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 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 a first step in a long and difficult and costly struggle against terrorism.

If September 11 was Pearl Harbor, October 7 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 the airwaves.

In many respects, Mr. Chairman, we and our allies are losing the battle of the airwaves. We are literally being outgunned, outmanned, out maneuvered on the public information battle field. For years the Taliban has showered Afghanistan with their hateful propaganda, via Radio Shariat. 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. Now, of course the broadcasting of hate is not new.

From Goebbels' Nazi propaganda machine to the hate radio broadcast 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 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 in 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 a 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 expend 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 Pashtun, Farsi, and Uda 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 have 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 will 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 Beauregard. 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 us 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 R. 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. American public diplomacy will have to be truthful. We cannot match, nor should we, the latter day Goebbels in their lies and distortions. Our story sells itself if it is told powerfully, accurately and with credibility."

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