The CHAIRMAN. Senator Chafee. Senator CHAFEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary it is good to see you. Thank you for all you are doing for the country. I'd like to commend Senator Hagel for his statement. Very courageous. Yes, there is little margin for error and I do think we need friends in the world. We don't want enemies obviously. Sometimes rhetoric can drive wedges rather than bring people together and Senator Hagel knows from whence he speaks having served in a situation of war. I'd like to also followup on Senator Sarbanes' questions about balancing the ER funds and you did say that if you received more money, you could put it to good use. And how could you do that if you were fortunate enough to receive more money as the process comes to Congress? Secretary POWELL. I could start at the top and run down. But I would love to have more international military education and training to get more of these officers in nations that are now moving in our direction into our military school system, working with the Pentagon to expose these officers to values and start to change the nature of their armed forces and what an armed force is supposed to do in a democratic nation. I would love to put more into HIV/AIDS. I would love to have more money available for economic development activities. I would put more into our food accounts. There is no limit to the opportunities I would have to spend money wisely. But money is tight. We have our budget problems. The President determined what the Nation can afford at this time. And also we are in a deficit. He heard from all of the Cabinet departments. He knew our needs and he made what he considered was an informed and balanced allocation of the resources that he thought the Nation made available to him. Senator CHAFEE. I certainly do respect that and since the President's budget, now the process comes over to our side of the branch of government, and do you submit a request to the administration or to OMB? Secretary POWELL. Yes. Senator CHAFEE. Is that a public document? Secretary POWELL. No. I do not think so. We go through our internal-nice try. Senator CHAFEE. Why not? Secretary POWELL. We go through our internal process within the Department. We get more requests than we know we can fund. So we have to do our own pruning within the Department. Then we submit our request for the two accounts that fund the operations of the Department of State-Commerce, State, Justice and then Foreign Ops-and we submit it to OMB and the fight begins. I have been in OMB. One of my earlier incarnations in life was to serve in OMB for a year. So I know what they go through down there. They have to handle a lot of different requirements, often competing and making their recommendations to the President as to how he should allocate what he believes should be available to them. And that is a process we go through. They have a pretty good understanding of what our needs are. The OMB analysts that work with us, they know these accounts as well as my people do. It is a good dialog of equals. Senator CHAFEE. And if, again, to followup, if you were so fortunate again to receive more funds, certainly the Congress would want to make sure we are addressing the areas that your Department has prioritized. I am sure that members here have their own priorities but you would want them in some kind of concert and so I will look forward if that were to happen to occur, because I certainly do agree with Senator Sarbanes in fighting the war in terrorism. It's important to fight the despair and poverty and lack of health and education that breeds the disenfranchisement that leads to discontent and hatred and unfortunately ultimately for whatever reason is steered toward us and is at the top of the heap. I do think there is a balance, to fight the war, perhaps more resources should be as some of the civilized countries are saying toward a new Marshall Plan, or at the bottom of the 22 developed countries in percent of GNP toward foreign aid. I think we have to address that as part of the war on terrorism. Secretary POWELL. Thank you, Senator. Should the Congress in one form or another see fit to determine that the State Department accounts should receive more in either the budget or the supplemental process later, I can assure you we would apply it in a very effective way to achieve the goals you just described. Senator CHAFEE. Do you agree with me on the success of the war on terrorism should include more of, I do not want to use the cliche too often but new Marshall Plan involvement in the poorer countries of the world? Secretary POWELL. Yes, sir. I am not sure I would use the Marshall Plan image because the Marshall Plan was essentially loan guarantees to rebuild industrialized societies. But I think a new kind of plan would be appropriate for some of these poverty stricken countries. It has to be something that matches political and economic developments within the country and not just money down the rat hole to corrupt countries that have not made the fundamental choices of moving to market economies and moving to democratic systems and having transparent political organizations in their financial and law enforcement sector, resting it all on the rule of law. To put money into places like that is frankly not wise in my judgment. You may have to help them with food because their people are starving. But you cannot, we can no longer invest in places that cannot use the investment in a sensible way, nor can we encourage private investment to go to places where the rule of law does not exist or corruption is rampant. If they do not have transparency in their system their political democracy and economic democracy is not mature enough, then you cannot be sure the money will be well spent. Senator CHAFEE. Of course the difficulty there is even walking away from even trying to find out how we can invest in these countries just because of the fear that it is going to end up in some Swiss bank account, our hard earned tax dollars by some despot and meanwhile we are not joining with the other civilized countries that are trying to find a way, realizing that some of it might not be as effective as we would like to be but hopefully designing some kind of a mechanism to help these countries. Secretary POWELL. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. With your permission, it is about 12 minutes before 1 o'clock. Can we keep you another 10 minutes or so, and I will share the time with all of our colleagues here. But I want to ask you, with regard to your budget, in fact, you may be up to a quarter billion dollars short of what you are asking for, mightn't you, because we pledged $296 or $297 million at Tokyo, and because it occurred after the budget requests, that is not in this budget. Do you know whether or not it is going to come out of your budget, or is it a supplemental? Secretary POWELL. The $297 million is out of 1902. The CHAIRMAN. Out of 1902, and you are able to get all $297 million out of 1902. Secretary POWELL. Yes. My experts assure me. The CHAIRMAN. Well, I'd like for the record, if you would, not that I doubt it, I'd like to see it. Secretary POWELL. I have an exhibit that shows the source of the $297 million. The CHAIRMAN. You need not do that now; you can submit it for the record. [The following information was subsequently received:] AFGHANISTAN FUNDING (TOKYO ANNOUNCEMENT) [In millions of dollars] In FY 2002, we are going to provide Afghanistan reconstruction assistance totaling $296.75 million. Funding breakout is: Secretary POWELL. But it is an open item right now for FY '03. The CHAIRMAN. I got you. The recurring costs associated with that. And I, to the extent you can enlighten us on that, it would be useful for the record. Second, I think you have probably sensed, I suspect there is a consensus, at least on this committee that with all the great effort in Afghanistan so far, spending a billion dollars a month, or is it a week now? A billion dollars a month pursuing what we have been doing, that the hard part is really coming now. And I see no way, Mr. Secretary, and I think my colleagues, Senator Lugar and, well, a number of Senators and the chairman can speak for himself, I see no way that Karzai has any shot of implementing the Bonn plan and 2 years from now there being in a democratic government after a Grand Council is called, without the extension of a multilateral force to other areas within the country, other municipal areas. And if we can do that without the United States having two feet on the ground and men in uniform, great, but if we cannot, if our allies say as the Brits said to me when I was there, how long do you think my parliament is going to let me stay here, if in fact you guys are not here? Whatever formula you come up with, I strongly, strongly, strongly urge that we not get hung up on this nation building malarkey. I promise you, as one Democrat, I will never call it nation building as long as the President does not. Because there is a need for the United States to be involved in a security force, whether it is guaranteeing extraction capability, whatever you divine, we have got to keep multinational force there and extend it to Herat and Mazar and other places, in my humble opinion. I am not asking you to comment. Secretary POWELL. All of that is under consideration, Senator, and in our conversations with the Brits, and the Germans and the Turks and others. The CHAIRMAN. You are incredibly well respected, as is the President, and I am confident that you can get it done. But I am also confident if we do not get it done, this basically is a lost cause. Let me skip quickly to START II. The deal when the Russians ratified START II was that if we abandon ABM, START II was out. I realize you have other discussions going on, I realize we are talking about lower numbers, I realize you are talking about the fact of codifying that somehow. And we will have plenty of time to discuss that, hopefully. But one of the things that START II did which everyone thought as such a gigantic breakthrough, that Reagan tried, the first President Bush had tried and succeeded in getting agreed to in principle, was no MIRV'd ICBMs. Our folks in the intelligence community are telling us now, I think I can speak this publicly, that they are contemplating keeping MIRV'd weapons, and even working out their financial crunch by emphasizing MIRV'd weapons, which you as former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs know, they are the first things you aim at because they are the most dangerous and somewhat destabilizing. Does any part of this new discussion underway relate to trying to preserve the two things I thought most valuable about START II, no MIRVs, and two, enhanced verification? Are they part of the equation? Secretary POWELL. Let me answer in two ways. One, the strategic framework discussions we have ongoing now are off to a pretty good start. Under Secretary Bolton and his administration colleagues met with Ambassador Mamedov last week and had a good set of discussions as to what should be in this new, legally binding, codified agreement. And we are looking at how to bring forward from START I the verification and transparency features that we do not want to lose and what modification of various rules have to be made. And we are also looking at how to deal with START II, an unratified treaty; in other words, a treaty not in effect and in force. And we are seeing what we should do there. And so all of that is under consideration. The answer to your question is yes. But here is a more interesting answer. President Bush has said to President Putin, "You want MIRV? Go ahead." And the point he was making is that it is a different framework. He is thinking about it differently. As you well know, we have been without an agreement that is legally binding. You do what you have to do to defend yourself. We will do what we have to do to defend ourselves. We have made a judgment, independent of what the Russians do, that between 1,700 and 2,200 operationally deployed warheads, and some things that might be in reserve that could be generated, was enough for the United States to defend itself. And we were confident about that no matter what you did. If you feel you have to do something quite different, we are no longer in this lockstep symmetry that drove so much of the cold war period. And if the Russians had decided well, we are going to pick a different number and we do not want a legally binding agreement, that would have been fine with the President. It would have been fine with me. The CHAIRMAN. I think there is a difference between lockstep and what stabilizes and destabilizes. Iraq, very quickly. I said to you earlier, and I have been on record for sometime as saying I cannot imagine a safer, newer world 5 years from now with Saddam still around, and to me it is not a matter of if but how. But toward that end I would hope that at some point the President would not only indicate why Saddam is such a bad deal, but what is his vision for Iraq? Because as you know, one of the, and you were in the middle of the decision process at the time, one of the decisions President Bush made, and I am not second-guessing him, in the gulf war, was what happens if and when we take him out? What happens, what do the Kurds do, what do the Shiites do, what does Iran do? So I hope we are beginning to articulate this for our allies. One of the things they most wonder about is whether this administration has thought beyond, it is understandable, and whether I thought beyond when I talked about it, getting rid of the bad guy. What happens after that? And I am confident knowing you, you have been speaking to the Turks and have been speaking with others. But I hope at some point, I respectfully suggest to the extent we paint a vision for the world to understand what we are looking for,—not dictating, not demanding, how we see a Iraq after Saddam. It may help on the second part, which I think is at some point getting consensus that we have to be much tougher on Saddam than we have been. And this is my final point. I mentioned this to you earlier. There was a very interesting article by Mr. Wines of the New York Times yesterday which you know a lot about, and we all do. Lukoil, which is the outfit in Russia that has control of oil, has a very lucrative contract that was signed back in I believe 1997, I am not sure, maybe 1998, for the most promising oilfield in Iraq, that they believe is worth about $20 billion to them. They have in |