Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. 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 is important that each Member have an opportunity to express themselves succinctly and briefly, the first to be Jo Ann Davis, the gentlelady from Virginia. You have no statement? Mr. Flake.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I would rather hear the witnesses, thanks.

The CHAIRMAN. We are having a mild dispute about the order of calling people. Some have said when they get here, they ought to take precedence and others suggest seniority, and I have friends on both sides. And I am for my friends. Mr. Leach.

Mr. LEACH. So that there is no misunderstanding, Mr. Chairman, I was the first Member here and I am 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 both the Ranking Member and the Chairman in their comments and would only add one modest follow-up, and that is that as we look at public diplomacy, the word "diplomacy" is more important than the word "public," and 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 in the public diplomacy function. The political games with the State Department budget and the multilateral budgets, including the United Nation's, should be looked at in a very professional way. With that, I would yield back the balance of my time.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Berman of California.

Mr. BERMAN. 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 this subject is so important. We have a number of distinguished witnesses who we will be hearing from on both panels, and a number of people who have done incredible work in public broadcasting and public diplomacy are at this hearing today. The war against terrorism is much more than a military operation. It is also a battle of ideas.

As an editorial in 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 is 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 the distinguished witnesses agreed that we have lost the public relations battle on Iraq.

Jeffrey 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 know that 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 Bagdad, 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 international broadcasting of 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, 7 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 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, and other areas.

The Middle East Radio Network will expose the future leaders of the Arab world to American ideas values and culture, and 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 my colleagues' attention to legislation introduced by our colleague, Ed Royce, that would establish a Radio Free Afghanistan. There is clearly 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 colleagues' 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.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. 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, and during the Cold War we had to make certain compromises in which we sided with some very unsavory characters at times, just as we did during World War II. We can't just say it is a lack of communication, but there are some policy issues that we need to pay attention to as well if we are 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. There is reason for the people of Indonesia to say 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 them.

I think that human rights has played an important role in American foreign policy development. Mr. Lantos and I and others have tried to express that on many occasions, make that part of the national debate, and I think it will go a long way toward solving some of the vitriol that is aimed at the United States. However, there are communication problems as well. 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 it.

The Iraqi people are suffering tremendously, yet Saddam Hussein has gotten away with it and we have accepted the blame and we haven't made our case. Unfortunately, I will have to say some Americans, Americans of Muslim descent, gave credence to those charges, and I think that the Muslim community in the United States needs to have some very serious soul searching on this issue of Iraq and the position they have taken over the last year or 2 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. I would hope that they take a second look at this and think about it in the future.

I would 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 that are, in the world, trying to contest the hearts and mind 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 before that, about the job that Voice of America has been doing. Mr. Lantos, I know, quoted Edward R. Murrow and, quite frankly, he certainly is-I am a former jour

nalist he is one of my heroes. We have to take his admonition to be truthful, but I believe there is all kinds of evidence to suggest that the Voice of America has taken truthfulness to mean that they have to try both sides of every issue. I don't believe that is necessary for truthfulness. We have been paying quite often in these last several decades for the dissemination of information that is basically helpful to some of the dictators and tyrants whom we oppose.

Over these last few years, I have been raising questions many times about the Pashtun service in the Voice of America, feeling every time there is a story negative about the Taliban, they have felt they have had to present the Taliban side to have the other side. I am going to be asking our witnesses about their opinion on this criticism.

To be truthful, you don't need to present the Taliban 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 Adolph Hitler's side or Mussolini's side either, or Joe Stalin's side of an argument. Both sides of the argument are not what we are paying for as taxpayers. We are hoping for truthfulness, but 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.

Chairman HYDE. Thank you.

Mr. Delahunt of Massachusetts.

Mr. DELAHUNT. 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 is important to be honest with ourselves too. How many Americans had heard of Afghanistan, let alone Uzbekistan or Tajikistan, 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 have got to start to educate ourselves, and I am not just talking about the American people. I am talking about Members of Congress. 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.

The CHAIRMAN. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. DELAHUNT. I would.

The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman suggesting, and I hope he is, that geography be incorporated into the curriculum of our schools? Mr. DELAHUNT. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. I know you say that facetiously, but I think it is very important. So what we are talking about here is education. I have had the good fortune of being in Prague and meeting with Mr. Dine and seeing Radio Free Europe. I think it is a tremendous operation, and our government is to be complimented and we need to tell them, Tom [Dine], it is good to see you here. It was very impressive.

Again, I also want to share the kudos being thrown in the way of Mr. Royce and support that. But also in addition to enhancing our public broadcasting efforts, have we a policy or do we have an-I am looking for the right words here, and I can't seem to find them. But what kinds of efforts are we making to access those

media outlets, such as Al Jazeera to convey and to educate those people, not just about the specific issue, but American valueswhat we are about? Any Member of Congress who has traveled extensively throughout the world discovers very, very quickly that there are so many misunderstandings and misperceptions about what we are about as a people, as a society.

The truth is, and I think it was Mr. Berman who mentioned, that 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. As Mr. Lantos said, none of us clearly are afraid of the conflict of our ideas with their ideas because we will prevail, but we have got to think, I would respectfully suggest, beyond the box, and beyond the traditional effort which is—and maybe I am incorrect-which has been focused simply on the Voice of America and similar kind of public broadcasting initiatives. And with that, I will yield back.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Royce.

Mr. ROYCE. 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, Uzbekistan, and neighboring Iran, and the reason that is done is those top three-tiered countries were in the former Soviet Union; so they were allowed to continue there on mandate.

What I suggested some years ago when the Taliban came on the scene was that this mandate be extended so 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, but 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, and the reason they haven't is because it 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 in this part of the world how broadcasts could have misconstrued that the World Trade Center bombing was a hoax or was done by the Israelis or Indian intelligence services, the answer to that is, frankly, they haven't had the opportunity 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 Pashto and in Dari and give the people the facts, give the people the truth. Who is 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 Hovel or Lech Walesa they would tell you that the things that changed the situation, changed the minds of