -- if Saddam Hussein had demonstrated, "I have no intention -- I've changed my colors" -- most unlikely -- but he was given that opportunity in the U.N. Resolution 1441: Give us an honest declaration. Tell us the truth, and the U.N. would have responded would have responded in a different way. We might have responded in a different way. But he did not do that. And it is absolutely clear to me that the president made the right decision, and it is clear also to those nations who joined us in the coalition that succeeded in putting this regime into the history books. We also saw that as a result of our action we have a dictator that will no longer be filling mass graves, a dictator who will no longer be using the money that has been given to him through the natural resources of his country, oil, to build weapons of mass destruction or to suppress one part of the population or another. And now we are faced with a situation where we are working hard with the new leadership of Iraq to put in place a government that will be representative of the people. We are looking forward to transferring sovereignty at the end of June, if all goes well -- and we are pressing to that end. We have a difficult security problem, as you can see manifested again today with a terrible explosion -- explosion done by terrorists and other elements of the regime who don't recognize that their day is over, their day is gone. Their day will ultimately be totally gone as the security forces of Iraq gain in strength and ability and are able to defend their people from this kind of attack. These attacks are directed more against Iraq and Iraq's bright future than they are against U.S. forces. And they will be defeated, and we will succeed. And I believe that as we move forward we will have more and more nations join us. We are working with the United Nations now to give it a vital role to play. We are working with our European colleagues who had differences of view about this a year ago, who are now meeting with us and talking about what NATO might be able to do and other countries might be able to do as we move forward.

So we should be proud of what we have done as a nation to free the people of Iraq, and give them hope for a better future. And we should not allow debates over one part of this complex equation that I mentioned distract us from the reality that we did the right thing, and we should be proud.

As was noted by you, Mr. Chairman, it's had an effect in other parts of the region and other parts of the world. Libya has decided to give up its weapons of mass destruction. And it has been noted those materials are now flowing out of the country under our control. Libya did it because of a variety of reasons. I won't put myself in Mr. Qadhafi's mind, but he looked around, he saw that the United States and the international community of like-minded nations would take action. And he also took a look and said, Well, what am I getting for all of this? All I've gotten is I've wasted a lot of money. I've got a lot of junk in the desert I can't use, and I have made myself a pariah on the world stage. And he took the right decision. And we hope that others will examine that same kind of situation, run their calculus, and come to the same conclusion. And we hope that Iran, North Korea, Syria and anyone else who is so inclined will take a hard look at this. We are working with the international community on all of these matters, working closely with the IAEA, working with the United Nations on another resolution dealing with proliferation activities, working with Pakistan. I've been talking to President Musharraf almost every week now for a long period of time about the A.Q. Khan situation. The president has been deeply involved. And we now have seen the breakthrough where A.Q. Khan has now come forward and described what he has done. And President Musharraf, when I spoke to him over the weekend, has assured me that he would not stop the investigation until the whole thing is pulled up -- as was said, root and branch, and we know everything about what A.Q. Khan was doing all around the world, and we roll this network up in its entirety, and help President Musharraf get through this very, very difficult period.

We will continue to support initiatives like Nunn-Lugar, and I'll say a few words about this later when I talk about the president's speech that he'll be giving within the next hour or so.

If I just might linger for a moment on Mr. Lantos's comments, thank you for your support of the Millennium Challenge Account, now also manifested in the Millennium Challenge Corporation -- I am the chairman -- proud to be the chairman. And we had the first meeting of the Millennium Challenge Corporation last week, now that we have the legislation, and we have already provided to the Congress the 63 countries that are initially eligible under the law to be candidates for Millennium Challenge Account funding. We are moving with this program. It's an exciting program, and I'll say more about it in a moment.

Thank you also, ladies and gentlemen, for what you've done with the HIV/AIDS program. Now that it is funded, you will see us move out quickly. Randy Tobias, the head of the office, will be announcing awards in the very near future, now that we have made notification to Congress, and over $300 million of awards will be going out rather quickly. We want to move quickly.

On Libya, Mr. Chairman, we have had a terrific success. Mr. Lantos, I thank you and congratulate you on the historic moment that took place when you landed in Tripoli -- the first member of Congress to do so in decades -- and I thank you for the message you conveyed to Colonel Qadhafi, and for the op-ed you wrote when you got back, and for the communications and information you have given to us.

We said to Libya, If you do the right thing, you will see the right response from us. Assistant Secretary Burns met with Libyan officials last week, and we have laid out to them -- as you have seen in the press -- some of the things that we are prepared to do with respect to the lifting of travel documents, with respect to other matters of this nature. We want to help them with their most urgent needs. Hospitalization and medical care -- one of their most immediate needs -- we can help them with that, and we can do that quickly. But we are laying out for them in a very sensible, phased way what we are prepared to do as we verify the materials that have come out, and make sure that we have gotten it all and it's all come up root and branch.

We are also not unmindful, Mr. Lantos, of the nature of this regime, even after they have taken care of all these matters. It's still not quite our full cup of tea, if I can put it that way. And we will be on guard, and we will make sure that they meet the standards that are expected of a nation that wants to join the international community. We will press this with Iran, with North Korea, with Syria, as examples of how you can just put yourself in a much better place in this world, if you get rid of these foolish weapons that will do nothing for you, except to bring the condemnation of the world, to bring you financial ruin, and not put one plate of food in front of any citizen in your country. These weapons for these kinds of countries are nothing more than fool's gold.

North Korea -- we will start another round of discussions on the 25th of February in the six-nation format, and we're hoping for progress -- more progress than we've seen previously. And I'm encouraged by the response of all of the other members of the six- party format.

Mr. Chairman, I've taken a little bit longer than I thought I would with my extemporaneous remarks, so I will go rather rapidly through this shortened set of prepared remarks, just to say that the president's international affairs budget for 2005 totals $31.5 billion, broken down as: foreign ops, 21.3 (billion dollars); state ops, 8.4 (billion dollars); P.L. 480 food aid, $1.2 billion, international broadcasting, $569 million; and the Institute for Peace, $22 million.

The top priority reflected in this budget submission is winning the war on terrorism. Winning on the battlefield with superb military forces is just one step in this effort. To eradicate terrorism altogether, the United States must help create stable governments in nations that once supported terrorism - nations like Iraq and Afghanistan - and we must go after terrorist support mechanisms as well as the terrorists themselves. We must help alleviate conditions in the world that enable terrorists to bring in new recruits to find fertile ground for their efforts. To these ends in 2005, our foreign affairs agencies will continue to focus on the reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. We will continue to support our coalition partners to further counter terrorism, law enforcement, and intelligence cooperation, and we will continue to expand democracy and help generate prosperity, and that is especially in the Middle East.

Forty-eight percent of the president's budget for foreign affairs supports the war on terrorism; $1.2 billion supports Afghan reconstruction, security and democracy-building activities; $5.7 billion provides assistance to countries around the world that have joined us in the war on terrorism; $3.5 billion indirectly supports the war on terrorism by strengthening our ability to respond to emergencies and to conflict situations; and, finally, $190 million is aimed at expanding democracy in the Greater Middle East, which is crucial if we are to attack successfully the motivation of terrorism.

Two of the greatest challenges facing us, of course, are Iraq and Afghanistan, and I think I've touched on Iraq. I'd just like to add a word or two, just to say that the Coalition Provisional Authority and the Iraqi Governing Council are working hard to bring the 15 November agreement into place, and I am pleased that the U.N. is now over there working with us. A lot is being done with respect to build up the Iraqi Army, the Iraqi Self Defense Forces, and the Iraqi police forces.

Thousands of brave Americans, both in uniform and in Mufti are in Iraq now, working tirelessly, along with their military colleagues, members of USAID, State Department, and departments all across our government are working together to implement infrastructure, democracy building, education, health and economic development programs. You don't hear enough about these programs. You hear about a bomb going off, and that's news. You can't ignore it; you can't push it aside, but there are so many good things that are happening -- town councils are forming, PTAs are forming, civic society is coming up, civil society is working, and all of these kinds of efforts really will pay off as the people of Iraq realize that they will be in charge of their country, and they will decide how they are going to be governed in the future.

Afghanistan is another high priority. The United States is committed to helping build a stable and democratic Afghanistan that is free from terror and no longer harbors threats to our security. After we and our coalition partners defeated the Taliban, we faced the daunting task of helping them to -- the Afghan people -- to rebuild their country. We have demonstrated our commitment to this effort by providing over $3.7 billion in economic and security assistance to Afghanistan since 2001.

Through our assistance and the assistance of the international community, the government of Afghanistan is successfully navigating the transition that began in October of 2001, and we saw that when the Afghan people adopted a constitution last month, and they have now turned their attention to preparing for national elections in June. Since 2001, the United States has rehabilitated 205 schools, 140 health clinics, and we have done so many other things with respect to rebuilding the infrastructure in Afghanistan. The Kabul-to-Kandahar Highway has now been completed -- one of the president's highest priorities.

And so we have a lot more to do in Afghanistan but I think we should see that we should be, once again, as in Iraq, very proud of what we have been able to accomplish. We are making good progress, and I'd like to thank our coalition partners for all that they have done to bring us to this point of success.

Mr. Chairman, we have a lot of other items in the program to include $700 million for Pakistan to help in regional efforts there; $461 million for Jordan to increase economic opportunities for Jordanian communities and to strengthen Jordan's ability to secure its borders; $577 million for Colombia to support Uribe's unified campaign against drugs and terrorism. We are hoping all of those countries who wish to help themselves, who are now moving out smartly -- the Millennium Challenge Account is going to do so much as a historic change in the way in which we provide development assistance. And the greatest killer in the world today is HIV AIDS, and no nation is as forward-leaning and doing as much as the United States to fight this terrible scourge in the face of humankind.

In a few moments, President Bush will be speaking at the National Defense University, and he will outline the administration's approach to another danger that continues to grow -- when women of our own and other intelligence services have done superb and often dangerous work to unveil, to take the curtain down, around some of these proliferating activities we have seen and especially the proliferating activities of Mr. A.Q. Khan in Pakistan.

Now we and our friends can do more -- work around the clock to get all of the details of this network out to shut it down and to do more. President Bush will be proposing new measures in his speech to strengthen the world's efforts to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction, expanding the proliferation security initiatives to address more shipments and transfers to take direct action against proliferation networks. We are going to call on all nations to strengthen international controls that govern proliferation; expand our efforts to keep Cold War weapons and other dangerous materials out of the hands of terrorists; close loopholes that exist in the nuclear non-proliferation treaty; and finally disallow countries under investigation from participating fully in the leadership of the IAEA.

As the president will point out in his speech, the nexus of terrorists and weapons of mass destruction is a new and unique threat. It comes not with ships and fighters and tanks and divisions but clandestinely in the dark of night. But the consequences are devastating, and no president can afford to ignore such a threat, and this president will not ignore such a threat.

Mr. Chairman, I am going to close my presentation now. There are so many other things that we could talk about. We are involved in so many things in so many different parts of the world. I am so proud of the diplomats that are serving so many parts of the world. Ambassador John Blaney, our ambassador in Liberia, came into the president's office, into the Oval Office, yesterday to describe what he is doing to bring Liberia back into the column of nations that believe in democracy. When you think of where we were just a few months ago, Mr. Payne and others who were so interested in this issue, it was very, very moving to see Chairman Bryan, the new leader of the transitional government of Liberia, to meet with the president. When I think of how close we are to a solution in the Sudan brought about by political and diplomatic efforts, a little bit more work to be done. When I see what we are doing with free trade agreements around the world as we expand the opportunity for trade to nations who never would have dreamed of it a few years ago.

When I see all of these things happening, Mr. Chairman, I get a good feeling, because it says that America is being a leader in the world, whether it has to do with opening trade, whether it has to do with ending proliferation, whether it has to do with fighting terrorists, whether it has to do with just sharing our values with the rest of the world, America is performing its leadership role of destiny, and I am pleased that the men and women of the State Department are playing their role, and I am very pleased to appear before this committee, which has been so instrumental in providing us with the support and the wherewithal needed to play that role. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. HYDE: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. As much praise as I have for the administration on fighting the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, I must take this opportunity to express my concerns about our policies with regard to defense, trade, and export controls. In continuing to give weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles our urgent priority, we must also not overlook the fact that all of the casualties, to date, inflicted on us and our friends and allies by foreign terrorists, have come from their use of conventional munitions and dual-use technologies. These areas demand our continued vigilance, and you and I have worked together on several export control issues, including the QRS11 issue and license-free defense exports for the UK and Australia. Despite some procedural fumbling, we did reach a successful resolution on the QRS11. This morning I provided to you a letter outlining our views in some detail on the ITAR waiver.

Mr. Secretary, as you know, we have differences of opinion on the merits of the administration's proposal. We feel expanded cooperation with the UK and Australia should occur without subjecting our interests to increased risk. We hope you'll take into consideration our concerns and modify your proposals.

Given our interaction on those issues, I think you'll appreciate that Mr. Lantos and I both have strongly-held views about the need to uphold the principles contained in the Arms Export Control Act, and we would be very concerned with more proposals to relax export controls over U.S. weapons and dual-use technology in the midst of a war on terror.

The committee understands that the administration is very close to announcing a new presidential policy directive on export controls for U.S. weapons and technology, and this new policy has apparently been developed in response to a review which the administration announced was underway in November of 2002.

I think you'll find the same level of concerned in the Armed Services Committee from Chairman Hunter, as well as in Homeland Security under Chairman Cox. But nothing has been said to any of us about the new policy that will be coming out soon.

In that regard, I would appreciate very much, before this new policy is announced, that you or Dr. Rice will brief the leadership of these committees in advance of any announcement, and I would be happy to hold such a meeting if we can bring that about.

And now, at long last, Mr. Lantos.

REP. LANTOS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank, Mr. Secretary, you for your outstanding statement.

I'd like to ask a series of interrelated questions about Libya. So if you'll bear with me for a minute, they will all relate to Libya. But they're all very important different facets of our relationship.

First, Mr. Secretary, how would you assess the progress Libya has made in fulfilling its pledge to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them? Is there any evidence of backsliding by the Libyan regime? Once Libya has met its WMD commitments, what mechanism will be put in place to ensure that Libya doesn't restart these programs?

Secondly, has the administration developed a road map for normalization with Libya? Do you plan to lift all the sanctions once Libya has fulfilled its commitments on WMD and terrorism? Or do you foresee an extended period of testing Libyan intentions even after Libya meets its weapons-of-mass-destruction commitments?

Will the establishment of full diplomatic relations be tied to issues other than WMD and terrorism, such as human rights or an apology for the Pan Am 103 atrocity? What is the current state of Libya's involvement with terrorism, if any? What more must it do to achieve removal from the list of state sponsors of terrorism?

What steps, Mr. Secretary, is the administration taking to prepare to integrate Libyan scientists and technicians into the international scientific community through retraining, collaborative research and academic exchanges?

I understand the Department of State funds non-governmental organizations with expertise in engaging former weapons scientists overseas with United States scientists. I would encourage you to utilize the expertise of such organizations.

Such activities would help ensure that scientists and technicians who would otherwise be left unemployed as Libya divests itself of WMD are engaged only in peaceful activities. And there are few tasks more urgent if we are to assure that the authors of Libya's WMD programs do not use their highly coveted knowledge to create new problems in Libya or elsewhere in the region.

Likewise, Mr. Secretary, I'm particularly eager to hear about your plans for preparing to bring Libyan students to the United States and to send American professors to Libya once Libya has been removed from the list of state sponsors of terrorism.

I know from my contacts in Libya that the Libyans place the highest possible priority both on retraining their scientists and on student exchanges, and I urge you to begin laying the groundwork for such programs as soon as possible. And I assure you this committee will be fully supportive of your efforts.

Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

SEC. POWELL: Thank you very much, Mr. Lantos. Almost everything you mentioned on your list is a work in progress and somewhere on our road map going forward.

On Pan Am 103, an arrangement has been struck between the families and Libya which resolved that matter with respect to compensation to the families. As we go down our road map, more compensation becomes available to the families under the terms of the agreement that the families have with Libya.

I would always consider it appropriate for Libya to do more -- they could -- with respect to Pan Am 103 than is contained within this settlement between the families, acknowledging fully their responsibility at the highest levels of the government. We're not making that, however, a barrier to our ability to go forward.

On the very first question you raised though -- "How are they doing with respect to what they said they would do?" -- the answer is very, very well; almost astonishing to an old cold warrior, who used to have to pull it out of the Soviet Union one warhead at a time.

In the case of the Libyans, I had to sort of retrain myself and some of the old-timers on the staff that this is not like the Soviet Union where we're pulling it out. They're pushing it at us. And they have been forthcoming.

We went in there with the IAEA. People thought we'd have a blow- up with the IAEA. We didn't. IAEA personnel and inspectors are working alongside American and UK inspectors in a good spirit of cooperation -- no problems, no fights, materials coming out well. So they are exceeding my expectations as to what they would do.

And they have shown no indication so far that they're going to try to frankly hide something. We will be vigilant and we will follow everything we know, every lead we have, and make sure we bring it up, as has been said, root and branch.

Once we have reached that point, then we'll have to make judgments as to whether monitoring remains the thing to do or is an appropriate thing to do. What is it we're monitoring? If there are no more chemical stocks we're aware of and if the facilities that could have been used for illicit purposes are gone, then what is the appropriate monitoring regime, if one is necessary? And we've got experts looking at that.

The road map has been developed. You're familiar with it. Ambassador Burns has started to explore it with the Libyans last week, as I mentioned. And as they perform satisfactorily, which they have done so far, then we'll start to take steps, letting people visit. That then ultimately leads to student visits.

We do have programs to retrain scientists. We'll be looking at that. We have always had an interest section in Tripoli in the Belgian embassy. We now have sent American diplomats to be in that interest section. And in due course, we'll have our own facility in place, which we hope will grow into an embassy and have normal relations as this whole thing unfolds.

But we think the wisest course right now is to proceed in a deliberate way with some haste, but not so much haste that we're not making sure -- that we're failing to make sure that we have verified everything that they said they were going to do and they have done these things to our satisfaction.

So I think, Mr. Lantos, that you would be pleased at the plans we're putting together. And I hope it unfolds the way we have seen it unfold in the last several weeks.

REP. LANTOS: Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

REP. HYDE: Mr. Secretary, all congressional retirements aren't equal, and some deserve a pause for reflection. And since the last time the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, was in this room in a public session, he has announced his retirement, and indeed, his early departure from the House.

No one on this committee is more respected than Doug Bereuter for his involvement in our work and for his sober judgment. His contribution has been sustained and substantive. The Asia Foundation is indeed lucky to have him as its next president, and we all wish him sincerely a long and successful tenure there. He will certainly be missed by those of us who were privileged to work with him in the past. And we wish the very best to you, Doug.

REP. LANTOS: Mr. Chairman? (Applause.) All of my colleagues on the Democratic side fully identify ourselves with your comments of praise and recognition for our friend's, Doug Bereuter's enormous contributions to the work of this committee, and indeed the Congress. And Doug will be sorely missed by all of us.

REP. HYDE: Thank you, Tom. Mr. Bereuter is recognized for a question period.

REP. DOUG BEREUTER (R-NE): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Lantos, for your kind remarks. As a matter of fact, I think I had recommendations from both sides of the aisle that I leave the Congress and take the Asia Foundation position. (Laughter.) And I think it's a national treasure. And I look forward to working with this committee as soon as the ethics rules allow. (Laughs.)

And Mr. Secretary, it's good to see you here, and thank you for your exceptional leadership. I still have responsibilities in Europe, and so I'm not going to ask a question on Asia today, although the temptation is there.

As you know, Mr. Secretary, Senator Biden and Senator Lugar advanced a resolution which suggested strongly that NATO take a larger role in Iraq, and that, in fact, those assets and the programs of the United Nations that could be used would be asked to be used by the United States and coalition partners. And that passed by overwhelming vote, unanimously, and took that exactly language and added it without dissent to another bill, neither of which have become law, but I think they are a clear indication to the administration that this is the direction that Congress thinks the administration and the coalition should take.

And I note with great interest and appreciation that some of our allies that were in dissent in February of last year vocally, and before that in the Security Council, seem to have moderated their views, and perhaps are moving in that direction, and the effort that NATO supports, the so-called Polish units supported by several other countries, I understand may well be something that NATO directly takes a larger role in the future.

Mr. Secretary, would you advance your thoughts and what you know about this subject, and what the prospects are for us to have a larger NATO, and a larger appropriate role in transformation/reconstruction by the United Nations?

SEC. POWELL: Thank you very much, Mr. Bereuter. If I may start my reply by also congratulating you for your service here, and I look forward to working with you at the Asia Foundation. We'll have even more to do together than we've had in this particular relationship. And I wrote a letter to you yesterday, and I hope it gets delivered to you in the very near future. Congratulations to you, sir.

REP. BEREUTER: We go through a variety of cleansing processes on out mail here, as you know.

SEC. POWELL: I know. There's nothing in the envelope, sir. When you see Secretary of State, please don't be worried.

I believe NATO can play an important role in Iraq, and I have been conveying to my colleagues in NATO that they should give this serious consideration. I started that last spring, really, just as the war was coming to its initial phase of active combat operations, and Saddam Hussein had been dispatched into hiding. And to my great surprise, no nation would speak against it to say, we're not for it. Now, not everybody was ready to commit troops to it, but no nation was prepared to stop it. Because the pitch we made is, we had a big fight over whether there should be a war, but we've had a war, and a bad guy is really gone. And now we have to come together as alliances, NATO alliance, US-EU, within the United Nations, to support the reconstruction of Iraq, and part of that includes security.

And so, since then, since last spring and up through the Wehrkunde meeting this last weekend, there has been a slow -- there's an acceptance, sometimes slow, sometimes fast, depending on different countries, but there has been increasing acceptance that NATO does have a role to play. And, even the Germans, as you may have noticed in weekend reporting, said, we don't think we'd send troops, but we wouldn't object to NATO playing a role.

What role should NATO play? Most of NATO's countries are there now. Somewhere between 17 and 19 of the 26 have troops there now. So, it's not as if there is a huge reservoir of troops that suddenly becomes available when it shifts to a NATO mission. But, we do get NATO headquarters, you do get NATO involvement, and the alliance is involved, and that's important, even if it doesn't generate any more troops on the ground, although it could.

I think the easiest way to start this would be for NATO to assume responsibility for the zone that you described, where the Pols, and the Spaniards, and the U.K., and others are working. And that would plug right into our troops, and if it should all take place at the time that sovereignty is transferred, then you would have NATO working with a sovereign government, which I also think is a nice visual for the whole thing, as well as a proper policy outcome. So we're encouraging our NATO allies to look at this.

The Secretary General of NATO, the new Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer was here last week and we talked about this in considerable detail. He is supportive of it. He cautions, however, that Afghanistan has to come first for NATO. They're now in Afghanistan, they've got to make sure they've got that right, and they do that well. He is already thinking about what NATO can do in Iraq, and we'll be pursuing this in the spring. And we might be ready to make the appropriate decisions at the Istanbul NATO summit at the end of June if perhaps not before. At least if we can do it before, fine, but ratify it when all the heads of state are together in Istanbul.

The U.N. would certainly be interested in what these arrangements are. Right now the U.N., I don't expect to see them playing a significant role in the security arrangements, even though under the current U.N. resolution 1511 it is a multi-national force that is there, not just a U.S. coalition force. So we're working through all of these, but working in the direction that you suggested, Mr. Bereuter, and that is for NATO to play a role.

REP. BEREUTER: Thank you, Mr. Secretary, thank you Mr. Chairman.

REP. HYDE: Mr. Berman?

REP. BERMAN: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you for being here. As you were speaking earlier it occurred to me, particularly in the context of both Libya and Pakistan, maybe one day in the context of Iran, the tension between different of our interests, and I'd be curious if you'd be willing to sort of just speak your thoughts on how one balances those tensions. As a general rule, underlying U.S. foreign policy is a fundamental belief that both sort of universal -- universal human conditions are better, and our national security is better when people get to participate in their own governance through the democratic process, in one variation or another, when there is respect for individual rights, when the concepts, and acceptance of pluralism is inculcated, and institutionalized in different regimes.

And the president spoke really quite forcefully on this, in the context of the Middle East recently, the vision for what Iraq would hopefully become certainly reflects those values. At the same time September 11th, terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, and their relationship should be, I think, fairly obvious to everyone, and the important for our security interests and that of our allies and friends around the world, and dealing with that also requires us to give great attention to those issues.

In the case of Pakistan, and in the case of Libya, we talk about what we hope might happen. We have such important interests in Pakistan, in terms of help with the areas under Pakistan's sovereignty where Al-Qaeda may still be harbored, in terms of promoting negotiations with the Indians on Kashmir, and stopping support for the terrorists there, in terms of getting rid of Pakistan's really stunning role as proliferator of weapons of mass destruction and technology. At the same time, Musharraf is not a democrat, in the sense of the corruption of some of the institutional processes there in the military and intelligence services is pretty well known, and how one works through a sensible bilateral relationship in the context of that.

The same could apply to Libya, as you talked about that teacup, and I'm curious how you would work through those. And with Iran, which is still -- I mean, when I look at Iran, there's doubts about whether they're even committed to their agreement that they made with the European leaders. Their continued support for terrorism is obvious, and then of course we have this stunning situation where what's happening to those people who stand for reform and change in Iran, in terms of the upcoming election, and what's happening to them, and the unwillingness apparently of the elected leadership of Iran to confront the guardians, and the council that is knocking people off the race, out of the election contests draws the point there. At what point -- and how do we relate to Iran in all these different facets?

I'm curious how you work through balancing these?

SEC. POWELL: It's what I spend most of my time doing, Mr. Berman. I have to play the cards that I'm dealt, and I play those cards in accordance with the president's direction. And his direction starts out with we believe in our value system, and we believe that our value system is more than just for Americans, it's universal -- freedom, democracy, individual rights of men and women. And we take these values to every country that we have relations with, whether they are in sync with us and believe as we do or whether they don't. I can give the same sermon about these values -- and it almost comes down to a sermon -- I can give it just as easily in Pakistan as I can in India, and if I ever get to Tripoli, I'll give them the same sermon. And the reason I can do this is because I believe they're universal values, but more -- even more important than that, they lead to a system that works in the 21st century. Democracy, and open economic systems, and letting people pursue their own dreams and ambitions, this is what works, and more and more nations are discovering it. And more and more nations are shifting over to the democratic column. Look at Eastern Europe. Look at our own hemisphere. More and more nations are realizing, "What do we have to move away from?" "We've got to move away from forms of government that do not allow people to be represented fully. But it doesn't happen overnight. Diplomacy isn't -- isn't like combat action, I've discovered. It isn't something that's resolved overnight. It takes time. It takes persuasion. And you have to be considerate of the pace at which a particular country can move.

When I go back to Pakistan -- let me take Pakistan as an example -- on the evening of the 13th of September of 2001, or the morning of the 14th, two days after 9/11, I placed a phone call to President Musharraf, after my deputy, Mr. Armitage, had sent a list of demands and suggestions and recommendations as to what Pakistan should do. And at that point, there was no parliament functioning. General Musharraf was General Musharraf, President Musharraf. He was supporting -- the regime was supporting the Taliban, and we told them, "Time to start changing." And he did.

And here it is now, a couple of years later, he's still the president, but there is a parliament that's functioning. There is a prime minister. He still has ultimate power. We talked to him about changing his education system. He's doing that. We talked to him about open trade, and he's moving in that direction. We talked to him about A.Q. Khan, and we talked to him about the problems that we saw in that man and his institutions, and now he's moved on that.

And so, I think we have seen the kind of progress we like to see going in the right direction, keeping in mind that during a large part of the last couple of years with Pakistan, we were also worried about a major war breaking out that could have gone nuclear between India and Pakistan. We worked all of that. There was no war. There was no nuclear exchange. Those two countries are now talking to one another. They're exchanging high commissioners, and trade is starting to go across the border. They've met with each other, and now the A.Q. Khan situation has been dealt with -- more to do with it, but it's certainly been dealt with in the first instance. And so we're making progress in a place like Pakistan. But I can't hold it yet to the standard that you and I would expect to see in our country or in one of our Western European friends, the country of one of our Western -- one of our Western European allies.

So, what we do is we never step back from our value system. We never fail to preach them. The Congress has given me a number of tools to work on -- human rights tools, trafficking in persons tools -- other requirements that you give me to make sure that I am applying this value system in our foreign policy activities.

We have good relations with China, the best relations we've had with China in 30 years, I would submit -- economic relations, cooperation on regional issues -- but at the same time, we preach to them, and we let them know there are consequences if they don't obey the standards having to do with the World Trading Organization requirements that they entered into, or human rights, or religious freedom, or tolerance of other points of view. And China hasn't become a full democracy overnight, but it's certainly not where it was 20 years ago.

And so, the value system that you started out with, Mr. Berman, is the foundation stone for the president's foreign policy. It's what we spend an enormous amount of our time in the department doing -- balancing this value system against what a particular country is doing, and then determining what should we do with that country to keep it moving, not just to serve a particular interest we have at a moment in time, but to keep it moving so that it slowly but surely moves in the direction -- not just because we want them to -- but because we think it's best for them to move in that direction in order to create a more peaceful environment in their part of the world, a more peaceful world, and to have them join a community of nations that believes in democracy, and believes in the individual dignity of men and women, and believes in open economic systems.

REP. HYDE: Mr. Chris Smith.

REP. CHRIS SMITH (R-NJ): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And Mr. Secretary, thank you for the extraordinary job you, President Bush and John Miller, and so many others are doing on the human slavery, trafficking in persons effort. I think you would agree, smart sanctions do work. When the threat of those sanctions hung over Israel, Turkey, Greece, and South Korea, they did an enormous amount of work to get off of the list, the Tier 3 list, as we call it, and more importantly to make reforms to mitigate and hopefully end trafficking within their own country.

I would just ask you, one of the new tools, as you mentioned a moment ago, that we have given to the department is the whole idea of the watch list, and I hope that that watch list, which the president just signed into law as part of a whole package of new tools, will be used very, very rigorously. There are countries like Russia where we are still waiting for, and holding our breath, and hopefully soon we'll see the necessary legislation get enacted.

Take a look, if you would, Mr. Secretary, at The Netherlands. A recent rapporteur report suggested that something on the order of 80 percent of the women who are being bought and sold every day in The Netherlands are foreigners, a significant portion of which have been trafficked, and yet they're Tier 1. I would hope that they would be look at with some -- some real scrutiny.

The other day -- or just in the ongoing -- one of the Tier 3 countries, and this deserves, I think, some real look, Uzbekistan's daughter, Ganora Karimova (sp), she has been linked to trafficking. And there are others who are very high up in government that whenever this information comes forward, we ought to be following it up very rigorously.

On religious freedom, Mr. Secretary, yesterday the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom testified that they think there ought to be at least 11 countries on the CPC list, the countries of particular concern, including Vietnam. And I would encourage you to look at those countries. John Hanford said that it is under a very, very active review -- our U.S. ambassador -- special ambassador for religious affairs. And it seems to me, looking at what's going on in Vietnam, including the renunciation of faith that the government is imposing on some religious believers, warrants, I think, CPC designation.

Thirdly, and you mentioned China briefly, but China continues to be a basket case when it comes to human rights issues. They continue to repress all dissidents. The one child per couple policy remains one of the worst assaults in humankind, in human history, I should say, on women, children, as well as on families where children are illegal if they're not explicitly authorized by the state. And, of course, that's enforced by forced abortion and forced sterilization.

And finally, I chair the Helsinki Commission, as you know, and I continually hear criticisms of what goes on in Guantanamo. I've gone there. I and others, you know, didn't find any of the torture that was being talked about by our -- by our friends and allies in Europe. But, why don't we have in Europe the same kind of expression of angst and opposition to what goes on right across the border line, and that is to say what goes on in Havana with Fidel Castro. As we all know, he recently rounded up some of the best and the brightest and the bravest in Cuba, including Dr. Oscar Biscet and others, and had meted out 25, 26, 27-year prison terms for aspiring for democracy and for speaking the truth to power. I would hope that our European allies -- they did initially, a few of them, would speak out against these atrocities that are going on in Cuba today.

Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

SEC. POWELL: Thank you very much, Mr. Smith. With respect to trafficking in persons, I think you -- you know how aggressively the department is pursuing this issue and how much we appreciate the support and the nudge Congress has given us over the years. I've participated in television shows, the Dateline show a few weeks ago that I thought was very moving in describing what goes on in trafficking in children, some of the horrific scenes that the Dateline crews came up with, which should shock all -- all -- civilized people. And you can -- you can count on this department and this president following up on this as much as we can.

When I was in Russia two weeks ago, I met with President Putin, I met with a lot of people, but as part of my trip I went and visited a conference on trafficking in persons, with civil leaders, with government leaders, with all sorts of people who have come together to begin talking about this problem in Russia, and I addressed that conference.

I'm aware of The Netherlands problem, and we called that to the attention of our colleagues in The Netherlands.

On China, we're not holding back on that. We have told the Chinese that we have seen backsliding over the last year, not progress, and that this is of concern to you.

And with respect to Guantanamo, there's no question that we're treating all the detainees down there in a proper manner, consistent with our international obligations. I did a television television interview earlier today on Spanish television to announce that the Spanish detainee will be released in the next day or so, and you will see in the next couple of weeks that the interrogation, and other procedures that had been in place to make sure we knew who we were dealing with down there, have been expedited so that more and more people that we have no reason to detain will be released, and sent back to their countries. But for those who are bad guys and we have every reason to detain, because they could go right back out on the streets and attack us, we are going to retain. And we'll make the case to the international community and the human rights organizations as to why it is necessary for us to do that to protect our citizens.

I think even my European colleagues finally are starting to realize that you look over the fence at Guantanamo, and there's Cuba. And it is the worst offender. And I found it much easier to make that case to my European Union colleagues in recent months as a result of continued misbehavior -- horrible misbehavior on the part of the Cuban government.

REP. BEREUTER: Thank you, Mr. Smith.

The gentleman from New York, Mr. Ackerman, is recognized for five minutes.

REP. GARY ACKERMAN (D-NY): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, thank you for being with us today, and glad to see you looking so robust. And thank you for the great work that you are doing for us all over the world.

Mr. Secretary, a year ago you appeared before the United Nations Security Council and brilliantly detailed the case against Saddam Hussein and his regime. Your presentation that day was the apogee of a larger campaign by the president and his senior advisors to make the public case for going to war and removing Saddam Hussein and his government from power. I want to be clear, Mr. Secretary: I supported the decision to go to war. I voted for the resolution authorizing the president to use force as a last resort. And I would have voted for it for the right reasons. I would have voted for it for the honest reasons. They would have been sufficient for me.

But I also believed in the administration, and I believed their case, and the case that they were making. But in the aftermath of the war, finding no weapons of mass destruction and no plans in a decade thereto, and with shifting justifications from the war coming from the president, who refuses to take personal responsibility for what is at best an intelligence disaster, or at worst massaging the intelligence books, I can't help but feel the same unease that my constituents feel that we were sold a bill of goods, and that the buck will stop somewhere short of the president's desk.

While no one in a policy-making position in the administration ever publicly said the word "imminent," everything that was said to convince the public and the Congress suggested that we needed to take immediate action -- immediate if not sooner. The president said we would not live at the mercy of Iraq's dictator. Dr Rice said, quote, "We don't want the smoking gun" -- I'll underline it -- "the smoking gun to turn out to be the mushroom cloud," unquote -- and we know what makes mushroom clouds. And in case there was anyone who didn't get the picture that was being painted, the vice president said, quote, "Simply put, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction," unquote.

That kind of language amounts to a case for imminent, even if no one actually said that word.

The distinguished chairman of this committee cited in his remarks the adage that truth is the first casualty of war. I would content that the truth was murdered before a shot was fired.

Now unable to discover the stockpiles of weapons that Vice President Cheney asserted were absolutely there, and that Secretary Rumsfeld claimed to know the exact location of, we find ourselves with a big problem. Not that our failure to find the weapons is not a big problem, or that al Qaeda forces are sneaking into Iraq to attack our troops is not a big problem, or that rebuilding a nation the size of California is not a big problem. The real problem is much bigger. The problem is an utter lack of credibility. This administration lacks credibility with Congress, the American people and the international community.

The credibility gap is not just about the reasons we went to war in Iraq, but extends to the plan for what we would do after the war. I was one of those in Congress who agreed that by comparison winning the war would be easy, and winning the peace would be hard. We won the war. The secretary of war makes good war. And for the peace, we were assured -- the American people were assured that there was a plan. And in fact there was a plan. It was produced by the State Department, and I suspect at your direction. It fills 13 volumes and occupies a shelf in our committee's office. It is very detailed and discusses all the issues that we've now confronted since the very first day of the occupation. Yet this plan was deliberately shoved aside, and its chief architect summarily removed from our reconstruction efforts in Iraq. How are the American people to believe the current plan to hand over power to Iraqis on June 30th, ready or not, come hell or high water, will actually work, when all the expertise the United States government could muster has summarily ignored?

I've concluded the administration's plan to get us into the war was bait-and-switch. And the plan to get us out looks very much like cut-and-run.

REP. BEREUTER: Mr. Ackerman, your time has expired. To keep on track here for everyone, we really need to stop at this point.

REP. LANTOS: May I -- Mr. Chairman, I request unanimous consent that the gentleman have a minute to conclude his statement.

REP. BEREUTER: Is there objection?

REP. DANA ROHRABACHER (R-CA): I object, Mr. Chairman, because some of us are waiting for some time as well, Mr. Ackerman.

REP. BEREUTER: Objection is heard. Objection is heard.

REP. ACKERMAN: If I could just conclude.

REP. BEREUTER: I need to use the gavel, Mr. Ackerman, because you're 30 seconds are over, and an objection was heard.

REP. ACKERMAN: It's your gavel, Mr. Chairman.

REP. BEREUTER: Thank you. Mr. Secretary, do you wish to respond?

SEC. POWELL: I'll respond briefly. First, truth is not murder, Mr. Ackerman. The information that we were presented by the intelligence community and was carefully examined -- nobody shaped it, nobody told the intelligence community what to say. When I made my presentation to the U.N. last year, February the 5th, I knew that I was going before a world audience, and I knew that I had to have it right. And "right" meant I had the considered total views of the intelligence community. And where there was a difference of opinion or a difference of view, I had to take that into account, ask the DCI, Mr. Tenet, to resolve it. And if it was not resolvable at least make note of it in my presentation, which I did. And in my presentation I laid out clearly the intent, the history of Mr. Saddam Hussein's behavior. I laid out the programs that he had. I laid out all the gaps in knowledge that we had, and asked him to answer those gaps, as he was required to do so under 1441. And I went into that briefing believing that there were stockpiles, that there were weapons there. We expected to find them. We all believe t hat, because all of the intelligence data that we had suggested that there were stockpiles, and it was derived from 12 years of examinations, eight years of which included U.N. inspectors on the ground, and all the intelligence that was available to us, available to other agencies in other governments.

And so there's not a question of we knew nothing was there and we lied about it. What we did was we presented the facts that our intelligence community provided to us -- nothing more, nothing less. And I did not go before the U.N. and tell anything but the truth as we knew it at the time that we presented it. With respect to --

REP. ACKERMAN: Your presentation was impeccable before the U.N., and I did not mean to impugn that, Mr. Secretary.

SEC. POWELL: I beg your pardon, sir?

REP. ACKERMAN: I said your presentation at the U.N. was impeccable.

SEC. POWELL: Yeah, but it reflected the intelligence community's view and it reflected the information that was in the NIE that was presented to the Congress. So -- and it was the definitive U.S. government statement presented before the world body.

On the aftermath, the information in the 13 volumes was made available to the Department of Defense, which had responsibility -- appropriately so -- for the immediate aftermath. It was still a war. It was a war zone. And our experience in Japan, in Germany and elsewhere is that's the department that has to run it. No other department has that kind of capacity. One can question the decisions and judgments that were made, but I think we are on a good track now with the Coalition Provisional Authority under the leadership of Ambassador Bremer. And I have started the transition process in the department where State Department officials, appropriately so, as we get closer to transition will take more and more responsibility until transition comes and an ambassador running a normal, but very large, embassy will become responsible for our interests and presence in Iraq.

REP. BEREUTER: The gentle lady from Florida, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, is recognized for five minutes.

REP. ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN (R-FL): Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, it's always a pleasure to see you. It's not a quickie, but it's a little longer, but your performance is always great.

I have a few questions on Cuba, human rights, Israel and the Middle East Partnership Initiative all rolled into one. Just last night I received a letter from the human rights activist that my colleague Congressman Smith was speaking about, Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet, one of the many prisoners of conscience languishing in Castro's gulag. And in that letter that I would like to submit for the record, Dr. Biscet says, "There is not doubt that existing evil and injustice in our country is made up of the structure well designed to repress." And, Mr. Secretary, I'd like to ask what your department is doing to underscore the threat of Fidel Castro internationally. What are we doing to try to secure the release of Dr. Biscet and, as Mr. Smith pointed out, almost 80 other human rights activists who were arrested, sentenced to last spring merely for speaking out on behalf of democracy? Are we getting international support calling for their release?

And on the subject of human rights, we have the upcoming session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, and I'd like to ask you what is our department strategy regarding country-specific resolutions? What oppressive regimes, which ones will the U.S. be focusing on at this year's session? And of particular interest is the response from European nations on the efforts to prevent anti-Semitic, slanderous attacks against one of our staunchest allies, our friend and partner Israel. What are we doing to prevent the commission from being hijacked, as it has so many times, by extremist elements?

And, similarly, could you update us on the department's efforts concerning the International Court of Justice and Israel's security fence? I am very pleased that the administration chose to file a brief with the court on the U.S. views of Israel's security fence. And just this morning from your department, Mr. Secretary, I received a response regarding Israel, and I thank you for that. And the letter states the administration's strong support for Israel. It says the United States has always supported Israel's security needs and its right to defend itself. We believe that there can be no excuse for the violence and terrorist attacks against the Israeli people that they have been forced to endure. And we have made it clear to the Palestinians that a Palestinian state will not be established on a foundation of terror. And we thank you and President Bush for your strong stand. So, lastly, how would you assess the performance of the Palestinian prime minister to date? Do you believe that he has succeeded in limiting the ability of Arafat to run the show and control terrorist attacks against Israel? And, if you have a minute to spare to elaborate on the programs of the countries that will be the focus of the Middle East Partnership Initiative. And we thank you for your progress on that great program.

Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

SEC. POWELL: Thank you very much, Congresswoman. I will run down some of these very briefly. With respect to the doctor, we share your concern for him and for the other 80 who are incarcerated in that manner, and we raise this as an issue with our European Union friends at every opportunity. I wish I could snap a finger and free them all, but that's, of course, not possible.

But I think, by these terrible actions, Fidel Castro has isolated himself more and more, and there are fewer and fewer people willing to stand up and defense him or his regime. With respect to the Human Rights Commission and what we're looking at, we are still examining the various resolutions that might be put forward but certainly the Cuban resolution will be one of those that we would be putting forward and try to generate support from and work with our European Union colleagues.

Anti-Semitic actions, we participated in anti-Semitic conference last year under the auspices of the OECD -- OSC, excuse me -- and we are going to do so again this year. And I'm pleased that a number of my European Union colleagues realize that this is an issue that they can't just ignore and pretend it isn't real. It is real, and they have to deal with it, and we are participating in the conferences that are dealing with it.

With respect to the ICJ, we were pleased to file a brief that said we don't believe that we're standing for this issue before the ICJ. I am not satisfied with everything that Prime Minister Abu Allah has done. I have conveyed to the Palestinian side repeatedly that they have to do more with respect to security, and we won't be able to get anywhere until they do do more and wrest control of the security forces from Yasser Arafat, and there is just no question about that.

And then the Middle East partnership initiative, which will grow into the Greater Middle East initiative -- we are examining now how far that should extend. Should it stop at the Gulf? Should it continue over to Afghanistan and Pakistan? How wide should we consider the Middle East region to be as we think about this for the G-8, NATO, and EU meetings that are coming up later this year? The Middle East Partnership Initiative is essentially for the Western part of that wide region.

REP. BEREUTER: The gentleman from American Samoa, Mr. Faleomavaega, is recognized for five minutes.

REP. FALEOMAVAEGA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I want to offer my compliments to you for your outstanding leadership and commitment and especially for the tremendous services that you are rendering to our country. It's not easy to be constantly faced with serious events and conflicts. They might either require instant response or pretend the problems don't exist or, by sheer negligence, just do nothing.

Our nation is now in the middle of a highly politically charged atmosphere where the people of our nation will decide who should represent their interests, both domestically and to the world. As our chairman has stated clearly, truth becomes the first casualty not only of war but in an atmosphere where partisan politics consumes our appetite, and as human nature would have it, not only to be heard but to be given the power to make decisions that will control the lives of the people of our country.

Mr. Secretary, 30 years ago India exploded its nuclear device in 1974 and thereby immediately, as I recall, Prime Minister Rajiv Ghandi pleaded before the United Nations General Assembly of the dangers of the proliferation of nuclear weapons and requested that there should be a worldwide ban of nuclear weapons altogether and that India would be among the first to voluntarily submit to the destruction of nuclear weapons. My understanding the reaction from the five permanent members of the Security Council who possesses, to this day, nuclear weapons -- France, Great Britain, China, our country, Russia -- we did nothing. The point that India has been advocating for the past 30 years, Mr. Secretary, is simply this -- what gives our nation, Russia, the United Kingdom, China, and France the right to tell the rest of the world not to produce nuclear weapons or even prevent Third World countries from producing nuclear weapons when these five nations should be setting an example by destroying their own supply of nuclear weapons?

Common sense would dictate that Pakistan, which borders India, has every right as a nation to also produce nuclear weapons to protect itself from possible threat of a nuclear attack by India. Now, Mr. Secretary, that's the best example of proliferation -- Pakistan's security is threatened by India, and India's security is threatened by China, and it goes on and on. And all this because five nuclear nations refuse to set the example of getting rid of their nuclear weapons themselves.

With the recent pardoning of Mr. Khan by President Musharraf of Pakistan, Mr. Secretary, for the exportation of nuclear technology to Iran, Libya, and North K