Copyright 2001 Federal News Service, Inc.  
Federal News Service
October 10, 2001, Wednesday
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING

LENGTH: 18218 words

HEADLINE: PANEL I OF A HEARING OF THE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE
 
SUBJECT: PUBLIC DIPLOMACY AND THE ANTI-TERRORISM CAMPAIGN
 
CHAIRED BY: REPRESENTATIVE HENRY HYDE (R-IL)
 
LOCATION: 2172 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C.

WITNESSES: CHARLOTTE BEERS, UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR PUBLIC DIPLOMACY AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS;
 
RICHARD BOUCHER, UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS
 


BODY:
REP. HYDE: The committee will come to order.

As Americans, we are justly proud of our country. If any nation has been a greater force for good in the long and tormented history of this world, I'm unaware of it. We have guarded whole continents from conquest, showered aid on distant lands, sent thousands of youthful idealists to remote and, often, inhospitable areas to help the world's forgotten. Our generosity is a matter of record, from rebuilding our defeated enemies to feeding tens of millions around the world.

Why, then, when we read or listen to descriptions of America in the foreign press, do we so often seem to be entering a fantasy-land of hatred? Much of the popular press overseas, often including the government-owned media, daily depict the United States as a force for evil, accusing this country of an endless number of malevolent plots against the world. Today, as we strike against the terrorists in Afghanistan who master-minded the murder of thousands of Americans, our actions are widely depicted in the Muslim world as a war against Islam. Our efforts at self-defense, which should be supported by every decent person on this planet, instead spark riots that threaten governments that dare cooperate with us.

The poisonous image of the United States that is deliberately propagated around the world is more than a mere irritation; it has a direct and negative impact on American interests, not only by undermining our foreign policy goals, but by endangering the safety of Americans here at home and abroad.

How has this state of affairs come about? How is it that the country that invented Hollywood and Madison Avenue has such trouble promoting a positive image of itself overseas? Clearly, this situation has not emerged suddenly or without warning; it's been building for decades, even as we stood and watched. Over the years, the images of mindless hatred directed at us have appeared on our television screens with sickening regularity. All this time, we have heard calls that "something must be done," but clearly, whatever has been done has not been enough.

The question facing us is, what can we do to correct this problem? When I look at the range of programs that constitute our public diplomacy efforts overseas, I see many things of value. But even if the individual programs have merit, can anyone doubt that the sum of our efforts has been insufficient? It's not my purpose to place blame on any person or agency for this state of affairs, for that would be neither accurate nor helpful. Were the problem solvable simply by urging others to work better or harder, I would happily make that call.

However, we must assume that the responsible individuals are committed and competent public servants who do their best to perform the job before them.

It appears to me that the problem is too great and too entrenched to be solved by our current efforts. The same must be said about any partial reforms such as tweaking an agency here or reshuffling a program there. Instead, we must ask ourselves whether or not our public diplomacy effort as currently constituted can ever do the job of correcting the damage that has been done to our image and reputation overseas, and, beyond that, establishing a positive image of the United States abroad.

If we ask this question, a host of others follow. How can we use our current programs to better effect? What new approaches to promoting America's image abroad should we consider? Is there a role for the private sector, and does it have any lessons to teach us? How can we measure impact? Who are our allies in efforts overseas? Can we enlist the resources of friendly governments?

There are many questions to be asked, and it's my hope that these hearings will be a beginning of that process.

We must open this discussion to many others, to all who have expertise in this subject and who have ideas to offer. This must, of course, include those currently in positions of responsibility, but we must also hear from those whose experience lies in different areas, especially those in the private sector whose careers have focused on the creation of images both here and around the world.

I cannot claim to have a ready solution to this problem, but surely one exists. We must accept there can be no quick fixes. The problem has been gathering strength for several decades, and an effective approach will take time to assemble, but we must begin now if we are to win this long overlooked struggle.

In so doing, we must remember that we will not only be the beneficiaries of success. As Abraham Lincoln stated, our country represents the last best hope of Earth. We must reestablish the identity of America and hope among the peoples of the world if we are to merit that description, and by so doing, secure our world for the generations to come.

I now ask Mr. Lantos for an opening statement.

REP. TOM LANTOS (D-CA): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to commend you for calling this hearing.

Before I make my formal statement, I cannot help but comment on yesterday afternoon when you and Senators Biden and Jesse Helms and I had a lengthy meeting with the president on a whole range of foreign policy issues, but the issue that most powerfully remains in my mind, and will for a long time, was the president's very genuine, very sincere, and very straightforward question, why do they hate us? Why is it that from the street of Jakarta in Indonesia to Pakistan to scores of other countries, the white venom of hate is oozing in a singularly ugly and sickening fashion?

The president asked, properly, there has never been a more generous nation. We covet no one's territory. We are trying to preserve or in some places create a civilized society. And yet the venom is oozing in our direction. And I think the fundamental answer truly lies in our appalling failure to conduct public diplomacy with the seriousness and with the resources that this very important function so desperately calls for.

Mr. Chairman, the U.S.-led international military campaign launched Sunday against Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda network and his Taliban protectors represents the first step in a long and difficult and costly struggle against terrorism. If September 11th was Pearl Harbor, October 7th was D-Day, the beginning of the end of international terrorism. Our forceful counterattack demonstrates that the terrorist acts of the last month have not paralyzed us; they have galvanized us. Winning the war against terrorism will require much more than military might. It will also require, among other diplomatic and economic initiatives, that we launch a concerted campaign to win over the people of Afghanistan and scores of other countries around the globe who are subjected to a daily barrage of vituperative misinformation and vicious hate. The war against terrorism will be fought in the air, on the land, on the seas, but particularly in the airwaves.

In many respects, Mr. Chairman, we and our allies are losing the battle of the airwaves.

We are literally being outgunned, outmanned, outmaneuvered on the public-information battlefield. For years, the Taliban has showered Afghanistan with their hateful propaganda via Radio Shari'a. The insidious messages of that radio echo throughout the Middle East and South Asia, as fringe organizations and mainstream media alike spread their anti-American venom. The riots we see in the streets of Indonesia and Pakistan, two nations we have helped enormously since they gained independence, is proof positive that we are losing this aspect of the war.

Of course the broadcasting of hate is not new. From Goebbels' Nazi propaganda machine to the hate-radio broadcasts in Rwanda during the Tutsi genocide, repressive regimes have used misinformation campaigns to terrorize, manipulate and provoke civilian populations. Osama bin Laden himself has taken a page from this playbook, manipulating most recently Arab media to further his evil ends.

It is time, Mr. Chairman, that we strike back by strengthening and intensifying our public diplomacy efforts. As a teenager in the anti-Nazi underground living in Hungary during the Second World War, I recall fondly the inspirational and uplifting and liberating broadcasts of the Voice of America and the BBC. And I can testify personally to the incredibly dramatic effect these programs had in providing hope to captive people. With the proper commitment of resources and energy, public diplomacy can be made to work again.

But since the end of the Cold War, Mr. Chairman, the United States has neglected our public-diplomacy efforts. International information and broadcasting budgets have been vitiated over the years, and the merger of USIA and the Department of State may have further complicated our public-diplomacy efforts. After nearly a decade of neglect, we are today suffering the consequences of a chronically underfunded public-diplomacy establishment.

The United States currently spends on international broadcasting a sum that I can only describe as paltry and shameful. We are spending about as much as BBC spends on its World Service. And -- to give some perspective to our spending priorities -- we are spending $2.2 billion on chewing gum, $75 billion on cigarettes, and $400 million on the public broadcasting establishment.

It is high time, Mr. Chairman, that this Congress and our administration took public diplomacy seriously. Last month, with virtual unanimity, we appropriated about $40 billion in emergency funds for waging war on terrorism. This morning I call on President Bush to allocate from these funds whatever is required to increase dramatically U.S. broadcasting to Afghanistan and throughout the Arab and Muslim world. We must not shortchange this vital account and rob the State Department and the broadcasting agencies of the resources they need to carry out this important fight. The time for bold, decisive action on this crucial front on the war against terrorism is long overdue.

Some members, Mr. Chairman, have proposed the creation of a Radio Free Afghanistan, a concept I support. But establishing a new broadcasting service from scratch will take considerable time. As we build infrastructure, listenership and credibility for a Radio Free Afghanistan, we must expand upon the current remarkable capabilities of the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, which have made important inroads into Afghanistan. Some polls indicate that up to 80 percent of Afghan males listen to VOA through its Pashtu and Farsi and Urdu services. We must build upon this success, not abandon it for a new service that will take months, perhaps years, to establish.

Public diplomacy entails more than broadcasting, however. We must also increase educational and cultural exchanges with the Middle East and South Asia and promote educational programming in Afghanistan, Pakistan and other countries that lack access to basic education.

As I've said before, Mr. Chairman, the war on terrorism is like no other war America has ever waged, and it will require all that we as a people can muster. Public diplomacy is one arrow in America's quiver in this war, and it is time we use it.

If you'll allow, Mr. Chairman, there is one more observation I would like to make. One of my most unforgettable memories was a day I spent in Geneva many years ago with my late friend Edward R. Murrow.

We both stayed at the Hotel Beau-Rivage. By chance, we met in the morning and spent much of the day together.

Ed Murrow, who knew more about this incredibly important instrument than anyone, taught not just the importance but the absolute essentiality of making our public diplomacy credible.

So I would like to conclude by quoting the great Edward E. Murrow, whose contributions to American society are gigantic. "To be persuasive," he said, "we must be believable. To be believable, we must be credible. To be credible, we must be truthful."erican public diplomacy will have to be truthful. We cannot match -- nor should we -- the latter-day Goebbelses in their lies and distortions. Our story sells itself, if it is told powerfully, accurately, and with credibility.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. HYDE: Thank you.

We will now receive opening statements. I would admonish the committee to be as brief as possible, because we have several witnesses, and we'd like to get to them. But I think it's important that each member have an opportunity to express themselves, succinctly and briefly.

And first Jo Ann Davis, the gentlelady from Virginia. You have no -- (off-mike comments from staff and colleagues).

Mr. Flake?

REP. JEFF FLAKE (R-AZ): Mr. Chairman, I'd rather hear the witnesses. Thanks.

REP. HYDE: Mr. -- pardon?

(Off-mike conferral with staff and colleagues.)

We're having a mild dispute about the order of calling people. There's -- some have said when they get here, they ought to take precedence, and others suggest that seniority -- and I am -- I have friends on both side(s). (Laughter.) And I'm for my friends.

Mr. Leach?

REP. JAMES LEACH (R-IA): Well, so that there's no misunderstanding, Mr. Chairman, I was the first member here. And I'm not making the insistence, and there is no argument to that extent.

But having said that, I want to just very briefly say I identify with the -- both the ranking member and the chairman and their comments, and would only add one modest fillip. And that is that as we look at public diplomacy, the word "diplomacy" is more important than the word "public."

And I am -- if there is any lesson that this committee with its jurisdiction ought to be taking very seriously, it is that the budget of the United States Department of State should be looked at in the wake of international challenges of this nature, just as the budget of the Central Intelligence Agency and the public diplomacy function, and that political games with the State Department budget and the multilateral budgets, including the United Nations, should be looked at in a very professional way.

And with that, I would yield back the time.

REP. HYDE: Thank you.

Mr. Berman of California.

REP. HOWARD L. BERMAN (D-CA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hardly ever do this, but I want to make a general exception and actually make an opening statement at this hearing because I think the subject is so important. We have a number of distinguished witnesses we'll be hearing from on both panels, a number of people who have done incredible work in public broadcasting and public diplomacy who are at this hearing today.

The war against terrorism is much more than a military operation. It's also a battle of ideas. As an editorial in yesterday's Washington Post notes, the terrorist enemy that the United States and its allies are facing includes not just networks of fighters and their leaders, but an extremist ideology that has gained a substantial following. Osama bin Laden is doing his best to persuade the world that the strikes on Taliban and al Qaeda facilities amounts to an attack on Islam. It's up to us to convince people, especially moderates in the Arab world, that he's wrong. Fortunately we have the facts on our side, and in the end, the truth will prevail.

But the importance of U.S. public diplomacy in the Middle East extends far beyond the current conflict in Afghanistan. At last week's Middle East subcommittee hearing, all of the distinguished witnesses agreed that we've lost the public relations battle on Iraq. Geoffrey Kemp, a member of President Reagan's National Security Council staff, said, and I quote, "The U.S. has been losing the propaganda war, and it should be a priority to retain the high ground on the matter of who is most responsible for the suffering of the Iraqi people." We noted Saddam refuses to use funds available under the Oil for Food program to buy food and medicine to sustain his people. We know the sanctions would be lifted if he allowed U.N. weapons inspectors back into the country. We know he uses profits from illicit oil sales to build more palaces for himself while the Iraqi population remains mired in poverty.

Unfortunately, these facts have been lost on much of the world, including some of our allies. With anti-American sentiment on the rise in the entire Middle East, with Saddam still at the helm in Baghdad, with no end in sight to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we must intensify our efforts to explain U.S. policies and perspectives to the broad Arab public. But we need to find new ways to do so, because current U.S. international broadcasting in the region has not always been effective. Our shortwave and AM broadcasts are barely audible in many parts of the Middle East and generally have an extremely small audience -- 2 percent or less of the population -- in most of the 22 countries that receive VOA's Arabic language programming.

Much of this has to do with the growing popularity of Al Jazeera and other media outlets in the region.

To their great credit, the broadcasting board of governors has proposed a new Arabic service that will broadcast news, in-depth analysis, editorial comment, talk and popular music 24 hours a day, seven days a week, in an attractive and accessible format. Unlike current VOA broadcasts, the network will be carried on FM and AM radio stations located in the region. It will also provide programming streams tailored to specific audiences, particularly educated young adults in Sudan, the West Bank, Gaza, Iraq, Egypt, Jordan, the Gulf states, other areas.

The Middle East Radio Network will expose the future leaders of the Arab world to American ideas, values and culture, facilitate the free flow of ideas in countries that still routinely engage in press censorship. It will provide a counter to the disinformation, hate speech and incitement to violence that are all too often contained in official and private media sources in the region. I strongly support this initiative and hope all of my colleagues will as well.

I also, in closing, want to draw attention -- my colleagues' attention to legislation introduced by our colleague, Ed Royce, that would establish a Radio Free Afghanistan. There's clearly a need for additional broadcasting into Afghanistan. According to a National Public Radio report that aired on Tuesday, the three things the Afghan people want most are food, water and information. Hopefully we can provide all three.

I agreed to be a lead Democratic co-sponsor of this legislation with the understanding that, given limited resources, the author had no intention of pursuing Radio Free Afghanistan at the expense of the broader Middle East Radio Network. Indeed, as Mr. Royce understands, these initiatives are complementary.

I support my colleague's effort to establish Radio Free Afghanistan under Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, whose effectiveness in this area, under its excellent leader, Tom Dine, in the audience today, is well-known to everyone, not in lieu of, but as a supplement to, VOA's Afghan broadcasting.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your indulgence and I yield back whatever time I might have left.

REP. HYDE: Thank you. Mr. Rohrabacher.

REP. DANA ROHRABACHER (R-CA): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First, let us note that when people say, "Why are we hated?" that there are some major policy decisions that the United States has made that have not made us friends. During the Cold War, we had to make certain compromises that we sided with some very unsavory characters at times, just as we did during World War II. And we can't just say it's a lack of communication, but there are some policy issues that we need to pay attention to as well if we're going to have the hearts and minds of the people of the world.

In Indonesia, for example, we supported a less-than-democratic and less-than-honest regime there for many years. And there's reason for the people of Indonesia to say, you know, "We suffered. We have had this type of regime, and the United States bears some responsibility for that."

I think, now that the Cold War is over, many of the decisions that we made along that line can be corrected, and I think the United States has moved to correct that. I think that human rights has played an important role in American foreign policy, developing that. Mr. Lantos and I and others have tried to express that on many occasions, make that part of the national debate. I think that will go a long way towards solving some of the vitriol that's aimed at the United States.

However, there are communication problems as well. I would like to tip my hat -- I know I see Mr. Berman has stepped out for a moment, but I agree with him totally on his analysis on the propaganda war about Iraq. And the fact is we have lost that war and there was no reason for us to lose that. The Iraqi people are suffering tremendously, yet Saddam Hussein has gotten away with it and we've accepted the blame. And we haven't made our case.

And unfortunately, and I'll have to say, some Americans of Muslim descent gave credence to those charges. And I think that the Muslim community of the United States needs to have some very serious soul- searching on this issue of Iraq and the position that they took over the last year and a half and two years on whether or not they gave credence to this charge that the United States, not Saddam Hussein, is primarily responsible for the suffering of their people. And I would hope that they'd take a second look at that and think about that in the future.

One last note; well, two last notes. And I'd like to tip my hat to my colleague, Mr. Ed Royce, who, from the time he arrived here, understood the importance of communication to the security of our country and to the cause of human freedom and has dedicated himself and made such major contributions in the area of broadcasting to areas in the world where we're trying to contest the hearts and minds of the people. And I certainly wholeheartedly support his efforts to try to now focus on Afghanistan.

But one last note. There have been some serious questions in the last 10 years -- actually even before that -- about the job that Voice of America has been doing. And, quite frankly -- and Mr. Lantos, I know, quoted Edward R. Murrow, and he certainly is a -- I'm a former journalist; he's one of those fellows that I looked at as one of my heroes. We have to take his admonition to be truthful.

But I believe that in the last -- there's all kinds of evidence to suggest that the Voice of America has taken truthfulness to mean that they have to provide both sides of every issue. And I don't believe that is necessary for truthfulness. And we have been paying quite often in the last several decades for dissemination of information that is basically helpful to some of the dictators and tyrants who we oppose.

And let me just say, there's been -- over these last few years I have been raising questions many times about the Pashtu service of the Voice of America, feeling that they had to, every time there's a story negative about the Taliban, they have felt that they have had to present the Taliban's side to have the other side. And this criticism, I believe, is -- I'm going to be asking our witnesses about their opinion on this.

But to be truthful, you don't need to present the Taliban's side of an argument as long as you are trying to be truthful in the presentation of the facts. You don't have to have Adolf Hitler's side or Mussolini's side either, or Joe Stalin's side of an argument. Both sides of an argument is not what we're paying for as taxpayers. What we are hoping for is, number one, truthfulness, but number two, we want to make sure that the interest of the United States is being protected and being promoted during these broadcasts.

So, with that, thank you very much for holding this hearing, Mr. Chairman.

REP. HYDE: Thank you. Mr. Delahunt of Massachusetts.

REP. WILLIAM DELAHUNT (D-MA): Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. When we hear the concept of public diplomacy, in my mind it provokes the concept of education. And I would even extend it beyond educating those in foreign lands. And I think it's important to be honest with ourselves, too. How many Americans had heard of Afghanistan, let alone Uzbekistan or Tajikistan, or whatever "stan" you want to pick, up until recent events?

So when we talk about public diplomacy, I think it has to also be directed inwardly. And I would suggest that we've got to start to educate ourselves. And I'm not just talking about the American people. I'm talking about members of Congress. You know, I would hate to ask my colleagues if, a month ago, they knew the capital of Afghanistan. I dare say there wouldn't be 100 percent. We would not receive a grade of A.

REP. HYDE: Would the gentleman yield?

REP. DELAHUNT: I would yield for the chairman.

REP. HYDE: Is the gentleman suggesting, as I hope he is, that geography be incorporated into the curriculum in our schools?

REP. DELAHUNT: Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. (Laughter.) I know you say that facetiously, but I think it's very important. So what we're talking about here is education. And again, I have had the good fortune of being in Prague and meeting with Mr. Dine and seeing Radio Free Europe. But also -- and I think it's a tremendous operation, and our government is to be complimented. And Tom, it's good to see you here. It was very impressive. And again, I also want to share in the kudos being thrown in the way of Mr. Royce. I support that.

But also, in addition to enhancing our public broadcasting efforts, have we a policy or do we have -- I'm looking for the right words here and I can't seem to find them. But what kind of efforts are we making to access those media outlets, such as Al Jazeera, if that's how you pronounce it, okay, to convey and to educate those people, not just about the specific issue but American values, what we are about?

What any member of Congress who has traveled extensively throughout the world discovers very, very quickly is that there are so many misunderstandings and misperceptions about what we are about as a people, as a society. And the truth is, I think it was Mr. Berman that mentioned that right now our efforts are -- we have a radio audience of some 2 percent.

I think we have to encourage the efforts that have been taken as we have seen in Qatar, but we need to be on those stations giving our opinions, because that is what the people of those nations are listening to. And, as Mr. Lantos said, I am not -- none of us clearly are afraid of the conflict of our ideas with their ideas, because we will prevail. But we've got to think, I would respectfully suggest, beyond the box and the traditional effort which has -- and maybe I'm incorrect -- which has been focused simply on the Voice of America and similar kind of public broadcasting initiatives.

And with that, I'll yield back.

REP. HYDE: Mr. Royce.

REP. ED ROYCE (R-CA): Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for calling this timely hearing. By way of rebuttal, it has been said by the ranking member that Radio Free Afghanistan would have to get up and running and that that would have to be from scratch. I wanted to clarify that.

The individuals who are now at Radio Free Europe, who ran Radio Free Afghanistan from 1985 to 1993, are, in fact, in place. There are eight Afghans there in that service. They have the experience and expertise on the subject.

I will also mention that currently those broadcasts are done in Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, are done into Uzbekistan and neighboring Iran. And the reason that's done is because those top three-tiered countries were in the former Soviet Union. So they were allowed to continue their mandate. What I had suggested some years ago, when the Taliban came on the scene, was that this mandate be extended so that they might also continue to broadcast into Afghanistan and put this team in place.

Now, I don't know what the lies are that the gentleman from California suggests we might broadcast. I don't think anyone believes the U.S. would be broadcasting Goebbels-like propaganda. What I would like to point out is that nobody in Afghanistan has had the opportunity to see the vision on the screen of the planes crashing into the World Trade Center bombing. And the reason they haven't is because that is a serious felony under Taliban law to own a television, and the penalty for that is a public beating.

So if people find it hard to believe how broadcasts in this part of the world that the World Trade Center bombing was a hoax or was done by the Israelis or Indian intelligence services, the answer to that is they haven't had the opportunity, frankly, to see it. They haven't heard an effective rebuttal. And what this bill seeks to do is to go up on the air 12 hours a day in Pashtu and in Dari and give the people the facts, give the people the truth.

And who's going to do the broadcasting? The same organization that broadcast into Eastern Europe effectively in every country except the former Yugoslavia, where we blocked their broadcasting. If you talk to Vaclav Havel or Lech Walesa, they tell you the thing that worked, the thing that changed the situation, changed the minds of the people in Eastern Europe, were those constant broadcasts from Radio Free Europe.

So we know what works. And that's why I'm suggesting that if we're going to have a war on international terrorism, part of that war is going to be on the information and idea front. And this is going to have to be carried out in a way that other wars have not been. The messages we communicate to the world through broadcasting will be critical to our victory over terrorism and critical to our victory over those regimes that support terrorism.

The Taliban and the terrorists they are harboring are in power, in my view, for one reason. They use propaganda and they use censorship to maintain that power. In the region, it's being reported.

In the region, it's being reported , as I told you, that the attacks were in fact engineered by other forces. We are familiar with the argument that there were 4,000 Jewish workers in the World Trade Center who did not go to work that day. That has been repeated. Fortunately, we have finally, through airstrikes, taken out Radio Shari'a. But the other side of the coin is providing accurate information to counter these lies. When people are interviewed in Uzbekistan, when people are interviewed, refugees in Iran, they say, Why don't you have a Radio Free Afghanistan like you have a Radio Free Uzbekistan, so we can find out inside the country, so we would have known what was going on?

We had hearings here several years ago that I organized in this committee. And at that time we brought up to testify Hassan Nouri (ph) from California and others in the Afghan community who explained how important getting information into the community was. And I'll just share with you one of the disinformation campaigns used effectively by the Taliban to take control. They told people as they were moving across that country by radio, by their Radio Taliban, Shari'a, that the king was coming, that the Taliban was going to come in and was going to bring the king back. One of the reasons they did that was because people didn't know what the Taliban represented. It was in fact trained in neighboring Pakistan by the intelligence services there, and half of their rank and file were in fact not Afghans. And so --

REP. HYDE: The gentleman's time has expired.

REP. ROYCE: Well, I just thought I would lay out the case. In closing, let me make the point, Mr. Chairman, that at the time I talked with Robin Raefel (ph), subsequently with Mr. Inderfurth, former undersecretary, with our secretary of State and the president to try to urge this kind of action, I would suggest with 33 co-authors now it the time for us to move this legislation and get up in a serious way to get the truth on the air. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. HYDE: The chair regrets that we are going to have to curtail further statements, because the witnesses have other commitments, and we do want to hear their statements. I'll recognize Mr. Kerns for a brief statement. Then we will go to the witnesses.

REP. BRIAN KERNS (R-IN): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to thank you for -- begin this morning by thanking the chairman and leadership for putting this important hearing together, and look forward to hearing the testimony from the panelists and a meaningful discussion of our policy and diplomacy.

After having the opportunity to spend the last week traveling abroad with my colleagues through Russia, Turkey and Italy, I was able to witness public diplomacy at its finest. And I found that there is no better way to promote our country, our culture, and our government than through the people-to-people exchange. And there is no better time to do so than now.

But we must also promote America via other means. And in the wake of events of September 11th, public diplomacy has been challenged. The coverage of the United States and our policies have expanded greatly to an international audience, and we must question how effective our efforts are in promoting a positive image of the United States and our foreign policy goals.

I believe there are new measures that should be taken to make sure that our messages are effective and purposeful. And I look forward to hearing the testimony of our distinguished panelists as they share their thoughts and provide insight on how we promote our great country.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

REP. HYDE: Thank you. The chair announces that any statements that have not been read or delivered may be included in the record, without objection.

I'd like to welcome Mrs. Charlotte Beers, the newly sworn-in undersecretary for public diplomacy. Secretary Beers comes to the administration from the private sector. Most recently she served as chairman of two of the top 10 worldwide advertising agencies, J. Walter Thompson and Oglivie and Mather. Her experience in international advertising should provide the insight and energy so important to the U.S. public diplomacy. As only the second person to hold the undersecretary position, she has an opportunity to shape a strong, coordinated and effective public diplomacy profile.

I would also like to recognize Richard Boucher, the spokesman for the State Department, and the assistant secretary for public affairs. Mr. Boucher was acting undersecretary for public diplomacy prior to Mrs. Beers' confirmation. Mr. Boucher has served as chief of mission to the U.S. consulate general in Hong Kong, and U.S. ambassador to Cyprus. He has also previously been the spokesman for the State Department, and brings a strong background of this area, domestic public relations -- and the counterpart, public diplomacy, for international audiences. Secretary Beers, please proceed.

MS. BEERS: Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, you made some very important opening comments that give us much to think about. Provocative questions have a lot to do with defining the problem. Defining the problem well is a long way toward making a solution.

I am delighted to appear before you today, just eight days after being sworn in. It was just two weeks ago that the Senate acted on my confirmation, and I am grateful for the vote of trust and confidence.

As you just indicated, Mr. Chairman, Richard Boucher is here, and I want to thank him for the exceptional job he has done of stewarding our public diplomacy work. It's also an excellent time to thank the very talented men and women in public diplomacy who have been working some exceptional hours in these exceptional times.

Like every other department, in State we have been galvanized by the terrorist attacks of September 11th, and the great challenge that President Bush posed for all of us. I can assure you that we are working carefully with our colleagues at the State, the National Security Council, the Department of Defense and other entities, to wholeheartedly focus on our number one priority: fighting the international war on terrorism.

As undersecretary for public diplomacy and public affairs, I am responsible for the overall planning and management of this global effort. We have been developing a communications platform that is based in part on these four tenets: The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were attacks not on America but on the world. In many places, but particularly in our IIP capacity, we have worked around the clock to make sure that the world understands that this was an attack on the world, starting with a very important graphic that showed in one picture how many members of the world were influenced by those attacks.

In addition to that, the U.S. News & World Report has indicated that our Web site is one of the top five in the country, which has given us a much higher profile than we have ever had before. The hits on our Web site have gone from one million to two million -- doubled -- and many times certain pages are nine times the reader rate they used to be. So as you think about and discuss different distribution channels, let's all remember that the Web and the Internet are yet that third important pole to radio and television.

We also has a major tenet, the war is not against Islam. The piece of communication will take a long time, and it has begun now. I was very interested in our ability to take articles that are in the press -- the Washington Post had a very good series of articles about American generosity to other Muslims in our country. We made sure that such articles were available to all of our embassies, so that many times we are making the message about where we stand on this through the voice of others.ericans support the Afghan people, which is why President Bush is providing $320 million in humanitarian assistance. Here it's very crucial that we act in a timely fashion. We put that note about the Afghan assistance program up the very day the president announced it, and three days before the raids started. We had great cooperation with the Voice of America in putting speakers on board to constantly bring forward this message of humanitarian aid, because we wanted it to be parallel with all the necessary news about the raids.

Finally, all nations must band together to eliminate international terrorism. This is not just a job for America alone. Here comes into play something you all have supported over a long period of time, and that is our exchange programs. It's significant I think that 50 of the world leaders with whom we are trying to develop a coalition have been members of and participated in our exchanges over the long number of years that you supported them and we have been able to field them. This kind of liaison experience and dialogue that we set up so long ago is not only going to help us build a coalition but sustain it.

We are working now 24 hours a day and seven days a week in a special task force team within a task force at the State Department. We do constant monitoring of reactions, and hopefully we can develop responses just as quickly. We just reported yesterday all the responses of the Muslim clerics and the headlines from around the world so that we can field these into our embassies and hopefully mount positive and important corrections on misinformation.

Our embassies are given daily cables and information and newspaper clips and speeches and pieces of material and talking points that they can quickly land and put in place with our host media.

It's interesting that we just put together videoteleconferences with Arab journalists who all gather in London -- which has become kind of a gateway to the communication to the Arab world. And we are doing weekly digital videos with not only these journalists but Arab scholars, so that we begin a more constant dialogue.

As well as doing more immediate turnaround tasks, we are in the process of doing business as usual. We conduct our Website in six languages, and you should know that those languages then are put onto sites in our embassies and translated into many other languages.

The Fulbright academic exchanges and other professional exchanges must continue, and are doing so in 140 countries. It's interesting how we quickly jumped on opportunities. We had a woman who was in Syria for the purpose of developing an art show called "City-Scape." She managed to arrive there September 8th. She put her City-Scape up -- everyone in the community came and applauded her, and learned so much more about America, that it was one moment of major diplomacy. In Damascus at the time of the strike, the attack on America, we had a Syrian Muslim American cleric, and he was quickly sent to meet with everybody in the area and have a dialogue with the cleric. In small ways like that, happening in many incidents all over the world, we have these exchanges and dialogues taking place.

Now we are using the contacts we earned over the years with many of the communities that came in part of our exchanges and scholarships to develop a whole new level of diploma and speaking between moderate Muslims and the United States. While some issues do require this kind of instant turnaround, we have to be mindful that we are in a long- lived engagement to reach new audiences in different ways, exactly as so many of you have said this morning.

We will activate our ability to engage in dialogue. One of the most painful disciplines of the communication process is that it can never be one-sided. No dialogue takes place without a comprehensive understanding of who the audience is, which means whether we agree with them or not, we are bound to comprehend, to understand, and to walk in their shows, so that we know how to draft those messages back to them.

We must constantly put a picture of humanity on the rather sterile words that the government sometimes uses for communication. If you think of this attack as a big building going down, you haven't got it. If you think of it as how many orphans were made that day, and how many people are still weeping and mourning, you will remember. It's part of our goal to put those pictures in the communication process that is so active now in all forms of public diplomacy.

We need to become better at communicating the intangible, the behavior, the emotions that reside in lofty words like "democracy." When we say it, we think people know what we mean. It's not what we say, it's what they hear. So the burden is now on us to act as though no on has ever understood the identity of the United States, and redefine it for audiences who are at best cynical.

There is a quote that I thought was so fascinating. After we immediately put out on the Website the Afghan humanitarian phrase, this is the kind of report we got back from one of the newspapers in Qatar. "The irony is the first humanitarian aid came from the Americans. The food bags have USA written on them. When I saw the Afghans running towards the American bags of flour, I smiled, and for the first time in my life I did not curse America." So our goal is to take that kind of response and magnify it manyfold so that we have our story in front of such unlikely candidates.

This is a war about a way of life and fundamental beliefs in values we did not expect to ever have to explain and defend -- like freedom and tolerance. We have to prepare our people for an era of vigilance, of nearly invisible enemies with goals that are quite unfamiliar -- goals like destabilize, to make radical, to hate all that we hold dear. We must redefine what is success in this new uncharted territory.

I consider this hearing a special opportunity to ask you to take part in the communication that we make to the American people. After all, you are on the front line of a more intimate dialogue with people in your constituencies than we can really reach. You do in fact embody the brand, the United States. You have a more intimate daily dialogue, and you hear the questions back. In our public affairs center, we are going to be fielding even more speakers made available to you in all parts of the United States. Our town meetings are going to double in number. And we are even going to give you, if you should desire, PowerPoint presentations that the advertising business would be proud of.

Finally, I am working with the Ad Council. This is a group that collaborates with all the advertising agencies in the United States, all of whom have world capabilities.

They have offered us their services, and we are now working with them on what messages can we put together that would work not only in the United States for these kinds of issues that we must address for our own people, but also around the world. We will have to be prepared to prepare these messages in almost every kind of channel of distribution.

I thank you very much for this time, and we look forward any questions that you might have.

REP. HYDE: Thank you very much, Secretary Beers. Tom Lantos.

REP. TOM LANTOS (D-CA): Mr. Chairman, I withhold my questions. I'd like to hear from Secretary Boucher.

REP. HYDE: Secretary Boucher will not testify. So, if you -- he's just here to balance the podium there. (Laughter.)

MS. BEERS: And to answer the really tough questions. (Laughter.)

REP. HYDE: And so if you want to ask him any questions, go ahead.

REP. LANTOS: Well, let me commend our new undersecretary for a very fine presentation. And let me publicly pay tribute to Assistant Secretary Boucher for the superb job he does day in and day out. We all admire not only your knowledge but your unflappable approach to horrendously unpleasant people. (Laughter.)

MS. BEERS: We can't agree with that one.

REP. LANTOS: If you had a free hand, Madam Secretary, what kind of a budgetary request would you make of the Congress?

MS. BEERS: Well, I haven't done too much budget work yet, after eight days, but I can tell you, in principle, I would like to reach the young. I'd like to be able to reach wider audiences. I'd like to have a different set of skills available to the department as -- as in communication skills that are a little more sensitive to the emotional context of messages. I might ask for different kinds of research to help me deal with the beliefs, and the myths, and the legends as well as the facts. So, I can answer for you that there are ways we could use -- and we are planning to ask for extra money in certain areas -- but these are the broad-based goals of what would be an extended effort in public diplomacy.

Do you want to specify more than that, Richard?

MR. BOUCHER: I think, if I can -- if I can turn on my microphone -- just say one thing. And this is also in reference to the comments you made before about the -- the oozing venom in the comments of Congressman Delahunt about education and other things that people say.

We do have some support in the Arab world. We obviously have people cooperating with us on overflights and on the various efforts that are being made against terrorism. We have leaders like Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, and President Musharraf in Pakistan who has spoken out very clearly in support of what we are doing. But we also have a group that seems to be pathologically opposed to the United States, that grow up in schools where they're taught this sort of venom every day. They grow up with information that is controlled, distorted, and often just patently false.

And some of the things that we need to do more and better in the future are reaching that -- that younger, up-and-coming audience, people who want to be part of the world, who want to see what the possibilities are. And that involves everything from expanding our exchange programs, supporting this proposal for Middle East broadcasting -- and the president's budget, I think, had some money in their for the Board of Broadcasting Governors to establish that service; getting out with, as Charlotte said, ads around the world that can reach different audiences in different places.

So, I think a lot of that sort of long-term building needs to be done because there has been long-term building against us.

REP. LANTOS: I'd like both of you to respond to my next issue, which I think is to some extent center to this controversy that surrounds us. Compromise is the currency of the free society. And, of course, the fanatic fundamentalists who oppose us reject the very concept of compromise. Compromise, by definition, is evil. If you accept these assumptions, what specific conclusions do we draw from this in terms of dealing with fanatic fundamentalist movements and leaders who are totally disinterested in reaching an accommodation and are publicly hell-bent on totally victory, however unrealistic that goal might be?

It seems to me that much of our public diplomacy is predicated on the assumption that we are dealing with the Midwest when in fact we are dealing with the Mid-East, and these are entirely different universes. And my question to both of you is, is it feasible to conduct the rational, and patient, and compromise prone approach which has characterized, obviously, all of our domestic dialogue, but which is so totally in appropriate in dealing with a vehemently hostile segment of the world which views us, all of us, as infidels, and has a very clear formula as to what should happen to infidels?

It's been very customary in recent weeks, and very proper -- and we have all engaged in this -- to say that this is not a war against Islam, it is a war against terrorists, and I certainly subscribe to that notion. But at the same time, we must understand that Islamic fanaticism is in fact engaged in a way against free and open and democratic societies, irrespective of their policies. Fanaticism hates us for what we are, not for what we do. And since we cannot change, and choose not to change, what we are, what policy recommendations do you draw from these assumptions, Secretary Beers?

MS. BEERS: Well, I think the reason I put an emphasis on the emotional context in which our messages will be delivered is because so much of the fanatic's message is grounded in that kind of extreme emotional environment. I think we have to be students of exactly what these fanatics claim and debunk them piece by piece, point by point. There are a number of ways to talk about Islam and the beauty of that belief, and the significance it has in being so close to so many other religions in the world with common ground. We can address those messages to moderates who are found here as spokespeople, through clerics who might be willing to talk with us, through supportive community leaders that we do have around the world. It's not necessarily true that we're always going to be the one carrying the message. And I think that you know that fanatics have to have devoted followers, and a number of those followers will be vulnerable to hearing another message. I doubt that we are in a position to convert a fanatic per se, but I think there are people surrounding them and people who are extremely open to the kind of message that we can prepare for them.

REP. LANTOS: Secretary Boucher.

MR. BOUCHER: I think the follow-on to that answer is some of the things that were said earlier, that, first of all, it's getting our voice out there clearly, getting the facts that do sometimes speak for themselves, that we are the people that have been feeding the people of Afghanistan for many years and that the people of Afghanistan have suffered enormous hardships under the Taliban as well as suffered from drought, and winter, and other things.

The second is to get ourselves on the outlets, not only that we control but the ones that people watch and listen to. And we are making people available more often to al-Jazeera, for example, to make sure that we get out point of view on that airwave, and they've been, I think, taking in recent weeks more Americans, former administration officials and things like that and getting the voice on those airwaves that people are used to listening to.

And the third is to do what we can to amplify the voices that are out there, the credible voices from people's own communities. The Muftis in Saudi Arabia have spoken against terrorism and these kinds of groups. The Organization of the Islamic Conference had a statement right up -- right at the beginning saying that this kind of terrorism was anti-Islam and they're issuing another statement today that I haven't actually seen yet but it probably reiterates that point. So, to the extent that we're able to pick up and amplify and draw people's attention to the voices from their own communities, I think that provides a credible way of getting the message across.

REP. HYDE: The gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Leach.

REP. JAMES LEACH (R-IA): I'll be very brief. I just want to make a -- several quick observations.

One, I think there's real consensus in the committee and within the government on the need to upgrade public diplomacy. We had an instant a week or so ago about the question of how independent is -- are realms of public diplomacy. And I would only stress that -- and I think Tom Lantos, in the citing of Edward R. Murrow, was absolutely on target when he talked about integrity, et cetera -- but I'd be very cautious of censorship from the department's point of view, and think that the greatest strength of our public diplomacy is as -- is open a news as we can, recognizing that we want to emphasize the -- the kinds of themes that are sensible. But, we must be very cautious of censorship.

Thank you.

MS. BEERS: Thank you.

REP. HYDE: Mr. Berman.

REP. HOWARD BERMAN (D-CA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. An observation and then a question.

Secretary Boucher mentioned the -- the fact that we do have friends in the Arab world. But part of the problem for some of our friends in the Arab world is those friends aren't necessarily a product of an internal democratic process. And part of the way that they maintain their support and their control is by allowing, tolerating, promoting, encouraging the kind of incitement through government-sponsored media, and that makes the case for our public diplomacy so much more compelling. They have their own reasons, and -- and -- in other words, it is -- it is even the areas where we have friends that kids are hearing from a very early age, as part of official curriculum, facts about both their part of the world and about the United States that are not accurate and aren't justified, so that this is a -- that this becomes particularly important.

The fact is, the situation is very different right now in many ways than it was even a year ago when the whole Middle East broadcasting initiative first came up, and when the administration decided to support it. As a result of what happened on September 11th, the resources are there. Congress appropriated $40 billion. There are many claims on that $40 billion, but in some of these initiatives, we're talking about sums in the millions of dollars -- very, very small percentages of the total appropriation that can make huge differences in public diplomacy and in our message.

And so I just want to -- part of the test -- I believe there is bipartisan support here for the kinds of -- and I believe we can find that in the appropriators as well -- for the kinds of increases needed. They will be a very small percentage of the total sums that Congress appropriated for this purpose, and part of, I believe, a way to take your great testimony and make your vision happen is -- is to go through that inter-agency process and get -- get a little bit of this money for these initiatives that Mr. Royce and so many others here have been talking about.

The other -- the question I have -- when the merger came between USIA and the State Department, if you call that a merger -- some thought of it as a take over -- (laughter) -- but --

REP. LANTOS: It's like the merger of Jonah and the whale. (Laughter.)

REP. BERMAN: Yes. The -- one of -- one of the concerns, Secretary Beers, your vision is a compelling one and it's an exciting one, but, your support staff to implement that vision is now dispersed into the regional -- the geographic agencies, the assistant secretary -- so many of the people you utilized in the old days to try and implement the public diplomacy message are now not directly under your control. And I -- and it's maybe unfair to ask you about that after eight days, but I'd be curious about -- Secretary Boucher, frequently these assistant secretaries have -- have different -- may have their own government-to-government relationships, the kinds of things that may want to make them a bit shy about doing some of those things that are being talked about in terms of -- of effective public diplomacy. They're getting hassled by heads of states and foreign ministers in these countries. How -- how can you -- how can you grab a hold of that support staff which has been dispersed through the geographical, regional assistant secretaryships and regional bureaus to implement -- (inaudible) --

MS. BEERS: Well, it's not as simple as the organizational chart at Ogilvie and Mather, but --

REP. BERMAN: And that's probably not so simple?

MS. BEERS: No, it's not simple, but it was easier to be the CEO. The matrix organization that I see and understand at State I find to be very collaborative, and I don't think there's any choice but that we all work together in these diverse reporting systems. It forces us to be constantly in dialogue with one another. And -- and it's so often asked of me about this merger, and I can't imagine trying to do this job unless the USIA, once USIA is not in the State Department, because we literally need to be daily with all the traditional diplomacy efforts. And I think when we hear back from the field, as we do daily, we learn a lot more about everything that's going on because we're forced to be in a constant way of collaboration. It is occasionally clumsy. It's almost always most informed and more productive, I think.

REP. BERMAN: I'd just like to hear Secretary Boucher's diplomatic way of handling this issue.

MR. BOUCHER: If I --

MS. BEERS: Now he'll tell you how it really is.

REP. BERMAN: Oh, no he won't. (Laughter.)

MR. BOUCHER: I'll tell you how it really is. I worked through the merger -- largely I was overseas. And I think what we actually did in the merger was to take a system that worked very well overseas and tried to make it work that way in Washington as well.

Overseas, public diplomacy is part of the country team. Every time we discuss an issue, every time we discuss an event, public diplomacy people are there working with it from the start. All too often in Washington in the past, we've been in separate bureaucracies and separate buildings, and we were making policy. And then we'd sort of hand it off later and say, "Go out and publicize this," and not always well-done.

I think we now have a much more integrated approach. Each of the assistant secretaries does have public diplomacy people involved in their bureau, in their planning and their policy decisions. And this works quite well. We have the piece of the department for which Undersecretary Beers has direct control. I'm among that, and several other bureaus are as well.

And then we have public diplomacy and public affairs officers in the different bureaus that support the assistant secretaries and work with us. I depend on those people every day for the information I need for my press briefing. They're often the ones that come up with the more targeted and focused ideas.

So we have a situation, for example, where we've assigned one officer to sort of follow Al Jazeera. What are they saying about us? What are we doing with them? How are we getting our people out on their air? Make sure that we're doing everything we can to get our point of view or people who share our point of view on their airwaves. That happens to be a person in the Near East bureau, who really does understand broadcasting in that region. That's not somebody who works directly for either of us. But it is a collaborative process, and that's where we found the best person.

So I think I look at these people more as resources that we can draw on, people who give us particular expertise, people who can handle a part of the world, either with the answers to questions or the contacts that we need to make. And I think the system does work very, very well, in addition to having everybody together so we work together.

REP. HYDE: Mr. Flake of Arizona.

REP. FLAKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Undersecretary Beers, what problems are we having in the Middle East in terms of countries that scramble the signal, the radio signal? Do we have a problem with that?

MS. BEERS: Do you know anything about that?

MR. : I don't. I think the next panel probably will.

MS. BEERS: If you're willing to forward that to the next panel, you may have better information.

REP. FLAKE: All right.

MS. BEERS: If not, I'll get it back to you.

REP. FLAKE: Okay. We know we do have problems elsewhere in the world; TV Marti, for example. And I'll save that for the next panel. Thank you.

REP. HYDE: Mr. Delahunt.

REP. DELAHUNT: Yes, let me join with others, Madam Secretary, in saying that I really welcome your vision. And I, for one, I think, along with what's been applied by other comments, really see this public diplomacy as a critical component, almost the centerpiece at this point in time in history, as, like I said, a critical part of our foreign policy effort.

You know, I've been receiving calls, as I'm sure other members of Congress have, from the Arab-American community, that oftentimes feels frustrated, that want to participate somehow, given the events of September 11th. I was impressed with the appearance on Al Jazeera by Tony Blair. I'd be interested in the impact and any feedback you might have on that.

But again, thinking out of the box, has there been any consideration given to utilizing the human stories, if you will, and the experience of Arab-Americans in this country, given, in frequent cases, the ability to understand both cultures to communicate?

I also want to say that I really think that the point made by Secretary Boucher in terms of speaking to the young people is so critical.

MS. BEERS: It is.

REP. DELAHUNT: And we really have to understand that this has to be a permanent component, well-funded in terms of our relationships all over the globe. It just cannot be a crisis provoked, ratcheting up of our efforts, but it has to become something that is permanent, is sustained, and understands how to communicate to different regions in the world. We continually hear about the Arab street. Well, let's get on the street. Let's talk to those people that have these misunderstandings of what our intentions are and really what we're about as a society.

It's so ironic to think that this nation that has -- you know, when we think of the United States and private enterprise, we think of Madison Avenue, our ability to communicate and to market. And to be candid, I think we've failed miserably. So, again, welcome, Madam Secretary. I'd be interested to hear your impressions, again, in terms of accessing those modalities and those media outlets that really, at this moment in time, resonate with the Arab street.

MS. BEERS: Well, the point you make about can Arab-Americans help is something we're very interested in. The data that we're collecting, it's so mind-opening. In this country, the Muslim religion is the fastest-growing. They have a 30 percent conversion rate, which suggests they're perfectly free and very successful at proselytizing. And they have a great deal of spirit and energy and true American enterprise working in all of their communities.

We are considering, with this work with the Ad Council, of either activating them to be spokespeople with us, considering them in exchanges that we're going to develop, and definitely tapping into their ability to have another person across the way experience the American experience in a very special way. So I think we will be able to put them to work.

I think you said something we care a lot about, which is the battle for the 11-year-old mind. And in this case, it's these young males that have been -- it's sobering to see how long ago that education and that indoctrination was started. And education, as you call out, is a very important part of that. That has to become part of the program.

At the moment, our resources don't allow us really to reach much more in communication than the elites or the government. And that is a definite goal for expanding our --

REP. DELAHUNT: But with all due respect, we can't afford not to find the resources for that effort or we will allow future Osama bin Ladens to walk across the stage.

MS. BEERS: I agree.

REP. DELAHUNT: That is just unacceptable.

REP. HYDE: The gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher.

REP. ROHRABACHER: Thank you very much. I would like to submit for the record, Mr. Chairman, a letter by Ambassador Peter Thompson, who is a specialist on Afghanistan, a long-time specialist on Afghanistan, analyzing the IBB report, and what I would say whitewash of the Voice of America's treatment of the Taliban government for the last five years.

REP. HYDE: Without objection, it shall be made a part of the record.

REP. ROHRABACHER: I understand that there's already steps been taken to deal with this problem. But let me just say that I think it's a bit embarrassing that our government, having been warned about this bias in the Pashtu service toward the Taliban, took -- it had to take an attack on the United States of America for us to get around to doing something about it. And let me note that Peter Thompson suggests that one-third of all the Pashtu service reports over Voice of America, one-third of them were basically pro-Taliban reports. And this is not acceptable.

Voice of America, as I mentioned earlier, should be always truthful. Being always truthful does not mean you have to present the other person's opinion, a balanced opinion. You don't have Adolf Hitler and Mussolini and Joe Stalin over here giving their side of the story every time there's a negative story about them in Voice in America. And so I would hope, Madam Secretary, that you're aware that your job is promoting America's interest in being truthful and not necessarily providing both sides of the story when we're dealing with good and evil.

MS. BEERS: Well, thank you. I have no trouble with the charter of the Voice of America. I think it's properly balanced and allows us to work very well together. My understanding of that investigation about a situation of bias was that after some careful independent scrutiny, there was no bias. There was some clumsiness and inadequacy in some of the language --

REP. ROHRABACHER: Well, I would suggest that you take a personal look at it yourself. And I can assure you, having been on this committee and begged and pleaded people to pay attention to Afghanistan for the last five years, and having been in Afghanistan numerous times, it was biased. It was not only -- you know, you take a look at the number of stories and interviews with Taliban leaders. It's a disgrace.

Our government either stands for democracy and freedom, human rights, maybe market economy, or we stand for nothing. And when you have dictatorial and fanatic regimes like the Taliban regime, we should not be providing them air time, as is indicated by the number of minutes on the air being spent interviewing Taliban leaders and giving them access to our airwaves.

And again, I'm not suggesting that we at all ever compromise the truth. That is not what I am suggesting, and no American would suggest that. But I would hope that you look at that rather -- in fact, I would suggest, Madam Secretary, whoever told you that, you should start questioning their opinion. And I'm serious about it. This was -- I saw -- I looked over this International Broadcasting Bureau report on this, and it's totally unacceptable. And this is just another example where bureaucracy covers for bureaucracy which covers for bureaucracy.

And I applaud your goal of reaching out to the younger people of the world. That truly is where we need to put our emphasis. And I think that we reach them with America's ideals. I think we reach them with the fact that young people want to be free. Young people want to have democratic government. Young people want to be able to control their own destiny, have a better standard of living for their families.

And so we've got the greatest message there is to provide. And I would hope that -- again, some people might call this censorship. Well, it isn't censorship. And I'm not -- again, you're not compromising the truth, but you're making sure that something that we're paying for as taxpayers is being used to further our ideals. And there's nothing wrong with that.

REP. HYDE: The gentleman's time has expired.

REP. ROHRABACHER: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

REP. HYDE: Thank you, sir. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Hoeffel.

REP. HOEFFEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think all of us understand -- Madam Secretary, here I am.

MS. BEERS: Where are you? (Laughter.) I was looking everywhere. Thank you.

REP. HOEFFEL: Welcome to the committee.

MS. BEERS: Thank you.

REP. HOEFFEL: I think all of us understand the need to get the truth into Afghanistan, to make sure people understand what America is doing, what our coalition is doing, whether it's the food drops, whether it's fighting the Taliban. All of this is very important.

And while I'm very sympathetic with what Mr. Rohrabacher said, I'm not sure it's always wrong to put the other side on the Voice of America. But I think it would always be necessary to counter it, to take issue with whatever misinformation their spokespeople might be offering, because, as he said, we're not for censorship. We want the truth to come out. We want a balance.

I'm sure that the citizens of Afghanistan can smell propaganda or spin very easily, whether it's coming from us or coming from the Taliban. But certainly all they're getting from the Taliban is spin and a lack of balance, and certainly not the truth and certainly not any representation of a tolerant society.

What troubles me is there seems to be a turf war -- I hope I'm wrong -- between the VOA and the Radio Free Europe. I'm a supporter of Mr. Royce's bill to restart Radio Free Afghanistan. That seems to have rubbed some people the wrong way. It shouldn't. We should be united on this. We all agree on what we want to accomplish, but there seems to be some backing and filling and disagreement on our side. And if we have that going on, how can we get the truth out to the rest of the world?

In your eight brief days, what have you picked up? What can we do to deal with this? Everybody's well-intentioned. I don't challenge that. But I would hate to see us use up resources or energy disputing each other about the best way to go forward.

MS. BEERS: I think that the better answer for the issue, if any, that exists between Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, which I think was your first question, will be better answered by the next panel. My sense of our relationship with the BBG and Voice of America is we're mightily dependent on one another. I'm going to spend this afternoon taking my first seat at the board of the BBG. I'm looking forward to that. I know that they, too, are undergoing a transition as they take in new officers who will be appointed by the administration and President Bush's team.

So I think I would just like to say that I'm going to be very sensitive to our ability to create a sum larger than the parts, and that's what I'd like to dedicate myself to doing. And I can't imagine starting over and inventing any of these resources that we now have so successfully at play. So I intend to be a very constructive participant. And if there's other detail, I think the wisdom you have in calling for the other panel is a good place to ask that.

REP. : Well, it certainly is, but clearly the State Department is a -- you know, the major player here. And until, I guess, two or three years ago, Voice of America and Radio Free Europe were directly within the State Department. And I think there's got to be -- we need a lot of guidance here to make sure that we've got unity and that we're speaking with one voice. And there's certainly a lot of institutional history with Radio Free Europe that used to do Radio Free Afghanistan, as Mr. Royce has so clearly pointed out. I hope we can get this thing rolling quickly.

MS. BEERS: I agree.

REP. : Alright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. HYDE: Mr. Ed Royce of California.

REP. ROYCE: Thank you.

I wanted to start, if I could, by thanking you, Secretary Beers, for your testimony, and asking you about a particular problem that we're seeing that's growing exponentially, and that is the anti- American sentiment in the immediate south in the Middle East that we've seen over the last few years. Sometimes it's simply a request by government-sponsored media to boycott U.S. products, but sometimes it runs to anti-American statements that appear in the government-controlled media, and I just wanted to share a few of them with you, because they should give us pause.

The Egyptian government-sponsored newspaper, Al Akhbar -- this was two weeks before the World Trade Center bombing, on August 28th. "The Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor must be destroyed because of following the idiotic American policy that goes from disgrace to disgrace in the swamp of bias and blind fanaticism. The age of the American collapse has begun."

Then we have from the television station out of Qatar, Al-Jazeera -- they quote the mufti of the Palestinian Liberation Army. "My blessings to those who carried out the USS Cole operation, and it should be known that Cole was the greatest product of the American mind, and it was destroyed by two people only. The two prayed to Allah, penetrated this destroyer, and sent all of its passengers to hell."

I'm sure they broadcast that in the interest of balance.

My concern is that these repeated broadcasts by government- sponsored radio and television in Saudi Arabia, certainly in Qatar, in Egypt need to be countered. And I wanted to just say that that is why Congressman Howard Berman and myself and other members here over the years have tried to organize support for a counterbalancing program there in the Middle East.

MS. BEERS: Yeah.

REP. ROYCE: And I would just like to know of your commitment, not just in concept for the program, but for the resources to go forward and see that this is done effectively, so that people in the Middle East and people in South Asia begin to hear a coherent explanation from us, on a full-time basis, or actually from their own people, from people in the Middle East, from people in South Asia, who will explain and put things in context.

And secondly, I wanted to ask you about Radio Free Iraq, how things are going there, who is running that program, and if you have any observations on that.

MS. BEERS: Thank you. The -- we see these headlines ourselves every day. The one you just referred to is devastating. And it was, as you pointed out, before the attack. Even before the attack, we too had been trying to work with Al-Jazeera on balance, and we had Secretary Powell on. And we've had a number of administration officials.

After the bin Laden tape, we waged a furious response with them and did get them, I think, to move toward balancing by having a number of previous officers of the administration on, including, as I think someone mentioned, Tony Blair. Those are balancing acts.

And under the circumstances, I think our job is to constantly weigh in against that powerful network, to give us balanced time. I certainly would consider buying time on Al-Jazeera to run the advertising that we're trying to put together with the Ad Council. So we're not done with trying to get equal voices in there.

None of us are in a position to deny the opportunity for something like Radio Free Afghanistan.

I'm just concerned that I must deal now with the resources and the allocations that we have toward Voice of America and its very important role in our present diplomacy effort. And I'm just anxious that that not be a dilution. And I think you've understood that yourself in your dialogue.

REP. ROYCE: Exactly. Exactly.

MS. BEERS: So in that case we can only support that effort.

REP. ROYCE: Let me lastly explain what Mr. Rohrabacher was trying to share with you with respect to --

MS. BEERS: Oh. Yes.

REP. ROYCE: -- the issue of some of the broadcasts over the last five years. And we hear it more than you do, because we are in Southern California, we have a large Afghan diaspora there.

The reason that they have been so concerned -- and I'll just tell you the word on the street among Afghans in the United States, they call it Voice of the Taliban, or have in the past. And let me tell you why. The feeling has been that the recruitment of the particular Pashtu speakers that were chosen was not balanced. And I understand your internal evaluation. Let me just read briefly from Peter Thompson's (sp) -- from the University of Nebraska, from his sort of rebuttal to that, or -- maybe something that you should take into consideration.

He says, "I would like to differ with (IBV ?) evaluation. In my July message to you I sought to indicate the importance of ensuring that the Pashtu-speaking evaluators you chose are objective and fair. Unfortunately, in my personal judgment the Pashtuns who played key roles in the evaluation cannot be considered fair and objective. Here's why. One is the former head of the ultranationalist Afghan Millet (sp) Party. Afghan Millet (sp) members almost always support the Taliban because of the Taliban's Pashtun nature and its attempt to dominate the Tajiks and other Afghan minorities inside Afghanistan, even though Afghan Millet (sp) members may not subscribe to the religious views of the Taliban. This intense Pashtun nationalism translates into Afghan Millet (sp) support for the Taliban in opposition to the mostly non-Pashtun opposition to the Taliban. Further, there is no doubt that there is a great lack of balance in the VOA Pashtu service reporting. Interviews with members of the anti-Taliban opposition inside Afghanistan are as rare as hen's teeth," he says. "No knowledge of Pashtu is not an excuse. Many who don't speak Pashtu are regularly interviewed."

Then he goes down to explain the --

REP. HYDE: The gentleman's time has long expired.

REP. ROYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. HYDE: I would suggest a private --

MS. BEERS: Thank you. I'll look into this.

REP. BENJAMIN A. GILMAN (R-NY): (Off mike) -- submit my opening statement for the record. I'm being called to another meeting.

REP. HYDE: Why, certainly. Without objection.

REP. GILMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. HYDE: Mr. Faleomavaega.

DEL. ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA (DEL-AS): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd be the last person who would try to raise any questions with you, Madame Secretary, given the fact that you've only been in office for eight days.

I think that there is tremendous relevance and concern, as has been expressed earlier by my good friend from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, in terms of how do you define "truth"? We're always wondering what is truth? I've heard it said that truth is knowledge of things as they were, as they are, and as they are to come.

I knew when I was an elementary student it was the absolute truth that Columbus discovered America, only to find out later he got lost. I learned in my youth that the truth was that Captain Cook discovered all these islands in the South Pacific. And I learned later, how could he possibly discover these islands when people had been living there for thousands of years?

So, what is truth? And I think this is always a constant problem when we talk about public diplomacy. And as you had mentioned earlier, Madam Secretary, you said that dialogue can never be one- sided. I think at the same time, I do express a very serious concern -- how do you measure the truth of the opposition or people expressing, at least in their opinions, very biased -- to say then that should be permissible in our airwaves, paid by the American taxpayer?

Let me give an example. Maybe it's not a good example, but I think most Americans have heard recently on television, Osama bin Laden making the claim that one million children were murdered by the Americans, or something to that effect, and an appeal to the whole Muslim world that this is jihad, let's now have a holy war. I mean, these are opinions, and I suppose you might say that they are intangibles because he claims to be a very religious man. But how do you sift through or filter the process in saying that -- was Osama bin Laden's statement just as truthful as some of the things that we have claimed?

And the question that I want to ask, and at least if the reports that the committee has here and some of them question the seriousness of having people who are very biased against America -- for what we stand, and I think -- well, one Mr. Robrock (sp) and I agree with him more -- as long as what we say through our airwaves paid by the American taxpayer is the truth. And I think that's all what the people of the world are wanting to hear. But what disturbs me is that if we allow the same opportunity for the Taliban to express their opinions that are not necessarily truthful, at least in terms of maybe the evidence or facts that are given to the contrary, how do you measure this? I mean, what process do you follow to say that yes, this is the truth and that we stand by it. And especially if you give opposition people like the Taliban to say -- what credibility are we going to give them to say that whatever they say publicly, to the world -- that it should be acceptable, at the American taxpayer's expense? I don't know.

MS. BEERS: That's a pretty far-reaching philosophical question -- how do we communicate the truth? But I will say that I've learned in the communication disciplines that I've had to practice all my life that it is possible to communicate to another person, with respect, your beliefs. And since an individual's beliefs are born of a number of experiences and interior landscape that they had, there's no one who can deny you the right to your own belief set, your value system.

I think we're on very good ground when we speak about the beliefs and the value system of the United States. We are very fortunate in that our country can actually speak with one voice about such things, and we have a common vocabulary. When it comes to understanding what the fanatics view as their truths, I think all we can do is weigh the consequences and point out the end results of such a belief system.

DEL. FALEOMAVAEGA: The problem, Madame Secretary, and I'm -- I didn't mean to disturb you -- is that in our country, there's always a constant process of reviewing --

MS. BEERS: Of applying --

DEL. FALEOMAVAEGA: -- and analyzing, investigating --

MS. BEERS: Yeah.

DEL. FALEOMAVAEGA: -- even among the journalists.

Even the journalists disagree. Even the journalists are very opinionated -- some conservatives, some liberals, and all of that.

But how do you do it with an extremist like Osama bin Laden, or those who are of the very, very strong and extreme view that America is the father of evil; that we must bring this nation to its feet, destroy them, and an appeal goes out to the world that this is to be done in the name of Allah? Excuse the expression. Where does the State Department come into focusing and into saying that maybe we better not air this kind of so-called opinions, or how do you say that this is the truth?

MS. BEERS: Well, are you talking about the particular interview that was an issue, Mullah Omar's interview?

DEL. FALEOMAVAEGA: Yeah, that one --

MS. BEERS: Yeah.

DEL. FALEOMAVAEGA: -- and the highly publicized statements that Osama bin Laden made, and the whole world and our country gets to learn a little more about the man's --

MS. BEERS: Well, I think -- bin Laden's tape you're referring to, that ran in such a timely fashion --

DEL. FALEOMAVAEGA: Yes.

MS. BEERS: The best way I think we have to counter that is to place our communication efforts toward those who surround him, those we judge to be vulnerable, those we judge to have even a little window of openness. I don't think we intend to make, nor would it be very productive to send communications directly to the fanatics. I think any and everything we do will be disavowed.

I believe it's possible over time to brand this kind of fanatic as a false prophet. I think that they've rested themselves, in a perverse way, on the religious beliefs of the Koran, and there are a number of Muslim clerics who are beginning to really speak out about this. If we can help them find voice, we can magnify their capacity to do that. And as time goes by, their willingness to do that, I believe, will set higher. And through those people, I think we can make it clear that this is not grounded in honest religious edicts of the Islam religion.

REP. HYDE: The gentleman's time has expired.

DEL. FALEOMAVAEGA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. HYDE: Mr. Chabot?

REP. STEVE CHABOT (R-OH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just a couple of points. I think --

MS. BEERS: Now where is he?

REP. CHABOT: Over here.

MS. BEERS: (Chuckles.)

REP. CHABOT: Mr. Rohrabacher had earlier raised the issue about not -- that we shouldn't be so quick to perhaps give the Taliban's side on some of this stuff. And I just happened to have the experience of listening to NPR the other evening, and they were talking about the secretary of Defense and our generals talking about the first couple of days of the air campaign and emphasizing that we're trying to reduce civilian casualties, of course, and just talking about the campaign. And then they talked about the Taliban's side of this and saying that, essentially, we hadn't hit any military targets, there had been no damage done, no military people killed, but we'd killed, you know, a lot of civilians. And then the NPR's comment was something along the lines of -- that they had no independent verification to verify which side was telling the truth, or something along those lines. That may not be the exact terminology, but I was pretty personally incensed when I heard that.

MS. BEERS: Yeah.

REP. CHABOT: Now that's for domestic consumption --

MS. BEERS: Right.

REP. CHABOT: -- as opposed to what we're talking about here today, necessarily. But it was just an observation that I'll make.

Secondly, I've heard a number of comments from my colleagues, some of which I agree on. And one that concerns me a little bit is just the idea of spending, perhaps significantly, amount -- additional dollars, and I think that's certainly something for us to look at.

I really think it's not how much we spend but how we spend what we do spend.

MS. BEERS: Right.

REP. CHABOT: And this war on terrorism that we're involved in is something that is absolutely deadly serious, and we as a nation have to take it very seriously. I would just caution that we have to be very careful that we don't look at it as an opportunity for spending considerably more dollars than we ought to and, therefore, hurting the economy and hurting our overall national security.

My final point would be -- I'd be interested to hear your comments relative to -- one of the problems that I think we face in our public-relations campaign is that some of our friends, some of the -- our friendly governments in the Middle East may often times be -- well, let just do this. Let me read a quote here. This is from this past week's "Meet the Press," and Tom Friedman was commenting. Here's his quote:

"In the Arab world, where the press is controlled by the governments, and the governments have adopted a very deliberate strategy, and the strategy being" -- and he quotes here, " 'You're free. You're free to criticize America. You're free to criticize Israel. You're free to criticize the Jews, as long as you don't criticize us,'" meaning the moderate government itself.

They basically unleash the press as a steam valve for all this resentment that is really about the government, or at least in part about the government, and deflected it onto America and onto Israel. And as a result, you basically have a generation that's grown up with absolutely no room for any other attitude."

And then Tim Russert's comment was, "And to avoid any real scrutiny of their lack of democratic government?"

And Friedman's response was "Absolutely."

So obviously, the point being that it's free to target the United States and Israel but to deflect any kind of animosity on that so- called moderate government. And would you comment on that particular observation made by Mr. Friedman?

MS. BEERS: Well, I think we're acutely aware of these things now, and we really weren't in an earlier period. And we have to now be about the business of finding distribution channels that we haven't had available before, and to put messages across on them that speak so that the young and impressionable people in those communities can hear us. And we just have to get started.

They are such isolated worlds. The point of entry into those worlds is something that we work now through our embassies, through the Internet, our websites, through all kinds of speaker programs and exchanges. But you know a number of those facilities were not available to us in countries as closed as Afghanistan. So now the problem is to open those up and to get a communication in that is sensitive to the fact that we are talking to an audience that has been largely brained with one message from one point of view. We haven't been able to carry the kind of communication power that we do in so many countries through our brands, through our movies, through our marketing, through the dialogue we have with business, and all those other natural moments of exchange that take place in so many parts of the world. We start every day with a recognition that we are dealing with a hopelessly biased and people coming from a different point of view.

REP. HYDE: Mr. Schiff.

REP. CHABOT: Thank you.

REP. SCHIFF: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to reiterate one of the points that was made. We spent a fair amount of time talking about how do we talk to the fanatics. And as one of my colleagues like to say, With reasonable people I will reason. With unreasonable people, with fanatics, there is no opportunity to reason, and I don't think we should even try -- there is no reasoning at the point of a gun.

The people that we need to reach are those that don't know anything different. They have been raised and educated with a certain point of view; who aren't necessarily closed to other things, but have never had any reason to question what they had been taught; and, in particular, those that are too young have even been indoctrinated. Those are the groups that we need to target. And I think the most effective -- probably the least effective spokes people are Americans of non-Muslim origin. And while there is probably a marginal value to having Americans spokes people on al-Jazeera, it's probably only marginal targeting those two critical populations. American Muslims I think would probably be more effective spokes people. A nd the most effective spokes people are probably Muslims from around the world, Muslim leaders from around the world.

And the challenge -- and I know you tried to address it, but I still can't quite get my arms around how we are going to accomplish this, and I don't envy the task -- how do you reach these young children that are taught in schools that you cannot really penetrate? And this has been a problem in Israel in trying to reach Palestinians who have been educated in schools where Israel is not on the maps in their textbooks. And the microcosm I think is an indication of the larger problem. How do we reach these young people? And how do we also, if the most effective spokes people are Muslim leaders from around the world, and some of the leaders of these moderate governments, how do we rely on the leaders of non-democratic regimes to be extolling the merits of democracy? That I think is a difficult dilemma for us. Some of the criticism that America has received is that we have a double standard on democracy; we support it at home, but when they are friendly to us around the world, we support them even if they are not democratic. How do we use those non-democratic regimes to help make the case for democracy, or express our point of view?

MS. BEERS: I think that we all recognize that over time we have to reach the young people of what have been very isolated governments. I mean, this is partly a war of small victories at a time. For example, we put together a fund to save the music of Afghanistan. This was out of the ECA. I consider this very typical of the face of America, to care so much about a country's music that we will preserve it for them when the Taliban had vetoed it and they weren't allowed to hear it. Now we want to get that music into all the many refugee camps around which we will be offering more than food. And part of what I hope we can offer, but we are just beginning to work on these programs, is also a degree in kind of education, because there we have opportunities to reach people in difficult conditions. But it's a beginning.

The second thing is how do we reach these somewhat tentative non- democratic leaders. And I think that even though some of them are so- called non-democratic, they have had exchanges and dialogues with the United States, and we have ways of knowing them and being in contact with them. And I think we are going to have to be extremely skillful in helping them find the words they can use, as opposed to just assuming they are going to take the kind of position that we would like them to take. And we see this happening in our embassies, and our ambassadors sit down with some of these people. We walk a compromise between what would be appropriate for them to say and what we can help them identify. We give them a lot of information they can use. It doesn't do them any harm in their own marketplace. And I think that's part of what we are doing.

Do you want to add anything to that, Richard?

MR. BOUCHER: I think the only thing I would add is that we know that even non-democratic governments are sensitive to public opinion to some extent. Sometimes that leads to what Congressman Berman and Congressman Chabot were referring to, to say what you want about America, leave us alone kind of phenomenon.

Our ambassadors, our embassies and our leadership do call other governments on those kinds of things. Where they have influence, and it is not being exercised, we'll raise it with foreign leaders. Our embassies, ambassadors in Arab countries, in the Gulf, frequently make this point to other governments, that if they are going to have influence over the media it needs to be responsible influence. You can't let people lie hurt, and poke the Americans with a stick every time they want to. So we have done that in this administration. We've done it in the past as well.

But part of what I think what we are talking about today is not just -- I'd say it is not just true facts. I mean, there are facts that are wrong that we can counter them, facts that we can complain about. When somebody says 4,000 Jews weren't at the World Trade Center that morning, we can make the case that is just plain wrong. We're right, they're wrong. But, beyond that, we are talking today about reaching people, particularly the young people, on a more fundamental level. And that's a place where maybe foreign leaders don't need to extol the virtues of the Bill of Rights, but they can make the case that their cooperation with America is important, it is good, for their own society. And that's where we need to encourage, and we do encourage other leaders to speak out on our behalf.

REP. HYDE: Mr. Kern.

REP. KERNS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. After considerable efforts over decades, it appears that we have not done the job that we would have liked in communicating the message of the American people and our way of life, democracy. And most recently, after traveling to Russia, Italy and Turkey, it was suggested by other governments that we have not done an effective job, and even made -- an individual made specific recommendations on ways maybe we could improve that, even including letting people know what we do to participate in humanitarian efforts that marking just relief given that it's compliments of the American people, the United States government, so they in fact know what we are doing in participating, and trying to communicate a positive message. Do we have a way of measuring our effectiveness and progress in communicating a positive message, and tying that directly to some means -- are we performing properly, in the right way? Do we need to take another take direction, look at another direction? And I too share the concerns of Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Royce and Mr. Chabot, in some of the things that I've learned most recently. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

REP. HYDE: I thank the gentleman.

Ms. Watson.

REP. WATSON: Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit my opening statement for the record please.

REP. HYDE: Without objection, so ordered.

REP. WATSON: And just raise and allude to something you said, Mrs. Beers, and that is that we have to work with youth. I took groups to South Africa during apartheid, and I found that the youth were ready to embrace the globe. And I also found that they were compelled by the music and the artists that they heard from America and Great Britain. And I think that would be a very effective way to start our message through our music-makers, and to the youth -- also athletics. And when I think about the Good Will Olympics, there is a way that youth relate to youth across their countries' boundaries in pursuit. So maybe you would want to consider using some of these games to also send the messages from our country to other countries. I think we have got to start with those whose minds are still developing, and we have to use the air waves. It's really important that we speak in their language. It's very important we know their customs and traditions. And I have been talking about my dream team that I would send over to the Taliban -- it starts with Farrakhan and Jesse Jackson, Al Pouissant, the psychiatrist from Harvard, Cornel West, the theorist, Bishop Tutu, who did a good job of selling us in America on getting involved and removing apartheid, Andrew Young the ambassador, and led by Nelson Mandela. Give it a thought.

MS. BEERS: A pretty good team. Expensive. (Laughter.)

REP. WATSON: Well, we are going to have to put the dollars out there to try to reach our goal.

REP. HYDE: Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.

REP. ROS-LEHTINEN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask about the participation in exchange programs by persons committed to human rights and democracy. As you may be aware, since 1996 the State Department has been required by law -- we had discussed to "provide opportunities for participation in U.S. exchange programs to persons both committed to advancing human rights and democratic values," end quote, in countries whose people do not currently enjoy freedom and democracy. Yet I am informed that our exchange programs with dictatorships, particularly with those such as China and Vietnam, whose governments have not allowed the development of civil society, are still overwhelmingly dominated by participants with close ties to those governments. Recently we read a journalist from China whose exchange visits had to be cut short after they were seen cheering the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. Can you tell us what concrete steps the department has taken over the last five years to ensure the participation in exchange programs to independent thinkers, perhaps even to people who have publicly dissented from government policy? Can you evaluate the success of these actions? Are we providing meaningful access to our exchange programs for people who don't see eye to eye with their governments? And of course we also want to include people who may be connected with the government, who may benefit from exposure to the United States, but perhaps they can be converted to our way of thinking. But, even so, shouldn't we try to screen our programs to avoid forcing U.S. taxpayers, as has been said over and over again this morning, the fun, free vacation from the very worst anti-Americans, people who can only be characterized as tyrants and thugs, such as those who cheered when they saw the live video of the mass murder at the World Trade Center, even when our exchange visitors show contempt for freedom and democracy in ways that are not quite so vivid, such as by engaging in political and religious persecution back in their home countries? Doesn't their participation bring discredit to our programs, both here in the United States and among decent people abroad?

In 1999, Congress reiterated our concern about ensuring access to our exchange programs for people who don't support dictatorial regimes. We came to the conclusion that part of the problem was that some of the contractors who run the program may themselves be too close to the governments in the countries we are concerned about. So Congress enacted a law requiring that whenever practicable selection of organizations to run these programs be by open, competitive bidding, and that by competing organizations they should be evaluated in part on their ability and their willingness to include participants who are committed to freedom and democracy. Can you tell us about the progress in implementing this law? And the law that I am referred to is Section 102 of the Human Rights Refugee and Other Foreign Relations Provisions Act of 1996, as amended by the Foreign Relations Authorization Bill for fiscal years 2000 and 2001.

MS. BEERS: Thank you. I am familiar with that. I am impressed with the way that the exchanges are able to collect a very diverse and highly qualified group of people. This is put in place by the embassies. They understand fully that we are looking for people whose potential is great in their own country, and whose capacity to be a contributor to our country is part of their criteria. But it is also -- so I think the diversity and the non-government connection is working well, just as it was intended. We just had that evaluated too by an outside counsel who explained that we think this is a much better performance.

But it is also true that when people come who might be borderline on such situations, come to the United States, there's nothing quite like the transformation that takes place when they've had a chance to see what it is like to live in America and what these programs do to help them understand -- experience the American way of life. Had we had such exchanges going with Afghanistan, we would be a lot further along having a real dialogue.

REP. ROS-LEHTINEN: Well, the terrorists who committed these acts were in the United States, they were enjoying freedom and democracy -- it did not seem to change their minds any --

MS. BEERS: Well, I think the --

REP. ROS-LEHTINEN: Being here does not by osmosis --

MS. BEERS: I think there's a difference between having people who are in an evolution of their own life and their view of the democratic process and pure fanatics. And I am not trying to confuse those two.

REP. HYDE: The gentle lady's time has expired.

REP. ROS-LEHTINEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. HYDE: Our last witness before the second panel, Ms. Lee.

REP. LEE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Madam Secretary, and let me tell you how delighted I am to meet you and to listen to you this morning.

MS. BEERS: Thank you.

REP. LEE: I want to just follow up on Congresswoman Watson's very insightful I think and very serious statement with regard to diversity. I believe that utilizing the diversity of America could be a real strength in our public diplomacy efforts in support of our anti-terrorism campaign. So I am just asking have you been thinking about this as you formulate public diplomacy efforts towards Muslim countries? And if you haven't been thinking about that as being really a central aspect of the anti-terrorism campaign, would you consider that? Because I think we have to look at our efforts now in a new way.

MS. BEERS: I thank you. We are looking at that. I think that one of the great value systems of our country is a kind and degree of tolerance, and the best way to demonstrate that is the great diversity of people in our country. And that will be one of the messages we try to put on the board.

REP. LEE: And also utilizing our diverse population in your public diplomatic effort.

Let me also -- Mr. Secretary, Mr. Boucher, do you have some --

MR. BOUCHER: I was just going to say that the example of America is very, very powerful. These exchange programs are among the best things we do. We bring people to the United States, we send Americans overseas. We give people education in the United States. That pays off for 5, 10, 15, 20 years down the road, and I have seen it myself overseas with leaders around the world.

The training that we give to journalists, to people who are trying to support civil society in countries that don't have very much, is very, very important. And the fact that they meet Americans from all backgrounds and all walks of life is part of the very important effort that goes into these programs. And I think that we will hear more about them later. But the fact that these people who are going to be influential get a chance to meet all kinds of Americans becomes a formative part of their entire life.

REP. LEE: Thank you very much. I am glad to hear that you are seeing that as valuable.

The second point I would like to make, and one we have heard over and over today is that one of the ways really to combat terrorism at a very fundamental level is through education. Now, your department I guess has a Bureau of Education and Cultural Affairs, which sponsors international education initiatives, such as the Fulbright program, such as the Humphrey Fellowships. And it's been charged in the past, or at least we have heard comments to the effect that these programs have concentrated more on Europe and they are very focused not on the developing world but on Europe. Is that the case? And do you think now we need to look at the developing world more in terms of these international educational programs?

MS. BEERS: I don't think it's true that they are biased. That might have been true at one time , and some of the other countries contribute an immense amount of their own money to make their exchanges more productive. And in that case, we just cooperate with them on that. And that may be why you feel they're a little out of balance. But we have very aggressive exchange programs with the developing world. And when we get the chance, we'll certainly be concentrating on activating those in the parts of the world where we're now shut off. And so I think that if anything, our energies, our resources, our share of thinking is going very heavily toward the developing world.

REP. : Thank you. And my final question is, let me just ask you, coming on board now, have you had a chance to make an assessment with regard to our anti-terrorism initiatives and policies in the past and how much of a fact has public diplomacy been key in our strategies? Or is the tragic events of -- are the tragic events of September 11th now forcing us to look at this more closely?

MS. BEERS: Well, I think everything in this country's being looked at differently as a result of an event we never actually expected to happen. I think public diplomacy's urgency and it's proper place in the world of dialogue with people who are fanatics has risen to a new sense of awareness for all of us. And so, I have to say that the willingness of the country and its awareness to fight terrorism is at an all-time high. And we're just taking part in that.

REP. : Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. HYDE: Thank you. We have reached the end of the questions for this panel. I want to say, Undersecretary Beers, you did a great -- you did a great job under extremely hazardous conditions.

MS. BEERS: (Laughs.)

REP. HYDE: We're -- we have one more distinguished panel to go. I'm going to declare a four-minute recess, and we'll start right up in about four minutes. So if you'll -- the second panel will take your place. And Secretary Boucher, thank you as always.

MS. BEERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(End of Panel I; Panel II will be send under a different heading.)

END

LOAD-DATE: October 11, 2001