[Senate Hearing 111-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2011
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2010
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:30 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J. Leahy (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Leahy, Mikulski, Landrieu, Specter,
Gregg, Bennett, Bond, Brownback, and Voinovich.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Secretary of State
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON,
SECRETARY OF STATE
statement of senator patrick j. leahy
Senator Leahy. Secretary Clinton, I commend you for your
unbelievable energy, not only in the work you do at the State
Department but around the world in representing the United
States. I understand this is one of four times you're going to
be testifying here on Capitol Hill and we appreciate it very
much, Madam Secretary.
The President's fiscal year 2011 budget request for the
Department of State and foreign operations totals $56.6
billion. It's a 10.6 percent increase over last year. Most of
the increase is for three countries: Afghanistan, Pakistan, and
Iraq.
For the remainder of the world, the increase is about the
rate of inflation and, as the President has pointed out, the
total request for foreign operations is about 1 percent of the
entire Federal budget.
If we cut all these programs, it wouldn't make a dent in
our deficit but it would cause many other problems around the
world, especially as it would affect America's leadership
position.
The funds are all we have, besides the U.S. military, to
protect the security and other interests of the American people
in an increasingly dangerous and divisive world.
That is not to say we can't do more to get full value for
our tax dollars, that's always been mine and Senator Gregg's
goal on this subcommittee. If there are programs that are not
effective or no longer necessary, then we will eliminate them.
As we listen to the complaints about broken Government or
paralysis in Washington, this is a bill that, over the past
number of years, has had overwhelming bipartisan support.
If anybody wants to see whether bipartisanship still exists
in Congress, they do not have to look any further than this
subcommittee. Every member of this panel, Republican and
Democrat alike, has a stake in what's in here. We work
together. For example, our global health programs help to
prevent outbreaks of deadly viruses and other infectious
diseases that are only a plane ride away. If such viruses
spread and become pandemics, they could kill millions of
people, including Americans.
Funding provided in this bill also addresses the continuing
need to stop terrorism, organized crime, and other
transnational crime that are growing threats to Americans and
the citizens and governments of other nations, especially
governments whose institutions are prone to corruption. There
are many other examples.
We know this budget is not going to solve every problem in
the world but at least it ensures that the United States is
equipped to play a leadership role.
The Secretary has done her part and, Madam Secretary, I
must say I appreciate the fact that you have been the face of
America around the world. I know that it is physically
strenuous, both for you and your staff, but it is important
that you are there.
Today, more than ever, we appreciate the need for fully
staffed and secure embassies, effective diplomacy, and strong
alliances. I want to commend the dedicated men and women of the
State Department and the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID), who are serving America here at home and
at posts around the world and, I should note, often at great
personal risk.
After Senator Gregg makes his opening remarks and the
Secretary testifies, we'll have 7-minute rounds for questions.
The Senators will be recognized in order of arrival,
alternating back and forth.
Senator Gregg.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JUDD GREGG
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to
second your opening comments. I especially want to pick up
where you left off which is saying thank you to not only
yourself, Madam Secretary, but the extraordinary staff that
works for you at the State Department.
Those of us who've had a chance to travel to some more
severe regions in this world, such as Afghanistan, Syria,
Pakistan, of course Iraq, recognize that the men and women who
serve us in the State Department are on the frontlines and
doing an extraordinary job of trying to carry out American
policy and assist those nations in moving toward more
democratic forms of government and to be constructive citizens
in the world. They put their lives at risk as our military
people do, and we very much appreciate their service.
I also want to thank you personally for what you're doing.
Your presentation around the world has been extraordinary and
it's been very positive for us, for our Nation, to have you out
there as our spokesperson, along with the President, of course.
There are so many areas of concern that come to mind that
rather than taking them all up in my opening statement, I'd
rather hear your thoughts on them.
So I will turn to you, but I just want to highlight one
that doesn't get a lot of attention and that is an issue I've
had interest in for almost 15 years now which is to make sure
that you have the best technology and the best capability so
that the support is there for the people who do such wonderful
things for us in the field. I'd be interested in your thoughts
on where we stand in that area and also in the area of
facilities.
I'd like to spend some time on that. I'm especially
concerned about the cost of the Iraqi mission and the new
building and the complex there and how that's going to drain
away funds from other initiatives.
I'd rather hear from you than talk myself. So I'll turn it
over to you, Madam Secretary.
Senator Leahy. Thank you. Secretary Clinton, please go
ahead.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON
Secretary Clinton. Thank you very much, Chairman Leahy, and
Senator Gregg, and members of the subcommittee.It really is a
pleasure to be back here in the Senate and to be with all of
you today.
When I was last here to discuss our budget, I emphasized my
commitment to elevating diplomacy and development as core
pillars of American power. Since then, I have been heartened by
the bipartisan support of this subcommittee and the rest of
Congress and I want to take this opportunity to thank you on
behalf of the men and women who work every day around the world
at the State Department and USAID who put our foreign policy
into action, and I will certainly convey the very kind words of
both the chairman and the ranking member to them.
The budget we're presenting today is designed to protect
America and Americans and to advance our interests and values.
Our fiscal year 2011 request for the State Department and USAID
totals $52.8 billion. That's a $4.9 billion increase over 2010.
Of that increase, $3.6 billion will go to supporting efforts in
frontline states, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq.
Other funding will grow by $1.3 billion and that is a 2.7
percent increase and with that money, we will address global
challenges, strengthen partnerships, and ensure that the State
Department and USAID are equipped with the right people, the
right technology, and the right resources.
Over the past 6 weeks in Haiti, I've been reminded again of
the importance of American leadership. I'm very proud of what
our country has done. We will continue to work with our Haitian
and international partners to address ongoing suffering and
transition from relief to recovery.
I'm also well aware that this is a time of great economic
strain for many Americans here at home. As a former Senator, I
know what this means for the people you represent. For every
dollar we spend, we have to show results. That is why this
budget must support programs vital to our national security,
our national interests, and our leadership in the world, while
guarding against and rooting out waste, redundancy, and
irrelevancy. I believe this budget achieves those goals.
These figures are more than numbers on a page. They tell
the story of the challenges we face and the resources we need
to overcome them. We are fighting two wars that call on the
skill and sacrifice of our civilians as well as our dedicated
military troops.
We've pursued a dual-track approach to Iran that has
exposed its refusal to live up to its responsibilities and
helped us achieve a new unity with our international partners.
Iran has left the international community little choice but to
impose greater costs and pressure in the face of its
provocative steps. We're not working actively with our partners
to prepare and implement new measures to pressure Iran to
change its course.
We have achieved unprecedented unity in our response to
North Korea's provocative actions, even as we leave the door
open for a restart of the Six Party Talks, and we're moving
closer to a fresh nuclear agreement with Russia, one that
advances our security while furthering President Obama's long-
term vision of a world without nuclear weapons.
With China, we are seeking areas of common purpose while
standing firm where we differ. We're making concrete our new
beginning with the Muslim world. We're strengthening
partnerships with allies in Europe and Asia, with our friends
here in the hemisphere, with countries from those that are
rising and emerging powers to those who have challenges, and
we're working hard every day to end the impasse and the
conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.
At the same time, we're developing a new architecture of
cooperation to meet transnational global challenges, like
climate change, the use of our planet's oceans, proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction, health problems which, as the
chairman said, are no respecter of boundaries.
In so many instances, our national interests and the common
interests converge and so from our hemisphere across the world
we are promoting human rights, the rule of law, democracy,
Internet freedom. We're fighting poverty, hunger, disease, and
we're working to ensure that economic growth is broadly and
inclusively shared.
Now our agenda is ambitious, I admit that, but I think the
times demand it. America is called to lead and we need the
tools and resources to exercise our leadership wisely and
effectively. We can bury our heads in the sand and pay the
consequences later or we can make hard-nosed targeted
investments now, addressing the security challenges of today
while building a more lasting foundation for the future.
Let me just highlight three areas where we're making
significant new investments. First, the security of frontline
states. In Afghanistan this past year, we've tripled the number
of civilians on the ground and this presence will grow by
hundreds more with the $5 billion in this budget. Our diplomats
and development experts are helping institutions, expand
economic opportunities and provide meaningful alternatives for
insurgents ready to renounce violence and Al Qaeda and join
their fellow Afghans in the pursuit of peace.
In Pakistan, our request includes $3.2 billion to combat
extremism, promote economic development, strengthen democratic
institutions, and build a long-term relationship with the
Pakistani people. This includes funding of the Kerry-Lugar-
Berman initiative. Our request also includes a 59 percent
increase in funding for Yemen to help counter the extremist
threat and build institutions there, as well.
In Iraq, we're winding down our military presence and
establishing a more normal civilian mission. Our civilian
efforts will not and cannot mirror the scale of the military
presence, but they, rather, should provide assistance
consistent with the priorities of the Iraqi Government and the
United States. So our request includes $2.6 billion for Iraq.
These are resources that will allow us to support the
democratic process, ensure a smooth transition to civilian-led
security training, and operational support. These funds will
allow civilians to take full responsibility for programs and
the Defense budget for Iraq will be decreasing by about $16
billion and that's a powerful illustration of the return on
civilian investment.
We are blessed, as we all in this room know, with the best
troops in the world and we've seen that time and time again in
today's wars, but we also need to give our civilian experts the
resources to do the jobs we're asking them to do and this
budget takes a step in the right direction.
It includes $100 million for a State Department Complex
Crisis Fund, replacing the 1207 Fund which the Defense
Department used to direct money toward crisis response. It also
includes support for the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability
Fund which previously fell under the Defense Department, as
well.
The second major area is investing in development. So we're
making targeted investments in fragile societies which, in our
interconnected world, bear heavily on our own security and
prosperity. These investments are a key part of our effort to
get ahead of crises rather than just responding to them.
The first of these is in health. Building on our progress
treating HIV, malaria, and tuberculosis, our Global Health
Initiative will invest $63 billion over 6 years, starting with
$8.5 billion in fiscal year 2011, to help our partners address
specific diseases and build strong sustainable health systems.
The administration has also pledged to invest at least $3.5
billion in food security over 3 years and this budget includes
a request for $1.6 billion, of which $1.2 billion is funded
through the State Department. This will focus on countries that
have developed effective, comprehensive strategies where
agriculture remains central to prosperity and hunger is
widespread.
On climate change, we've requested $646 million to promote
the United States as a leader in green technology and to
leverage other countries' cooperation, including through the
Copenhagen Accord, which for the first time brings developed
and developing countries together. This is part of the
administration's total request of $1.4 billion to support core
climate change activities in developing nations.
Our request also includes $4.2 billion for humanitarian
assistance. Our efforts in Haiti have made clear that State and
USAID must be able to respond quickly and effectively, but we
believe these initiatives will enhance American security and
they will help people in need and they will give the American
people a strong return on this investment.
Our aim is not to create dependency but, rather, to help
countries learn to fish, as the old Proverb tells it, and what
we want to do is focus on equality and opportunity for women
and girls because we know that is the key driver of economic
and social progress.
And then, finally, our third area of investment. None of
what we intend to do can be accomplished if we don't recruit,
train, and empower the right people for the job.
The State Department and USAID are full of talented and
committed public servants, but we have too often neglected to
give them the tools they need to carry out their missions on
the ground and rather than building our own expertise, we have
too often relied on contractors, sometimes with little
oversight and often at greater cost.
This budget will allow us to expand the Foreign Service by
over 600 positions, including an additional 410 for the State
Department and 200 for USAID. It will also allow us to staff
the standby element of the Civilian Reserve Corps which is a
crucial tool in our efforts to respond to crises.
Now while deploying these personnel generates new expenses
in some accounts, it will reduce costs by changing the way we
do business. As we are ending our over-reliance on contractors,
we're actually showing we can save money, plus bringing these
functions inside and improving oversight and accountability.
So, Mr. Chairman and ranking member and members, one thing
should be clear from this budget, the State Department and
USAID are taking a lead in carrying out the United States'
foreign policy and national security agenda.
As we finish the first-ever Quadrennial Diplomacy and
Development Review (QDDR), we have a unique opportunity to
define the capabilities we need and to match resources with
priorities. This budget aligns our investments with the
strategic imperatives of our time.
The QDDR will also help ensure we are more effective and
accountable. As I have reported to you before, filling the
first-ever Deputy Secretary of State for Management and
Resources with Jack Lew, a former OMB Director, has given us an
extra advantage in developing this budget and reviewing it to
make sure that every item is economical and effective.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Now at this time of change and challenge around the world,
we need to make these investments and I believe that this
subcommittee understands why. I look forward to your questions,
but even more so I look forward to working with you in
partnership in the months and years ahead.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hillary Rodham Clinton
Thank you very much, Chairman Leahy and Senator Gregg and members
of the subcommittee. It really is a pleasure to be back here in the
Senate and to be with all of you today. When I was last here to discuss
our budget, I emphasized my commitment to elevating diplomacy and
development as core pillars of American power. Since then, I have been
heartened by the bipartisan support of this committee and the rest of
Congress. And I want to take this opportunity to thank you, on behalf
of the men and women who work every day around the world at the State
Department and USAID who put our foreign policy into action. And I will
certainly convey the very kind words of both the Chairman and the
Ranking Member to them.
The budget we are presenting today is designed to protect America
and Americans and to advance our interests and values. Our fiscal year
2011 request for the State Department and USAID totals $52.8 billion.
That's a $4.9 billion increase over 2010. Of that increase, $3.6
billion will go to supporting efforts in ``frontline states''--
Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. Other funding will grow by $1.3
billion, and that is a 2.7 percent increase, and with that money we
will address global challenges, strengthen partnerships, and ensure
that the State Department and USAID are equipped with the right people,
the right technology, and the right resources.
Over the past 6 weeks in Haiti, I have been reminded again of the
importance of American leadership. I am very proud of what our country
has done. We will continue to work with our Haitian and international
partners to address ongoing suffering and transition from relief to
recovery.
I am also well aware that this is a time of great economic strain
for many Americans here at home. As a former Senator, I know what this
means for the people you represent. For every dollar we spend, we have
to show results. That is why this budget must support programs vital to
our national security, our national interests, and our leadership in
the world, while guarding against and rooting out waste, redundancy,
and irrelevancy. I believe this budget achieves those goals. These
figures are more than numbers on a page. They tell the story of the
challenges we face and the resources we need to overcome them.
We are fighting two wars that call on the skill and sacrifice of
our civilians as well as our dedicated military troops. We have pursued
a dual-track approach to Iran that has exposed its refusal to live up
to its responsibilities and helped us achieve a new unity with our
international partners. Iran has left the international community
little choice but to impose greater costs and pressure in the face of
its provocative steps. We are now working actively with our partners to
prepare and implement new measures to pressure Iran to change its
course.
We have achieved unprecedented unity in our response to North
Korea's provocative actions, even as we leave the door open for a
restart of the Six-Party Talks. And we are moving closer to a fresh
nuclear agreement with Russia--one that advances our security while
furthering President Obama's long-term vision of a world without
nuclear weapons.
With China, we are seeking areas of common purpose while standing
firm where we differ. We are making concrete our new beginning with the
Muslim world. We are strengthening partnerships with allies in Europe
and Asia, with our friends here in our hemisphere, with countries from
those that are rising and emerging powers to those who have challenges.
And we are working hard every day to end the impasse and the conflict
between Israelis and Palestinians.
At the same time, we are developing a new architecture of
cooperation to meet transnational global challenges like climate
change, the use of our planet's oceans, proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction, health problems--which, as the Chairman said, are no
respecter of boundaries. In so many instances, our national interest
and the common interest converge, and so from our hemisphere across the
world, we are promoting human rights, the rule of law, democracy,
Internet freedom; we are fighting poverty, hunger, and disease; and we
are working to ensure that economic growth is broadly and inclusively
shared.
Now, our agenda is ambitious, I admit that, but I think the times
demand it. America is called to lead--and we need the tools and
resources to exercise our leadership wisely and effectively. We can
bury our heads in the sand and pay the consequences later, or we can
make hard-nosed, targeted investments now--addressing the security
challenges of today while building a more lasting foundation for the
future.
Let me just highlight three areas where we are making significant
new investments.
First, the security of frontline states. In Afghanistan, this past
year, we have tripled the number of civilians on the ground, and this
presence will grow by hundreds more with the $5 billion in this budget.
Our diplomats and development experts are helping build institutions,
expand economic opportunities, and provide meaningful alternatives for
insurgents ready to renounce violence and al-Qaida and join their
fellow Afghans in the pursuit of peace.
In Pakistan, our request includes $3.2 billion to combat extremism,
promote economic development, strengthen democratic institutions, and
build a long-term relationship with the Pakistani people. This includes
funding of the Kerry-Lugar-Berman initiative. Our request also includes
a 59 percent increase in funding for Yemen, to help counter the
extremist threat and build institutions there as well.
In Iraq, we are winding down our military presence and establishing
a more normal civilian mission. Our civilian efforts will not and
cannot mirror the scale of the military presence, but they rather
should provide assistance consistent with the priorities of the Iraqi
Government and the United States. So our request includes $2.6 billion
for Iraq. These are resources that will allow us to support the
democratic process, ensure a smooth transition to civilian-led security
training and operational support. These funds will allow civilians to
take full responsibility for programs, and the Defense budget for Iraq
will be decreasing by about $16 billion--and that's a powerful
illustration of the return on civilian investment.
We are blessed, as we all in this room know, with the best troops
in the world, and we have seen time and time again in today's wars. But
we also need to give our civilian experts the resources to do the jobs
we're asking them to do. And this budget takes a step at the right
direction. It includes $100 million for a State Department complex
crisis fund--replacing the 1207 fund which the Defense Department used
to direct money toward crisis response. It also includes support for
the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund, which previously fell
under the Defense Department as well.
The second major area is investing in development. So we're making
targeted investments in fragile societies--which, in our interconnected
word, bear heavily on our own security and prosperity. These
investments are a key part of our effort to get ahead of crises rather
than just responding to them. The first of these is in health. Building
on our progress treating HIV, malaria, and tuberculosis, our Global
Health Initiative will invest $63 billion over 6 years, starting with
$8.5 billion in fiscal year 2011, to help our partners address specific
diseases and build strong, sustainable health systems. The
Administration has also pledged to invest at least $3.5 billion in food
security over 3 years, and this budget includes a request for $1.6
billion, of which $1.2 billion is funded through the State Department.
This will focus on countries that have developed effective,
comprehensive strategies, where agriculture remains central to
prosperity and hunger is widespread.
On climate change, we've requested $646 million to promote the
United States as a leader in green technology and to leverage other
countries' cooperation--including through the Copenhagen Accord, which
for the first time brings developed and developing countries together.
This is part of the Administration's total request of $1.4 billion to
support core climate change activities in developing nations.
Our request also includes $4.2 billion for humanitarian assistance.
Our efforts in Haiti have made clear that State and USAID must be able
to respond quickly and effectively.
But we believe these initiatives will enhance American security,
and they will help people in need, and they will give the American
people a strong return on this investment. Our aim is not to create
dependency, but rather to help countries learn to fish, as the old
proverb tells it. And what we want to do is focus on equality and
opportunity for women and girls, because we know that is the key driver
of economic and social progress.
And then finally, our third area of investment. None of what we
intend to do can be accomplished if we don't recruit, train, and
empower the right people for the job.
The State Department and USAID are full of talented and committed
public servants, but we have too often neglected to give them the tools
they need to carry out their missions on the ground. And rather than
building our own expertise, we have too often relied on contractors,
sometimes with little oversight and often at greater cost. This budget
will allow us to expand the Foreign Service by over 600 positions,
including an additional 410 for the State Department and 200 for USAID.
It will also allow us to staff the standby element of the Civilian
Reserve Corps, which is a crucial tool in our efforts to respond to
crises. Now, while deploying these personnel generates new expenses in
some accounts, it will reduce costs by changing the way we do business.
As we are ending our over-reliance on contractors, we're actually
showing we can save money, plus bringing these functions inside and
improving oversight and accountability.
So, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member and members, one thing should
be clear from this budget: The State Department and USAID are taking a
lead in carrying out the United States' foreign policy and national
security agenda. As we finish the first-ever Quadrennial Diplomacy and
Development Review, we have a unique opportunity to define the
capabilities we need and to match resources with priorities. This
budget aligns our investments with the strategic imperatives of our
time. The QDDR will also help ensure we are more effective and
accountable. As I have reported to you before, filling the first-ever
Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources with Jack Lew, a
former OMB director, has given us an extra advantage in developing this
budget and reviewing it to make sure that every item is economical and
effective.
Now, at this time of change and challenge around the world, we need
to make these investments. And I believe that this committee
understands why. I look forward to your questions.
But even more so, I look forward to working with you in partnership
in the months and years ahead.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
IRAN
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Let me first ask
you about a country that concerns all of us: Iran.
We know that the Iranian people have relied on the Internet
and satellites to get news, often of the outside world, but
sometimes even of what's going on in their own country.
The Iranian Government has spent millions of dollars to
block Internet and social media connections inside of Iran. To
me that's a sign of a regime that is afraid of its own people
and that wants to hide its actions from the rest of the world.
In an earlier time, oppressive regimes trapped their people
behind an Iron Curtain. The Iranian Government is trying to
muzzle its people behind an electronic curtain, and I'm
troubled by what they're doing, not just to their own people
but also stopping the programs of other countries.
You made a recent speech, which I thought was superb, at
the Newseum spelling out principles of global Internet freedom
for the benefit of people everywhere and that was well received
around the globe.
It appears that Iran has broken international agreements by
doing this, is that correct?
Secretary Clinton. Yes.
Senator Leahy. We have worked with the State Department and
others on this issue. Beginning in fiscal year 2008, we
provided funds to facilitate Internet communication by people
around the world in closed societies.
I noticed an article in the Washington Post on February 18
that mentioned the National Security Council discouraged the
Broadcasting Board of Governors, the Board that oversees the
Voice of America (VOA) and other U.S. international
broadcasters, from signing a statement with the BBC and
Deutsche Welle denouncing Iranian jamming of their broadcasts.
In the end, VOA ended up signing that statement.
Is there disagreement in the administration of the need to
strongly protest internationally this violation of
international agreements by Iran?
Secretary Clinton. Mr. Chairman, there is no disagreement.
As I said in my Internet Freedom speech, the development of new
tools that enables citizens to exercise their rights of free
expression and virtual assembly, because I think it's rooted in
both, needs to be protected and advanced, and we need these new
tools, particularly in Iran but not only in Iran.
So the State Department is looking very closely at what
more we can do to try to work with the private sector in
partnership to unblock the Internet, to get information
flowing, to speak out against the kinds of abuses that we see
going on out of Internet.
We are providing funds to groups around the world to make
sure that these new tools get to the people who need them. We
are--we have been assisting in those areas for some time and
thanks to this subcommittee, which has helped to pioneer the
funding for these efforts, but there's so much more that we can
and should do and inside the State Department, I've created a
group of young tech-savvy diplomats.
We're doing what we call ``21st Century Statecraft'' and
they are working, again as I say, with the private sector, this
is not all just American government efforts, in order to be
able to unjam and circumvent with our technologies the kind of
blockades that the Iranians are using.
There's still a lot to be done and I think that the
discussion inside the administration is what are the most
effective ways of doing it. Some of the technology, for
example, that we would very much like to see used to unblock
Iran is very valuable technology. We have to be careful about
how it is utilized so it doesn't get into the wrong hands.
Senator Leahy. Sure.
Secretary Clinton. We're focused on this, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Leahy. But we also have to be working, I would
assume, with other countries if there's a violation of a
bilateral agreement.
I've heard that some of their blocking efforts not only
block satellite transmission into neighboring countries but in
one instance as far away as Italy.
Secretary Clinton. Well, when they bring down the cellphone
networks, that has broad ramifications.
Senator Leahy. The satellite is not just Voice of America.
I know we've tried to tighten bilateral sanctions against Iran,
targeting the Revolutionary Guard. We're seeking the support of
Russia, China, and other countries for U.N. sanctions.
Are there other things we should be doing? I know the House
and Senate have passed legislation imposing sanctions on
petroleum companies that do business with Iran. What about
that?
Secretary Clinton. Well, Mr. Chairman, we support the
purpose and the principles of the bills, both the bill in the
House and the sanctions bill that recently was passed by
unanimous consent here in the Senate.
We want to have as strong a partnership with the Congress
as possible. We need to enlist every possible tool that we can
bring to bear on this, and we look forward to working with the
Congress. What we're hoping for is that whatever sanctions
emerge from the conference committee have some flexibility that
will support our ongoing efforts because you rightly pointed
out, we are working very hard with our partners in the Security
Council.
We've already made it clear that we stand ready to do both
unilateral and multilateral sanctions on top of whatever comes
out of the Security Council, but while we're in the midst of
these negotiations, it would be very useful for us to be in
close consultation with the Congress so that whatever is done
here supplements and supports what we're trying to get done in
the Security Council.
ECONOMIC SUPPORT FUNDS
Senator Leahy. Let us follow up on that in another
discussion. The administration has requested increases in
Economic Support Fund assistance for Afghanistan, Pakistan, and
Iraq. I worry about the billions that were wasted in the years
past because there seemed to be an emphasis on burn rates more
than on results. I think you and I should discuss that more as
we go forward with the bill.
TRAVEL TO CUBA
I will also be talking to you about a group of Vermont high
school students who wanted to travel to Cuba to set up a sister
school relationship with Cuban students. After doing their own
research, and getting ready for the trip, they ran into U.S.
travel restrictions.
It seems so beneath a nation as powerful as ours to tell
kids they can't go back and forth and talk to students in Cuba.
They can go to Russia, they can go to China, they can go
everywhere else. Then there's Cuba. It makes no sense. You
don't have to answer, but we'll talk further about that.
Senator Gregg.
Secretary Clinton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
JORDAN
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, one of our
closest allies in the Middle East is Jordan and they've really
borne the brunt of a lot of our policies in the forms of cost
of refugees and border security issues. They requested $300
billion additional assistance in the supplemental.
I was wondering if the administration supports this
request.
Secretary Clinton. Well, Senator Gregg, as you know, Jordan
is a stalwart ally and their work with us over the years has
been extraordinarily helpful.
We, in this budget, hit the targets that were set in the
memorandum of understanding that we--we certainly abide by
which gives us about over $600 million. The supplemental amount
is something that we are considering and looking at.
Obviously in this time of real budget constraints, it's--
it's a challenge, but we know how much Jordan has done. We just
have to try to see whether it's--it's doable within the
confines of the budget.
Senator Gregg. Well, considering what we're spending in
Iraq and Afghanistan, Pakistan, it would seem to me to be
dollars well spent and probably have a much better impact in
the area of stabilization in the region.
Let me ask you two specific areas that I'd be interested in
getting your thoughts on because they appear to be energizers
of most of our problems.
The first is the issue of where you think the Palestinian
issue is going and where you think Israel is going in
relationship to Palestine, and, second, the issue of the India-
Pakistan relationship and what we're doing to try to create
some comity there so that we can take advantage of our
friendships or participate with the friendships in both
countries.
Secretary Clinton. Well, Senator Gregg, those are two
issues that we spent a lot of time working on.
MIDDLE EAST
First, with respect to the Palestinians, there are really
two aspects of our engagement with the Palestinian Authority.
The first is our continuing effort under the leadership of
former Senator Mitchell for the Israelis and the Palestinians
to resume negotiations.
We hope that that will commence shortly. We think it's
absolutely essential that they begin to talk about the final
status issues that divide them, that have perpetuated the
conflict over all of these years, but we're well aware of the
difficulties that confront us on this.
At the same time, we continue to work with the Palestinian
Authority to support their efforts to build their capacity,
particularly in security. General Dayton has done a superb job
working with Prime Minister Fayed in creating a Palestinian
Security Force that is respected by the Israelis, that
demonstrates a capacity to perform under difficult
circumstances.
We have encouraged other countries to provide funding
directly to the Palestinian Authority so that they can help
build their judicial system, their prosecutorial system, their
corrections system. It's not enough just to have a good
security force, you've got to have the rest of the law
enforcement, judicial apparatus functioning, and we're getting
support to do that given directly to the Palestinian Authority.
So on both of those tracks, there are certainly challenges
ahead, particularly on the first, the political negotiation
track, but the progress that is being made on the second track
actually increases the leverage and the credibility of the
Palestinians in negotiations with the Israelis.
INDIA AND PAKISTAN
Second, with respect to India and Pakistan, we've
encouraged the resumption of the direct talks which were
suspended when President Musharraf left office. Those talks
between President Musharraf and Prime Minister Singh had
actually been quite productive, particularly in producing
results on the ground in Kashmir, but they've been in abeyance
now for I think slightly more than 2 years.
So we've encouraged both countries to begin a dialogue.
They are going to be doing so. There will be a meeting within
days, as I recall the date, and we are sensitive to the
concerns that they each have that it's--it's their issues that
they have to address, but we continue to raise it and make the
case to each separately as to why it's in their mutual
interests to proceed.
What's going on in Pakistan right now is very significant.
The increasing efforts by the Pakistani Military and
Intelligence Services to capture Taliban leaders, which they've
done, to work with the United States, both on the civilian and
the military side, better to assist in what they're doing to
reclaim territory from Swat to North Waziristan.
We're trying to create a new relationship with Pakistan
that is of longer duration and--and making the Pakistanis know
that we're in it for the long term.
With India, we've had a very successful start to this
administration building on, frankly, the success and the
investment of the prior two administrations in working with
India, creating more opportunities for investment, more
relationship-building between our two governments.
So I think that in these two areas, which are two of the
most significant areas for America's long-term security, we are
working very hard and, you know, trying to make even, you know,
very small but significant progress in any way we can.
SYRIA
Senator Gregg. Thank you. I noticed we just appointed an
Ambassador to Syria. There has been some slight opening, very
slight opening of dialogue there.
Can you tell us where you see that going?
Secretary Clinton. Senator, we have. We decided to return
an Ambassador. We've been without one since 2005. We have a
very experienced diplomat, Robert Ford, who has served in Iraq
as the political director, is fluent in Arabic, lots of
experience in the region.
I agree with your characterization that there's a slight, a
slight opening for us to build on. We've had high-level visits,
highly ranking Members of Congress have also gone to Syria in
the last year, but there are a lot of issues between our
Government and the Syrian Government, and we've been absolutely
clear about those issues.
Just recently Under Secretary Bill Byrnes had very intense
substantive talks in Damascus and we have laid out for the
Syrians the need for greater cooperation with respect to Iraq,
the end to interference in Lebanon, and the transport or
provision of weapons to Hezbollah, a resumption of the Israeli-
Syrian track on the peace process which had been proceeding
through the auspices of the Turks the last years, and generally
to begin to move away from the relationship with Iran which is
so deeply troubling to the region as well as to the United
States.
There are many specifics under each of those big ticket
items that we have discussed with the Syrians and, you know, we
are going to resume ambassadorial level representation, but
these issues have to be addressed continually.
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
Senator Leahy. Thank you. Senator Mikulski.
Senator Mikulski. Madam Secretary, it's so great to welcome
you back to the Senate. We miss you, and we know today you've
really presented an appropriations request representing your
role as the CEO of the State Department as well as America's
top diplomat.
Reading the budget, I see where the President, with your
advice and to us, meets compelling human need around the world.
It's in our strategic interest. It re-establishes relationships
with treasured allies, and I know I speak in a heartfelt way
that the focus on women and girls in development.
Also, I note the--your desire to reinvigorate and re-
establish the professionalism that once was the hallmark of
AID. So we appreciate that.
IRAN
Let me get right to my questions. One--one, I want to
associate myself with the remarks of Senator Leahy about Iran
and we would hope to discuss after this hearing how we could
follow up on that close alignment, but do you--I'm concerned
that there is a lack of intensity in the international arena as
we push or advocate for sanctions.
My concern is that Russia and China are slow walking us.
You might or might not want to comment on that, but is it your
view and the administration's view that we'll move with our own
sanctions after the international community acts or are we not
going to wait for them or is that yet to be determined?
Secretary Clinton. Thank you, Senator, and thank you for
your encouragement and support of our initiatives, particularly
around women and girls. I--I appreciate that very much.
With respect to Iran, I feel the intensity of our efforts
very personally because I have been out there engaged in
bilateral and multilateral diplomacy with countries that we are
moving toward an acceptance of the need for greater pressure on
Iran.
You know, when President Obama came to office, he very
clearly, and I think correctly, laid out what we needed to do.
He said, look, we'll extend our hand, but you have to unclench
your fist, and from the very beginning he said we will have a
two-track process. We will engage, but it's a two-way street.
There has to be something coming back and we will pursue
pressure and sanctions in order to change behavior and to send
as clear an international signal as possible that Iran's
pursuit of nuclear weapons will not be allowed.
Now, I believe that because of the President's policy of
engagement, we are in a much stronger position today than we
would have been in the absence of all of our efforts. We have
kept the so-called P5+1, which is the United Kingdom, France,
Germany, China, Russia, and us, united until now. We have
issued very strong statements, with both Russia and China
signing on, endorsing this dual track approach.
We have demonstrated to countries that are somewhat
ambivalent, to say the least, about going against Iran what it
is we are trying to achieve and pointing out the problems that
Iran poses to them.
So just in the last, you know, month, I've attended a
London conference on Afghanistan and Pakistan but spent an
enormous amount of time in bilateral negotiations with all of
the major parties about Iran. I went to Saudi Arabia and Qatar
last week. I'm on my way to Latin America next week, and Iran
is at the top of my agenda, and in the Security Council our
negotiations are very intensely under way.
There's been an enormous amount of work done by the
Treasury Department and the State Department to design
sanctions that will be aimed at the Revolutionary Guard. I
think we've made tremendous progress with Russia and I believe
it is due to the President's engagement with Medvedev and our
very clear, consistent message over this past year about the
way we see Iran which the Russians now are endorsing.
With China, because of their dependence on Iranian oil, our
arguments to them are somewhat different, that because of their
dependence, they, above all, should be supporting a sanctions
pressure track because an arms race in the gulf that would
further destabilize the major oil producers is not in China's
interests and I think we've made a lot of progress.
Now we don't come out and do a press conference every time
we have these meetings, but I have seen over the past year the
attitudes about Iran evolve. So even countries that are still
not sure they want to sign up to sanctions, they're not sure
they want to oppose them, they now understand why the United
States views Iran's behavior as a threat.
And, finally, Senator, I want us to work in tandem as a
United States Government. The administration and the Congress
together focused on what are the smartest, toughest sanctions
that can be legislated that will assist our efforts because we
want to make sure that we don't send wrong messages before we
get everybody signed up to whatever we can achieve
internationally.
Senator Mikulski. Well, thank you very much, Madam
Secretary. It's very clear we appreciate your personal hands-on
robust involvement in moving this agenda forward and we salute
you for identifying the risk of a lackluster response to Iran
that would not only endanger our security, treasured allies',
but also the rest of the world. So we thank you for that.
We also want to thank you for your speech on China and the
cyber world. Senator Bond and I are on the Intelligence
Committee. I'm on a task force on the--on the cyber terrorism
issue. We want to work--today, this is not the environment to
have this conversation. A more classified one would be
appropriate.
But I believe that cyber terrorism, cyber intrusion is
really one of the biggest threats facing the United States and
the free world. If the terrorists can attack and steal our
ideas or place our critical assets into jeopardy, it is--has
the potency that I believe is far more dangerous than even
nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. So that's a
topic for other discussion.
HAITI
But I'd like to just shift in my time left to a compassion
issue which is Haiti. We really want to salute the
administration and work with the Congress on our response to
Haiti as well as President Bill Clinton's Global Initiative.
I worry about compassion fatigue, not of our country but of
allies, and I wonder how you see that and, number 2, what do
you see are the future sustained efforts?
I represent a substantial number of NGOs that are
headquartered in Maryland, like Catholic Relief, and then
there's another issue that I'd like you to consider and follow
up with your staff. That is the issue of amputees.
Secretary Clinton. Yes.
Senator Mikulski. In all of the terrible tragedy, so much
of the population has suffered amputation. My colleague,
Senator Leahy, has been one of the leaders. I had the great
honor of being with him in Mozambique where he had created a
low-tech but highly effective industry where people who had
been victims of land mines, children, adults, the elderly, and
I saw where they could make their own products that could help
them sustain themselves in a very rugged environment.
I was so proud of what Senator Leahy did, and I really
bring this to the attention that Senator Leahy, with his
leadership as the Chair, your work in Haiti, that we take
special attention to that.
I've reached out to the Bloomberg School of Public Health.
I have a list of people who've done this around the world where
there are models and lessons learned, but again it was the
Leahy leadership in Africa and your work here because what I
fear is, after the TV cameras leave and we want to go rebuild a
country that's 80 percent agriculture, they won't be able to do
the work and also could that also be another source of
employment right there in country.
So you might not have the answer today, but I'd like to lay
that out as a policy direction that perhaps we could pursue.
Secretary Clinton. Could I take a little time, Mr.
Chairman, to respond because this is----
Senator Leahy. Sure.
Secretary Clinton. I was smiling because I had a meeting--
--
Senator Leahy. I should note that the Secretary, when she
was in----
Senator Mikulski. Are you all aware of this?
Senator Leahy [continuing]. The Senator supported me on
every one of these efforts to help with amputees----
Senator Mikulski. Well, he's been the leader.
Senator Leahy [continuing]. As has the Senator from
Maryland.
Secretary Clinton. Well, I was meeting with Dr. Roj Shah,
our new USAID Administrator, telling him about this work that
Senator Leahy has led and that so many of us supported for
exactly the reasons that you're pointing out, Senator Mikulski.
The amputation issue is going to be one we have to address.
We're trying to put together a plan now and I would like to
come back to all of you who are concerned about this to make
sure that you know what we're doing, that we have all the
information you have at your fingertips, the experience that
resides here on this subcommittee, and that we have adequate
funding to address it because I think that is a wonderful
compassion initiative for the United States.
But to your other point, Senator, I am very heartened by
what I see happening in the international community. Every
single country in the Western Hemisphere has contributed
something to Haiti and they have made a collective commitment
of money, plus individual countries, like Brazil and Mexico,
that have more capacity, but even poor countries, like
Guatemala. The Dominican Republic has been extraordinary in
what it has done for its neighbor.
We're having a conference that is co-hosted by the United
States, the United Nations, and major donor countries at the
United Nations on March 31 to really nail down these
commitments.
The United States is working very closely with the Haitian
Government to stand up a development authority that will be
supported to fulfill the reconstruction and recovery work now
that the relief phase is ending.
But I think this is an opportunity for us. Our military
performed admirably and just completely eliminated any of those
old canards about the United States military in our hemisphere.
We had a very robust public diplomacy effort.
Under Secretary Judith McHale, whom you know, drove this
and we basically looked at every press coverage in the world
about what we were doing in Haiti. If there was a story that
was inaccurate or unfair, we immediately responded and the net
result is that I think the United States is seen as the leader
that we have been in doing this work.
Senator Mikulski. Well, that's fantastic. My time is up. I
have--I have a constituent who's in a Burmese prison and I'd
like to talk to you. Your staff has been great, but I'd like to
talk with you about more, perhaps other avenues for his
release.
Secretary Clinton. Good.
Senator Leahy. And the Secretary's been wonderful in being
accessible to us. I want to make sure everybody gets a chance
before she has to leave.
Senator Bond has been one of the hardest-working members of
this subcommittee. I want to make sure he gets a chance to be
heard.
Senator Bond. Mr. Chairman and I join with you and Senator
Gregg in issuing a very warm welcome to the Secretary back to
the Senate and I certainly join them in applauding your
leadership at the State Department.
I personally am delighted with your active support of the
concept of smart power, particularly in nations where we see
the threat of extremist violent terrorism in Islamic lands
threatening not only their people, our interests, their
neighbors, but the United States, and smart power, through the
use of diplomatic efforts, personal visits, economic
cooperation, two-way trade, investment, and educational
exchanges can work.
But one of the things that I have seen as I've traveled
around the world is the great need for more of your personnel
on the ground and I join with Senator Gregg in supporting--and
the chairman--in supporting your budget to rebuild our civilian
foreign assistance capacity. That's very important.
ASSISTANCE TO INDONESIA
As you may know, as you know, I'm interested in Southeast
Asia which the 10 nations comprise our fifth largest two-way
trading partner, equal--exports equal almost what we send to
China, and the keystone of that whole area is Indonesia.
I thank you for recognizing Indonesia's importance. One of
your first official visits was ensuring that the President can
go there. No better--no better example of our friendship, and I
just visited with President Yudhoyono last month who was
interested in far more United States investment and
participation.
And I guess the first question is does the administration
support any conditionality at all on the foreign military
assistance, foreign aid and foreign assistance to Indonesia?
Secretary Clinton. Senator, thank you for those--those
comments, and as you know, President Obama will be going to
Indonesia----
Senator Bond. Right.
Secretary Clinton [continuing]. In March with his family,
and we have been working hard with the Indonesian Government to
be able to be in a position where we can resume support for
vital security functions and we are looking at ensuring that
the Indonesian democracy that has taken hold there will make
sure that there's no resumption of any human rights abuses or
other kinds of behaviors that we, you know, deplore.
This is an area where Chairman Leahy has been a real
leader. We hope to be able to come before the President's trip
and brief you on how we would like to be able to move into a
new era of cooperation because the Indonesians have been very
helpful to us on counterterrorism. I think a lot of what
they've done in their own--in dealing with their own threats
has really been first, you know, first-rate in the sense of the
results that they've gotten, but we just have to make sure that
we're complying with all the legislative criteria and we think
we can do that.
Senator Bond. Well, Madam--Madam Secretary, I believe
there's a new era. It's been totally changed.
Secretary Clinton. I do.
Senator Bond. President Yudhoyono has reformed the
military, a former general. He stepped out of the military.
He's working to establish--and we need much stronger
cooperation to make sure the military leaders understand that
they are under civilian rule. We need to fight corruption and--
and ensure continued support. They need our active support
militarily but they need the support of private businesses and
I--as I've visited those countries, I find that American
business people abroad are penalized, facing double taxation.
I visited Thailand. The American Chamber of Commerce, there
is probably one of the best public diplomacy outreaches we
have. They have adopted school programs. They're constructing
playgrounds, libraries, water tanks, water filtration, helping
children with dental deformities, but the problem is that our
system of taxation penalizes the CEOs, so all the American
companies that could be leading for America have to be
Australians, Brits, or Kiwis because of our extra-territorial
taxation.
I just--I know that's a sensitive subject. I've been
fighting it, but what's your view of the role that private
American businesses' investment and participation in developing
countries can do to strengthen our relationship?
Secretary Clinton. Well, I believe very strongly that
American business is critical to American interests and
American security and prosperity.
I met this morning with two of our leading company CEOs,
Indra Nooyi from Pepsico and Jeff Immelt from GE, talking about
how the State Department and our commercial diplomacy efforts
need to be more in support of what American businesses are
doing because the competition is so rough.
Senator Bond. Right. And we--if we--with the double
taxation, the punitive taxation, we penalize them putting
American CEOs in--in charge of it.
AFGHANISTAN
I have lots more questions, but on--I want to turn to
Afghanistan. My staff met with Joann Herring, who's founded the
Marshall Fund Charities and during Charlie Wilson's Days in the
1980s, she was working to help the people of Afghanistan. She
has some views on a comprehensive approach to reconstruction
and development bringing NGOs together, and I would ask, number
1, that you at least give a hearing to them. They would like
USAID dollars. I hope you'll consider that.
AGRICULTURE
Also, I hope that you will--that the additional funds for
USAID will help them take agricultural experts. For 2 years,
this subcommittee supported me in putting $5 million in the
budget to send agriculture extension agents several years ago
to Afghanistan. They never got one there. The Missouri National
Guard has the Agricultural Development Team which is making a
tremendous difference in Nangahar Province.
I hope that there can be continued cooperation and
providing military--military-civilian support for improving
agriculture, teaching them not only to fish but to grow crops.
Secretary Clinton. Well, Senator, again, I mean, you are
singing my song here because we are absolutely committed to
agricultural exports.
I don't know if this subcommittee has gotten a copy of the
Afghanistan and Pakistan Regional Stabilization Strategy. If
not, we will get copies to you. But in the section on
Rebuilding Afghanistan's Agricultural Sector, just a few
highlights. Eight-ninety agricultural experts, 64 from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA), 25 from USAID, on the ground
in Afghanistan, working in the south and the east sectors with
our PRTs, our district support teams.
We've got USAID issuing vouchers to farmers in 18
provinces, particularly in Helmand and Kandahar, for inputs
offering, you know, better fruits, assistance with irrigation
and the like, and, finally, we're doing a high-impact
irrigation initiative because all of our agricultural experts
have told us that's key.
But there's a lot more, Senator, that I would like you to
know about because you have been right about this for years and
I think finally we're getting around to implementing it and we
are looking for assistance from land grant colleges and asking,
as well, that as we embed our civilians in with our military,
which is how we're getting into these combat or post-combat
zones, that we have the support that is needed to be able to
get out there and deliver these services to farmers and we're
doing that.
Senator Bond. I look forward to talking with the
appropriate staffers on your team about that because there's
much that we can.
Thank you.
Secretary Clinton. Thank you.
Senator Leahy. Thank you very much. Senator Landrieu.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome,
Madam Secretary. It's wonderful to see you back, and let me
just begin by thanking you for the very admirable way that you
have represented our country. Many of us are extremely proud. I
know it's a very, very difficult job that you have and you do
it very well on our behalf.
I also want to follow up with what Senator Bond said, that
I specifically appreciate your partnership with Secretary Gates
to marry the hard power of our military with the smart power of
our diplomacy over the long run. I believe that is going to pay
huge dividends and it's been missing in the last several years
and you have really filled the bill there.
I also want to acknowledge, as Senator Mikulski said, thank
you for always putting women in the forefront of this debate
because, as you know, women can be the drivers of economic
growth and social stability around the world. They're often
left out at our peril because no plans really work without them
being at the table and I think often they're left out, but with
your leadership, they have not been.
ORPHANS
In one particular area, Madam Secretary, I wanted to ask
you some questions about something you and I have worked on for
many years together and that is the rights of the world's
children, particularly orphans. This has been in the news from
day one in Haiti, but it really should be news all over the
world because conservative estimates have about the number
pegged at somewhere about a 163 million orphans. We don't know
the real number. We know that there are some issues with those
definitions. UNICEF's definition is a little bit different than
other definitions.
But my point is this or my question is this. Senator Inhofe
and I and other members in a bipartisan way have introduced a
bill called The Families for Orphans Act which is pending
before the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate now. This
bill would establish in the State Department an opportunity to
focus on the plight of orphans and to promote the simple but
profound concept that children belong in families. They don't
belong in institutions. They can't raise themselves on the
streets. If we want to stop trafficking, if we want to stop
exploitation of children, prostitution of children, the best
thing to do would be to put them under the watchful eye and
care of a family. So that's what our bill attempts to do.
Could you give us your views about our efforts there, if
you're familiar with the specific aspects of this bill, please
comment, but what are your general views about what we could do
to focus our efforts and the world's efforts to really connect
orphans to families that need them or children that need
families?
Secretary Clinton. Well, Senator, let me start by
acknowledging and thanking you for your passion about this. You
and I have both worked together on this and talked over many
years about it, but you've been the leader. You have really
demonstrated a heartfelt commitment to the world's children in
so many different aspects.
I share that commitment and I am looking for the best way
forward, how we can realize the positive results that we both
see, because I share your conviction that, you know, the best
place for a child is in a family and it may not be a family
with a mother and a father, it might be grandparents, it might
be older siblings, it might be aunts or uncles or even in some
societies extended families, and so there are three areas that
I think we have to focus on.
One, there is in many parts of the world no capacity for
absorbing orphans and no real sense of adoption or fostering in
any organized institutional way. So I think we need to up our
outreach to provide education, technical capacity, to help
countries because in some countries adoption is really against
the culture and so if they're not some blood connection, the
child has nowhere to go, and I think there's a slow change in
this but we have to do more in a public diplomacy outreach way
and I'd like to work with you on that.
Second, in times of crisis, we have to have our systems in
place, we certainly saw that in Haiti, because there's a lot of
misunderstanding, there's confusion in any disaster. So we're
working on kind of a lessons learned from--from disasters, from
conflict situations about what more can be done, and we need
high-level advocacy.
We have a Children's Office in the State Department. It
would be, you know, my preference that we sort of build that up
because I want it embedded. I don't want it to be--I don't want
this to be an add-on. I want it to be permeate what I'm trying
to do with women, is to permeate the Department so that women
are part of the policy. If you're serving in Europe or Africa
are part of the policy. If you're doing outreach in Angola, we
are just going to try to permeate.
I want the same attitude about children. So we need--we
need better education, more technical capacity, more direction
and support, and I'd like to work with you to make sure that
what we're doing will actually have the results that we both
seek.
Senator Landrieu. And I appreciate that, and I thank you
for pointing out that in many countries of the world there
isn't the same urgency or appreciation for the strength of
families that exists in America, but just because people can't
appreciate that doesn't necessarily mean that it's not the
right thing and I appreciate your commitment.
One figure that I want to throw out today because these
figures are hard to come by and some people throw up their
hands and say the problem is overwhelming, we can't address it,
but I want to leave you with these numbers. If you just took 50
percent of the estimated orphans, Senator, Secretary Clinton,
that would be roughly 70 million children.
There are 2.5 billion families in the world. So if only
2\1/2\ percent of families in the world, only 2\1/2\ percent
opened up their homes and their hearts, there would be no
orphans left in the world. So while these numbers seem
overwhelming, when you put them in perspective to how many
parents would adopt, how many families want to open up their
homes, how many churches, synagogues and mosques are willing to
step up, it's just the government enterprises have to get
themselves better organized.
So I know you're a great leader in this area. I look
forward to working with you, and I know that your position is
generally against institutional care and for care in families.
So thank you very much and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
your leadership on this issue, as well.
Senator Leahy. Thank you very much, Senator. We all know
the amount of time and effort you have spent on this issue and
I applaud you for it.
Senator Voinovich.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam
Secretary, I've got three areas that I'm going to mention and
I'm hopeful that you'll be able to respond to at least one of
them and if we don't get a second round, Mr. Chairman, I would
hope that the people that are here would respond to them to me
in writing.
First of all, I want to congratulate you on putting
together a great team. I don't know of any Secretary of State
that's had more on their plate than you have and I do
understand that you can't do it alone.
I also applaud the fact that you have created two Deputy
Secretaries, one for management and one for policy. As you
know, I've been critical of the former administration because
they didn't pay enough attention to management.
I want to tell you that the most important--one of the most
important things you've done for your people is the issue of
location pay----
Secretary Clinton. Yes.
Senator Voinovich [continuing]. And I hope that that is
reflected in this budget. The Foreign Relations Committee
hasn't yet set out their vision, I guess, for the next 5 years,
but that's important.
Second of all, I'd like to say that where the Visa Waiver
Program has worked, they have less work than they had before
because of that program.
And last but not least, the Embassies. I visited a couple
of countries and they're really pleased with those Embassies
and I think it's important to the countries because it
indicates to them that the United States is really interested
in them and their future.
ASSISTANCE FOR EUROPE, EASTERN EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA
Last week I was in Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Macedonia,
Kosovo, and Serbia with Senator Shaheen, and I know you're
focused on Iraq and Iran and Afghanistan, but probably more
than maybe some other Secretary of State, I know that you're
interested in that region. We have spent a lot of time, a lot
of money, and I'm concerned that if we don't pay attention to
it, all of the progress that we have made may be--may be for
naught.
The good news, when I visited these countries, they didn't
mention the FMA or IMET, but what they did mention was the
State partnership that they have with our states. This wasn't
in this trip but when I was in Latvia the last time, the
Latvian group going to Afghanistan had the Michigan National
Guard serving under it and I know that the Ohio Guard is doing
a fantastic job in Serbia today. Just to hear their Defense
Minister talk about that partnership, it just gives me goose
bumps.
Second of all, you know that their budgets are not very
good. They've got the same problems we have, but they're
helping us, many of them, in Afghanistan and Kosovo, and they
care about the regions.
It's interesting. Each of these countries, you know,
they're concerned about themselves, but they realize they have
a symbiotic relationship with the other countries that--that
are there and their vision is my vision, that they all get in
the European Union (EU), they become part of the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO), and then become part of the
EuroAtlantic Alliance, and a couple of things they're concerned
about.
One is EU membership. They know that there's fatigue today
in the European Union and many of them were using it as an
incentive to get them to do some things they wanted to do but
they're afraid that they'll never in the European Union.
Most of them were concerned about Bosnia. Put in a
nutshell, the Butmir Process has not worked. No progress will
be made on that, they think, and this is the consensus, till
after the election, but what they're worried about is that in
the election, they'll poison the well so that after the
election, the issue of changing the Constitution to give it
more flexibility is not going to occur and they argue
strenuously for Bosnia getting into the European Visa Waiver
Program and they also think it's very important that some
indication of their getting IPMAP is--is--or MAP is going to--
is going to happen.
And their concern is that Dodik right now and his
president, one of the three presidents is in favor of--of NATO
membership, but after the election, they think possibly this
thing would just blow up and then we'll have a black hole there
in that part of the world.
In addition to that, they're all concerned about Kosovo
because you know the court's going to decide one way or the
other on Kosovo and when I talked with Prime Minister Thaci, I
said, ``You ought to be thinking about what's going to happen
here,'' and I talked to the Serbs. ``You've got to think about
what's going to happen on the ground,'' and I think it's real
important that the State Department encourage them to do that.
AFGHANISTAN
The last part of this deals with--with Afghanistan. I had--
I was honored that Holbrook spent a couple hours. I went over
there and spent--I was absolutely impressed with what they're
doing, but I don't think that we have been candid enough with
the American people about the commitment that we're going to
have to make in Afghanistan if we intend to be successful.
Now you've mentioned some of the things that you're doing,
but this is not going to be next year or the year after. This
is maybe 5 to 10 years. It could even be more than that if
we're going to create an environment where the Taliban, who--
you know, it's with them, you know, it's Alakbat, okay. That's
what you're dealing with and so you're going to have to really
do a lot of work there to counter that and get people to feel
good about it and you're also going to have to make--and you
should level with the American people. Okay?
The last time around, if you remember, we were there is
that we did not level with the American people about the
commitment that we're going to have to make. We're just kind
of--and we need to put it out. This is a commitment we're going
to have to make. The Europeans, by the way, also want to know
about the commitment in terms of military and in terms of
their--what do you call them--P----
Secretary Clinton. PRTs.
Senator Voinovich. PRTs, and I congratulate you on getting
them all together. They don't feel like we're just telling them
what to do. There's a consensus and you've got to keep doing
it, but I think it's really important that--that we level with
the American people and the world about what kind of commitment
we're going to have to make to be successful in Afghanistan.
And last but not least, I'm concerned about whether
Karzai's going to do his thing and if you recall in terms of
Iraq, we laid out a whole list of things they promised to do
and then we used metrics to see whether or not they did them or
not, and I would think that, rather than having it come from
Congress, that you'd give some serious consideration to saying
here's what they did, we're going to monitor their progress so
that you can keep us informed and the American people that
they're doing what they're supposed to do because if they don't
do what they're supposed to do, we're in--we're in big trouble.
ASSISTANCE FOR EUROPE, EASTERN EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA
Secretary Clinton. Well, Senator, I don't think there's a
thing you said that I disagree with and I thank you for your
interest and focus on southern Europe.
We are very concerned, as well, about the direction we see
Bosnia heading. We need to have more attention paid. We need to
partner with the Europeans so that they are committed. We are
obviously a strong supporter of the countries in southern
Europe going into the EU. We think it has a lot of benefits for
the countries but also the broader effort for integration in
Europe and the TransAtlantic Alliance. But we also think, with
respect to NATO, that we have to make clear what it would take
to get MAP and then move Bosnia forward.
I think, you know, Senator, that your attention to these
issues is something that I'd like to take more advantage of
because you have been consistently concerned and involved. I
share your wariness about what happens after the court decision
in Kosovo and I think I'd like to follow up with you to make
sure that we convey to our Serbian friends and our Kosovar
friends that this has to be managed in the right way.
AFGHANISTAN
And, finally on Afghanistan, I agree that we have to be as
candid as possible. We can't lay down a clear path forward and
say this is the way it's exactly going to be, but we can
certainly set the general direction and we have said
consistently that our, you know, our goal is to transition
military security to the Afghans and we've seen some real
progress under General McChrystal and General Caldwell in
improvements in Afghan security, both Army and police
recruitment and retention and performance, but we are going to
have a long-term civilian relationship and we think we need
that. We think that's going to be in America's interests, and I
agree with you that we need to make that as clear as we can,
and we want also to use the metrics that we've developed that I
would hope have been shared with you, but if not, we will, as
to how we're going to try to hold the Karzai Government
accountable.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
Senator Leahy. Senator Specter.
Senator Specter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary,
thank you for taking on the job and the hard work and
successful work you're doing. We miss you in the Senate but we
like to see you where you are.
SYRIA
Thank you for the call from your Deputy Bill Burns about
his trip to Syria.
The question on my mind that I alerted him to this
yesterday as to whether the stalemate might be broken between
Syria and Israel on negotiations if the President were to
invite them to the Oval Office.
Back in 1995, Senator Hank Brown and I were in India and
Prime Minister Rao brought up the subject of his interest in
having the subcontinent nuclear-free and asked us to convey
that message to Prime Minister Bhutto whom we saw the next day
and we made a recommendation to President Clinton to consider
calling them in.
I had recalled the tremendous success that President
Clinton had with Yassir Arafat and Shimon Peres and Rabin that
memorable day on the White House Lawn.
Would you give consideration to that process? I have gotten
to know the Assads, both the father and the current president,
and I think the right nudge could push them to the table. We
came very close in 1995, came very close in 2000. The Turks
have been in the process of mediating, but would you consider
that?
Secretary Clinton. Well, Senator, I certainly will look at
anything that might break the stalemate. I'm not sure that that
would be acceptable or doable to all of the parties involved,
but certainly our goal is to help facilitate a resumption of
talks between Israel and Syria. We think it's absolutely
necessary for Israel's security and future to try to move the
whole region toward a more peaceful state. So we'll certainly
take--take any idea you have under consideration because you
have been--I don't know how many times you've been to Syria by
now.
Senator Specter. Eighteen.
Secretary Clinton. Eighteen. It's more than anybody else
that I personally know. So we take what you say and that's why
Under Secretary Burns called to report to you. We take what you
say, you know, very seriously and we'll certainly consider it.
Senator Specter. I have been concerned about the gridlock
in Congress for many reasons, but from what I have read and
heard, it has had an impact on our stature internationally.
The President came on with a great promise and, I think,
did materially change the world's view of the United States for
a number of reasons and I think not only has President Obama
been diminished but so has the presidency and for that matter
so has the ability of governance by the Congress of the United
States, very, very problem-some, and we ought to be backing up
the President on matters that he has to deal with of such
gigantic importance.
I read your statement across the board, Iran and North
Korea and the Mid East and Afghanistan and everywhere.
May the record show an affirmative nod? We trial lawyers
use that procedure sometimes not being sure what the answer
will be.
What do you--what do you think?
Secretary Clinton. Well, Senator, I have great affection
and admiration for the Senate. The 8 years I was privileged to
serve here were extraordinarily meaningful to me, but
unfortunately I have to agree with you.
SENATE CONFIRMATION PROCESS
The gridlock over nominations is particularly troubling.
We're now, you know, what, more than 1 year into a new
administration and whether you agree or disagree with a
particular policy, a president deserves to have the people that
he nominates serving him and I would earnestly request the
attention of this committee to filling the USAID appointments.
We finally got Dr. Shah nominated and confirmed. There was no
delay on that, and I thank you for it, but he has no team and
we've got to get that moving as quickly as possible.
But I--I have to confess that when it came to some
Assistant Secretary positions, some ambassadorial positions, it
became harder and harder to explain to countries, particularly
countries of significance, why we had nobody in position for
them to interact with.
So I--I think that, as we move forward, there are many
things to argue about and I am the strongest advocate of
people, you know, arguing out positions in a civil way that
hopefully sheds more, you know, light than smoke, but on the
question of nominations, I hope that we all can move more
quickly and particularly on the AID front and the ambassadorial
front.
Senator Specter. Well, I will help you with that, but,
Madam Secretary, beyond the confirmations, is my perception
right or wrong that what has happened on gridlock goes beyond
that? The weakening of the President? Everybody reads the
public opinion polls. He's not able to project the same kind of
stature and power that he did a year ago because we're--because
he's being hamstrung by--by the Congress and it has an impact
on foreign policy which we really ought to do everything we can
not to have partisanship influence.
Secretary Clinton. Well, Senator, I think there is
certainly a perception that I encounter in representing our
country around the world that supports your characterization.
People don't understand the way our system operates. They just
don't get it, and their view is--does color whether the United
States is in a position, not just this President but our
country is in a position going forward to demonstrate the kind
of unity and strength and effectiveness that I think we have to
in this very complex and dangerous world, and, you know, we're
always going to have differences between the executive and the
legislative branch.
Having served on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, that's
par for the course. That's democracy. You know, we're not going
to do anything that will undermine that, but I do think we have
to be attuned to how the rest of the world sees the functioning
of our Government because it's an asset. It may be an
intangible asset but it's an asset of great importance and as
we sell democracy and we're the lead democracy in the world, I
want people to know that we have checks and balances, but we
also have the capacity to move, too.
So it is--it is a concern of mine, and I--I hope that we
can figure out a better way to address it.
Senator Specter. No more questions, Mr. Chairman, but a
comment.
IRAN
On Iran, I hope you will figure out something that we can
get the Chinese to go along with, which is tough enough, to get
some sense out of Iran because that boiling pot is not going to
simply boil forever.
And the final comment is I know you've done a great deal on
the three hikers in Iran, one of whom lives in the Philadelphia
suburbs, Joshua Fattal, but whatever in addition can be done,
it would be greatly appreciated in many quarters.
Secretary Clinton. Thank you, sir.
Senator Specter. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Leahy. Thank you. I'm going to yield back to
Senator Bennett, but on Iran, I'm going to leave with you and
your staff an op-ed in the New York Times by Roger Cohen about
what we prevent from going to Iran. One of the things he
suggests we shouldn't be preventing is the equipment they might
need to get on the Internet. That's kind of a layman's
description of it.
I would look at that especially as they're working so hard
to block the Internet, anything we can do there which will get
around the government's censorship would be helpful.
Secretary Clinton. If I could, Mr. Chairman, I just want to
respond to Mr. Cohen's column. It references a pending license
that was held up in the Treasury Department. That has now been
moved, perhaps there's a cause and effect there, and it is now
in the State Department and we intend to act on it
expeditiously.
Senator Leahy. As the old serials on radio would say, my
work here is done.
Senator Bennett.
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
join, Madam Secretary, my colleagues in welcoming you back to
your old stomping grounds. Seeing you on the other side of the
table is a different kind of reaction, but we're always happy
to see you, regardless of the circumstance.
Coming as late in the questioning as I do, I won't rehash
many of the things that have been said by my colleagues, but I
will not let the opportunity to mention Iran and the Iran
Sanctions Act go unchosen. I won't have to add anything to the
things that have been said, but I believe that's extremely
important, whatever you can do to see to it that the Russians
and the Chinese are helpful to us here. I won't go into
territory about what I think may be happening with both Russia
and China because I don't want to say anything that makes any
particular headlines.
But I understand from reading history that Ronald Reagan
used to drive Mikhail Gorbachev crazy by quoting the old
Russian aphorism ``Trust but verify,'' and Gorbachev finally
said to Reagan in an outburst, ``You keep saying that,'' and I
think he did keep saying that and we should keep saying that.
So with respect to Iran and what the Russians and the
Chinese are doing, just remember the Russian proverb that an
American president enjoyed so much.
So I will turn to two subjects that have not been raised,
both of which are enthusiasms of mine that I've been involved
with in the subcommittee while I've been on it. The first one
is the Millennium Challenge Corporation and the second one is
micro lending and micro enterprise.
MICROLENDING AND MICROENTERPRISE
If I can start with the second first, just I'm very proud
of the fact that as long as I've been on this subcommittee, the
pressure for micro lending has always been strong and the
number has always gone up and I don't think there's anything we
can do that makes more sense in the poor parts of the world
than encourage micro lending.
I have some of the articles that have been produced by
women who have received micro loans. They offered to make me a
deal. I said no, I don't want a discount, I'll pay the full
price for this because it's still very low and I want you to be
as encouraged as you can.
Would you talk to Secretary Geithner to talk about
increasing U.S. support at the World Bank? I've talked to the
World Bank about this and I get lots of encouraging words back,
but I'm not sure there's been as much movement at the World
Bank as perhaps there should be and I hope that the State
Department will continue to be as supportive and increase as
much as they possibly can in these budgetary times support for
micro lending.
Do you have a comment on that before we turn to the
Millennium Challenge Corporation?
Secretary Clinton. Well, Senator, I share your enthusiasm.
I've worked in micro enterprise since 1983 in Arkansas. I
championed it when I was First Lady and I supported programs,
along with you and others, when I was a Senator and we are very
focused on micro enterprise and we're also looking at some new
ways of accomplishing the goals of the Micro Enterprise Results
and Accountability Act of 2004.
We are looking at how we can fund institutions more
effectively, leverage the money, and the World Bank is a big--
has a big role in this. So I will gladly pass on your comments
to Secretary Geithner.
Senator Bennett. Yeah. My own experience with the World
Bank, as I say, is they talk a good fight but they get carried
away with, well, we can do this, we can do that, and all these
other things with respect to financial services, and--and
that's wonderful, but in the meantime make the loans.
Secretary Clinton. Right.
Senator Bennett. Don't study this thing to death----
Secretary Clinton. Right.
Senator Bennett [continuing]. And look at possibilities. I
want the possibilities to come true, but in the meantime let's
make the loans.
MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION
All right. The Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), I
met with the new CEO whom I find very impressive, and the
concern that many of us have with respect to the Millennium
Challenge Corporation is that the current administration might
take steps to curb its independence and one of its values, I
think, has been that it is an independent agency with strong
guidance from a board of directors which you chair.
But can it maintain its independence or is there still
conversation about folding it into something else that would
make it more part of the State Department bureaucracy or the
AID bureaucracy, and the budget is the lowest request that
we've had since it began. I'd like you to address those two
issues.
Secretary Clinton. Well, Senator, I do chair the board and
I'm very, very proud and happy to do so and I have publicly
applauded the Bush administration for both MCC and PEPFAR which
I think were significant advances in how we think about and do
development.
There have been no conversations that I have been part of
or that I'm aware of about curbing the independence of the MCC.
I think that there are, as you know, some legislative fixes
that need to be done so that compacts can be extended, so that
money can be rolled over, and that the mission of the MCC
really focused on the kind of conditions-based aid that will
change behaviors and increase capacity can be supported more
effectively.
So I--I am a strong advocate of the MCC. I think actually
some of the lessons that we have learned from the MCC are part
of our QDDR process and will be influencing how we do aid
elsewhere, but, you know, it won't surprise you, I'm not
telling you anything you don't know, that there is a division
of opinion within the Congress concerning the MCC. There are
very strong supporters and there are very strong detractors.
But I think that on balance the MCC has proven itself. I
think its--its independence has been beneficial, but I do want
it to be seen as part of our overall efforts, not that it's
going to be in any way undermined, but that it is part of how
we deliver aid. It's not, you know, some add-on that is stuck
out in left field. It is something that is integral to what the
United States Government is doing and it's a model that I
happen to hold in high regard.
Senator Bennett. Well, I recognize there are some strong
supporters and some strong opponents. Put me down as a strong
supporter, and my--my goal is--is not to fund monuments
overseas. We go overseas and we see U.S. money going to create
something which then isn't maintained or doesn't provide any
long term. I want to fund movement, movements toward the kinds
of developments that are long term and become sustaining, and I
think the MCC has that particular vision.
So I applaud your support and if you need any support on
this side in this subcommittee, why, put me down as one who's
available.
Secretary Clinton. Well, Senator, I just want to make sure
that the record accurately reflects, thanks to the good
information from my team here, we're actually increasing the
MCC budget. We have a 15 percent increase over fiscal year
2010. We've asked for $1.279 billion. That's a $174 million
over fiscal year 2010. So we're increasing the MCC budget by 15
percent.
Senator Bennett. Oh, I'll get back into that then. Thank
you. I appreciate that.
Secretary Clinton. If you have any questions, please call
us.
Senator Bennett. I will.
Secretary Clinton. We'll walk through them with you.
Senator Bennett. Thank you.
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Senator Bennett. Senator
Brownback.
Senator Brownback. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
Madam Secretary. Appreciate you being here, appreciate the way
you represent us around the world and your high energy levels.
I'm sure it takes every bit of it.
Secretary Clinton. Yes, it does, Senator.
Senator Brownback. I've got a couple of items I want to run
through with you, all of which you're familiar with, but a
couple really need your action.
INTERNET FREEDOM
We've appropriated to the State Department I think it's $20
million for Internet firewall, getting through the Internet
firewall. I was at your speech that you gave on this recently
over at the Newseum. Congressman Wolf and I wrote you about
this in 2009. Senators Specter, Casey, Kauffman, Kyl, and I
wrote you about this.
We've allocated the money to the State Department but State
Department hasn't given any of it to the Global Internet
Freedom Consortium. This is the group I found the most
effective in doing this. They believe they could get a capacity
in the anti-firewall area from 1.5 million now people that can
get through these firewalls to 50 million users a day with the
amount of money we put forward.
I got two letters here to you from basically Chinese
dissident groups and Iranian dissident groups saying would you
please allocate this money to the Global Internet Freedom
Group?
There's a recent Washington Post report from an unnamed
senior administration spokesman saying the reason they're not
going to the Global Internet Freedom Consortium is because the
Chinese Government would ``go ballistic'' if this were done.
These are--a number of these are Chinese dissidents that are
operating in these firewall items but they've been very
successful on rudimentary, no help from the U.S. Government and
with it, they can smash through the Iranian firewall and
probably the Chinese firewall, as well, and I just would really
urge you to look at it.
I'm going to give you these two letters----
Secretary Clinton. Good. Thank you, sir.
Senator Brownback [continuing]. From those groups because
that's in your wheelhouse already. You've spoken about it.
You've got the money. We need to get it to a good group.
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO
Second, I know you've been to Congo a few months back.
That's been a personal interest of mine and Senator Durbin's,
as well. I think we have the chance here to defund the militias
that are--that are really just wreaking havoc all over Eastern
Congo but the key is the--the minerals, conflict commodities.
It's the--it's--it's the blood diamonds issue, only got four
commodities you're dealing with, and I think at the core of the
issue is that--that we require companies that are going to sell
products into the United States, they've got to have a license
on the products, a license on the minerals coming out.
We want you to sell the minerals, Congo. We want you to be
able to get the income, but on an item like coltan that's in
cellphones that Congo has 80 percent of the African coltan and
then it comes out and these militias, this is the way they fund
themselves is they kind of operate the concessions or let
people come and go, and then that funds the soldiers.
If we could just require licensing on minerals that come
out of Congo, I really think--and this by the big companies, I
really think it would defund the militias and much of this goes
away, not all of it but a lot of it. In the blood diamonds case
in West Africa, this thing mostly defunded the militias which
is what we got to do. We got to get the money away from the
militias and there's a bill in both the House and the Senate.
We have companion bills in each House that would do this.
We've worked for several years to work with the companies,
with the government, you know, that--that this is a way that
could do this without hurting Congo and without hurting the
businesses. So I think we've found how to do it, but we really
need your backing and support and I don't know of anything that
could--could help that war-weary place and it's--it's
probably--it's hard to say, but this probably is the worst
suffering in the world right now, is in--is in Eastern Congo
and it's big, it's big. I mean, it's 60 million people in
Congo.
SUDAN
The third item is Sudan. I was pleased to see this recent
agreement signed on Darfur. I'm going to watch and see if it--
if it actually holds, but Southern Sudan, as you know, is going
to be voting fairly soon on whether to move out of the Union
with Northern Sudan. They've been--you know they've had a
conflict for a long period of time.
I would really hope that State Department and the White
House could start working with Southern Sudan more like a
country and helping them get established and visible. I've
thrown out, you know, that if the President or if you could
meet with the leadership of Southern Sudan, the President could
meet in the White House with them as a statement of support for
them.
They've got--I've been urging them, saying why don't you
get a basketball team together and start traveling in America
with the Southern Sudanese. They've got--you know, the Dinka
Tribe dominated and they're very tall. They've got 10 guys, Mr.
Chairman, over seven feet tall playing basketball in Southern
Sudan.
So I'm saying just show up. You may get beat up by 40
points but everybody's going to say where did these guys come
from and I thought--I told them, I said, ``I don't know of a
better way to get on the view screen in America faster than
showing up with four guys over seven feet tall playing
basketball.''
MIDDLE EAST
Anyway, just if you could work with them, I think it's
really an important phase, and I want to finish my comments
with you on this. This is--this is a really tough one, I know,
but I think it's time for us to review our Embassies in Israel
and review again with the depth of review moving it from Tel
Aviv to Jerusalem. Long issue, old issue. I know all of the
thorns that are around it, but it seems to me that now is a
good time to do this, that we're starting to talk about a two-
state solution, have for a couple years.
Another key issue is the final status of Jerusalem. This is
a negotiation just between us and the Israeli Government. I
think it would be a very strong statement. It's the only
capital in the world where we don't put our Embassy in the
capital city. It would be obviously well received by the
Israelis. It might irritate the Iranians. I'm okay with
irritating the Iranians right now with everything that they're
doing. I realize it has broader impact, but I think, you know,
these things have timings to them, as you know better than
anybody, and I think this is ripe now for a discussion to
begin, particularly when we've had now a couple years of
discussion about a two-state solution.
I think we need to be clear that we believe Jerusalem's the
capital of Israel and we're going to--we're going to act that
way.
So I thank you for considering these comments and would
love to work with you on any of them.
Secretary Clinton. Well, we will get back to you on all of
them, Senator, because each and every one of them is very
important. I appreciate your concerns about them.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Leahy. The hearing record will remain open until
Monday, March 1, for the submission of any written questions
for the Secretary. I know we've gone beyond the time that was
allocated for the hearing.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
Question. I was surprised that the budget recommends a cut of $87
million from the fiscal year 2010 level for aid for refugees. Given
what we know about the pressures on this account, aren't you
essentially forcing us to rob funds from other accounts to be sure that
the most vulnerable people are not disproportionally hurt?
Answer. Supporting humanitarian assistance to and the protection of
refugees, internally displaced populations, other conflict victims,
stateless people, and vulnerable migrants remains a top Administration
priority. While the President's fiscal year 2011 MRA request of $1.605
billion is lower than the fiscal year 2010 appropriated level of $1.693
billion, it represents a 9 percent increase over the fiscal year 2010
MRA request of $1.48 billion. To assist in meeting humanitarian
requirements in fiscal year 2011, the Administration also requested $45
million in the Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance (ERMA) Fund
to meet urgent and unexpected needs. The Administration will continue
to monitor worldwide humanitarian needs closely.
Question. You have requested another $25 million to support Jewish
migrants to Israel, which is the only instance in which we carve out an
amount of funds for a designated group of refugees. The Congress has
consistently supported this. Would you support similar carve outs for
other designated groups of migrants, for example, Somalis who seek
refuge in Yemen, and if not why not?
Answer. The Humanitarian Migrants to Israel program provides a
critical service to Jewish migrants to Israel. While the Administration
appreciates congressional support for this program, we would not
support similar carve outs for other populations that we assist. The
Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) account is a humanitarian
contingency account that serves the needs of refugees and conflict
victims worldwide. Given the fluid and ever-changing nature of
humanitarian situations, the flexibility provided within the MRA
account to respond to needs as they arise is critical to ensuring the
effectiveness of this assistance.
Question. You are requesting a $25 million cut in aid for Europe,
Eurasia and Central Asia. These include the former Soviet republics,
where democracy is being threatened every day. Given the importance of
strengthening our relationships with the people of these countries, why
does cutting these programs make sense?
Answer. We agree with you that strengthening our relationships with
the people of the countries of Eurasia and Central Asia is critically
important to the people of the United States. We recognize the
backsliding that has occurred in the establishment of democracy in
these countries--from flawed elections to stifling of media outlets.
We believe that the Administration's request for AEECA funding is
appropriate and reflects the needs of this region relative to critical
priorities in other parts of the world. The fiscal year 2011 request of
total assistance (all accounts) for Europe, Eurasia, and Central Asia
reflects only a 2.5 percent reduction (compared to the fiscal year 2010
estimate). The proposed allocations for fiscal year 2011 programs in
the democracy and governance area in the Assistance to Europe, Eurasia,
and Central Asia (AEECA) account represent only a 2.3 percent reduction
from the fiscal year 2010 estimate--slightly less than the overall 3.4
percent reduction in the account as a whole.
Though some needs in the region have increased, other areas require
fewer resources. Some nations in the region are beginning to make real
progress on economic and political reform. In addition, other nations
have significant energy wealth which they are applying to support their
own development, and which require our continued diplomatic efforts--
but not much more money--in order to try to bring human rights and
other important issues to the fore. Thanks to prior U.S. investment
some non-governmental organizations and legacy institutions are now a
sustained presence supporting democratic and economic reform in many
countries.
Finally, past investments in building the capacity of local
organizations have allowed us to utilize indigenous expertise for
program implementation, thereby permitting some cost savings within the
fiscal year 2011 level. Moreover, we are using our experience to be
more strategic in selecting the most cost-effective interventions and
are leveraging more sources of other USG and donor funding to
complement our assistance. In short, we believe that the levels of
funding in the fiscal year 2011 AEECA request will permit us to
continue to promote the transformation of these countries into market-
based democracies respectful of human rights and committed to the rule
of law.
AFGHANISTAN-PAKISTAN CIVILIAN SURGE
Question. You are requesting an increase of $1.4 billion for the
Economic Support Fund. The bulk is it is for Afghanistan, Pakistan, and
Iraq, which is separate from the $1.8 billion you have requested for
Afghanistan, $344 million for Pakistan, and $517 million for Iraq in
the supplemental.
I understand the motivation to increase aid to these countries
given what is at stake, but we have seen how difficult it is to spend
money effectively. The previous Administration wasted billions in top-
down programs, and measured results by the so-called ``burn rate''--how
fast money was spent, often through big contractors and corrupt
governments. You are asking for a lot more money, and that means
spending bigger and faster. Shouldn't we spend less, go slower, work
from the ground up--in other words, fundamentally change the way we
spend money in these countries?
How much are we spending through Afghanistan's central government,
and given press reports that top Afghan officials, including President
Karzai's family, are getting rich and buying mansions in Dubai, are
these the people we should be working with?
Answer. We have provided over $700 million to the Karzai government
between fiscal year 2002-2009. We are using this assistance to build
Afghan government capacity, which will help the Afghan government gain
the trust of its people through the delivery services. This direct
assistance is also transferring ownership and responsibility of our
assistance to Afghanistan to the Afghan people.
The Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund (ARTF) is our primary
vehicle for channeling resources through the Government of the Islamic
Republic of Afghanistan's (GIRoA) budget. This mechanism, which we
monitor carefully, strengthens GIRoA's capacity to prioritize, direct
and allocate resources. The ARTF also improves aid effectiveness by
serving as a collective platform for donor funding, reducing the need
to deal with all donors bilaterally. The governance and fiduciary
framework for the ARTF has strict systems in place to increase
accountability, transparency, and safeguards to ensure proper oversight
of U.S. taxpayer (and donor) resources.
We review the financial management, procurement and expenditure
systems of key ministries to help them increase their capacity to
accept U.S. direct assistance. Assessments (financial and procurement)
to determine Ministries' ability to account for and manage funds and
execute services are conducted at Ministries we intend to fund with
direct assistance. Ministries are recertified every 3 years. The USAID
controller leads this effort.
At the same time, we are taking a multi-pronged approach to
tackling corruption in Afghanistan. The U.S. government, with the
broader international community, is prepared to help the Afghan
government implement its strategy with programs designed to: (1)
improve the transparency and accountability of Afghan government
institutions to reduce corrupt practices; (2) improve financial
oversight; (3) build Afghan capacity to investigate, prosecute,
sanction and/or remove corrupt officials from power; and, (4) help
Afghans educate the public about efforts to reduce corruption and
improve the resources available for the public to demand and
participate in transparent and accountable governance. Initiatives
already underway include the Major Crimes Task Force, the Anti-
Corruption Unit at the Attorney General's office, and new programmatic
support for the High Office of Oversight. We are also working with the
Afghan Parliament to ensure ethics training is part of orientation for
new members of parliament, and oversight assistance training is
provided for members working on the national budget.
Strengthening the Government accountability and service delivery is
a key component of our larger strategy for stabilizing Afghanistan.
Along with our diverse counter corruption initiatives, our programs to
provide qualified civilian technical advisors and put in place sound
auditing and payment transmission systems will be an important step
toward stemming corruption and achieving our larger national security
goals in Afghanistan.
Question. Talking about ground up approaches to development, you
have probably read or at least heard of Greg Mortenson's book ``Three
Cups of Tea'' about building schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan. His
schools, with the support of local villagers, cost a fraction of the
schools we build and they are not destroyed by the Taliban. His
approach may not be the answer for everything we are trying to do, but
what have we learned from Mortenson's experience and how are we
applying those lessons?
Answer. Two key components of Greg Mortensen's approach to building
schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan are community buy-in and long term
investment. Both concepts continue to ground USAID education
programming in Afghanistan and Pakistan as we move forward implementing
USG strategy in this politically strategic region. The involvement of
the community is a critical aspect of sustainable development in the
education sector; USAID provincial programs in education incorporate
input of local leadership and provide support for school management
committees and parent teacher councils. In addition to fostering
community involvement, USAID/Afghanistan and USAID/Pakistan demonstrate
a long-term commitment to education by building capacity of government
agencies on the district, provincial, and Federal levels and of
nongovernmental organizations. These combined efforts to improve access
to, quality, and governance in education throughout both countries,
particularly in underserved areas and those vulnerable to extremism.
I would also like to provide you with a bit of background on
USAID's construction of schools in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Since
2002, USAID, in conjunction with the Ministry of Education (MoE), has
built or refurbished over 680 schools throughout Afghanistan, at a
total cost of $58 million. The preferred school design of the MoE is an
eight-classroom school. As a Government agency, USAID follows the
direction of the host government's MoE.
The MoE estimates that an eight-classroom primary school costs
approximately $160,000, while the cost of high schools differs greatly
based on their size and the equipment to be provided. Construction
costs can vary significantly depending on a number of factors,
including remoteness of location, difficulty of terrain, land
availability and the security environment.
Without knowing the particulars--including size and location--of
Greg Mortenson's schools, it is difficult to compare construction
costs. One of the key factors could be that Moretnson may be using
local materials, such as mud or brick, and that the school may not be
earthquake-resistant. Indeed, traditional Afghan construction is very
inexpensive but does not produce the types of buildings that will last
over time nor stand up to earthquakes. To the extent possible, USAID
uses local materials if they meet International Building Code (IBC)
standards, however, some traditional materials are often not long-
lasting and not of a high quality.
As of 2008, all USAID-funded buildings must be constructed to IBC
standards. We are not aware of any other donor in Afghanistan requires
these higher standards, but we believe it is essential that U.S.
Government funded buildings adhere to these international standards in
areas that are prone to earthquakes, and so we accept the higher costs
and longer timeframes necessary to construct high quality buildings for
school children and their teachers.
The cost of construction for USAID-funded schools in Pakistan
ranges from 2,100-5,600 Pakistani Rupees per Square foot (U.S. $25-
$66). USAID-constructed schools are built to the Zone Four Earthquake
Rating (the highest possible) and apply the internationally accepted
Uniform Building Code.
Question. There have been articles in the New York Times and
Washington Post about secret prisons in North Korea. It described
horrific conditions, where prisoners--mostly critics of the regime or
their relatives--are worked and tortured to death. That was disturbing
enough, but the article also said that U.S. policy is focused on the
nuclear issue, and that human rights and specifically the treatment of
political prisoners is not a significant part of the discussion. Is
that correct?
Answer. The United States remains deeply concerned about the human
rights situation in North Korea, including its labor and political
prison camps. Human rights are a top priority and addressing human
rights issues will have a significant impact on the prospect for closer
U.S.-DPRK ties.
The State Department's annual Human Rights Report reports that an
estimated 150,000 to 200,000 persons, many of whom die from torture,
starvation, disease, and exposure, are held in a type of political
prisoner camp known as the kwan li so. As noted in both the
Department's Human Rights Report and Trafficking in Persons Report, the
North Korean regime reportedly continues to use forced labor as part of
an established system of political repression.
The Department currently funds a number of programs which seek to
increase the free flow of information into and out of North Korea,
document human rights abuses, including those occurring in political
prisoner camps, and build the capacity of defector-led organizations to
protect the human rights of all North Koreans. Additionally, the
Department of State will allocate approximately $3.5 million in fiscal
year 2010 for programming to promote democracy, rule of law, and human
rights in North Korea.
We also continue to work though multilateral organizations, such as
the U.N. Human Rights Council (HRC), and bilaterally with other
governments, including our regional partners, to improve human rights
in North Korea. We are currently cosponsoring a resolution at the U.N.
HRC, which specifically censures the use of torture and political
prisoner camps. We see human rights as an integral part of the United
States' North Korea policy, and will raise our concerns at every
appropriate opportunity in the Six-Party Talks framework.
Ambassador Robert King, the Special Envoy for North Korean Human
Rights Issues, oversees North Korean human rights issues as a part of
the Office of the Special Representative for North Korea Policy and
participates in all relevant discussions in accordance with
congressional intent.
Question. I think there is a lot of concern that despite Senator
Mitchell's efforts, negotiations on a peace agreement between Israel
and the Palestinians have not produced the results we had hoped for. A
year has passed, and Israel continues to expand settlements in the West
Bank and the Palestinians continue to fight among themselves.
Are those of us who believe a peace agreement is necessary to the
success of our broader foreign policy goals in the region overstating
its importance? If real progress is not made this year, do you think we
should rethink our approach?
Answer. Comprehensive Middle East peace remains important to
broader American foreign policy goals in the region. When Prime
Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas met in Washington on September
2, 2010 to launch direct talks, they agreed to pursue a framework
agreement within twelve months. That remains the goal.
Unfortunately, we have not made as much progress as we or the
parties would have liked. We knew this effort would be difficult and
that we would hit hurdles; and we are always assessing the merits of
our approach and seeking ways to promote progress toward the two state
solution in the most realistic way possible, knowing the risks and
constraints of the environment in which we operate. Both parties have
asked for continued U.S. engagement with the parties and that is what
we intend. Moving forward we will engage both on the core issues of the
conflict and with a deepened commitment to Palestinian state-building,
and step up the American approach including by offering new ideas and
bridging proposals as necessary.
Question. The Administration is putting together a supplemental
request for relief and reconstruction in Haiti. A lot of people here
will want to support that. The American people have shown tremendous
generosity in helping the Haitian people during this disaster, and we
want to help Haiti rebuild--hopefully to a better place than they were
before the earthquake.
But money, without effective leadership, will not solve Haiti's
problems. While the current government is an improvement over the past,
it was barely functional before the earthquake and will be unable to
play a leadership role for the foreseeable future. There is a need for
effective leadership, whether by the United Nations, United States, or
some coalition of international donors and agencies. Given the amount
of foreign aid wasted or stolen in Haiti, any long term reconstruction
strategy, for Congress to support it, needs to be credible. The Haitian
Government obviously needs to be consulted and involved, but a strategy
whose success depends on the performance of the government would not be
credible.
Do you agree or disagree, who is in charge of rebuilding Haiti, is
there a strategy, and how do we avoid the mistakes of the past?
Answer. A key guiding principle of the USG strategy in Haiti is
that the ultimate responsibility for rebuilding the country rests in
the hands of the sovereign nation of Haiti and the Haitian people. It
is our responsibility to see that U.S. Government resources spent
toward accomplishing the reconstruction of Haiti are effectively
managed, and transparently administered with proper oversight while we
are helping Haiti to rebuild. There are a number of proposed mechanisms
being discussed among Government of Haiti officials, multilateral
institutions and bilateral donors for the management of reconstruction
resources that would entail Haitian leadership along with credible
systems of transparency and accountability. The United States strongly
supports the development of mechanisms for oversight and management of
the reconstruction program that will promote the effective, transparent
and accountable use of resources.
Question. There have been reports that funds have been cut from
other disaster relief programs in order to support the Haiti relief
operation. Is this correct, are funds for Sudan or other humanitarian
crises being cut?
Answer. Since IDA is a contingency account used to respond to
natural and complex disasters world-wide, its flexibility allows OFDA
to program funds as necessary to meet emergencies. While a significant
amount of IDA funding is being directed to respond to the devastation
from Haiti earthquake, the impact to other OFDA programs can be
minimized if a supplemental is approved in a timely fashion (no later
than the third quarter of the fiscal year).
Humanitarian needs in Haiti can be met with current IDA resources,
but funding availabilities for other programs world-wide may be
temporarily reduced. USAID is hopeful that the IDA account will be
replenished by a supplemental, which will allow OFDA to restore other
programs to originally planned levels. In the mean time, OFDA will work
with partners to meet critical needs with currently available funding
and avoid programming gaps.
However it should be noted that if a supplemental does not
materialize, or is not available until late in the fiscal year, there
will unfortunately be major impacts to OFDA's programs world-wide.
Question. The $1.4 billion Merida Initiative, which Congress
funded, was to be for 3 years. But for fiscal year 2011 you are
requesting another $292 million for Mexico for the same purposes. Is
this part of a longer term strategy with Mexico--sort of ``Merida
Plus'', and if so, where can we get a copy of the strategy, who was
consulted about it, how many years is it for, how much will it cost,
and what results do you predict if the demand for illegal drugs in the
United States, and the flow of guns from the United States, continues?
Answer. The Merida Initiative was announced in 2007 as a
partnership among the governments of the United States, Mexico, and the
countries of Central America to confront the violent national and
transnational gangs and organized criminal and narcotics trafficking
organizations that plague the entire region. To date, Congress has
supported this Initiative with $1.324 billion in funding for Mexico.
The fiscal year 2011 budget request includes $310 million for Mexico--
$292 million in INCLE, $10 million for ESF, and $8 million in FMF.
Following extensive Department discussions, including within the
interagency community, and especially with Congress, we have now
broadened our focus to include the Caribbean under the Caribbean Basin
Security Initiative, renamed our Central America efforts as ``CARSI''
(the Central America Regional Security Initiative), and are refocusing
on ways to improve citizen safety--something consistently ranked high
among societal concerns in all countries of the region.
Beginning with the Merida Initiative and moving ``Beyond Merida''
in Mexico, the United States is forging strong partnerships to enhance
citizen safety in affected areas by fighting drug trafficking,
organized crime, corruption, illicit arms trafficking, money-
laundering, and demand for drugs on both sides of the border.
At bilateral working group meetings leading up to the March 23rd
Merida U.S.-Mexico High Level Consultative Group, the governments of
the United States and Mexico agreed on new goals to broaden and deepen
our cooperation to effect lasting change. As a result of these new
goals, we are accelerating our efforts to support and strengthen
democratic institutions in Mexico (especially police and judicial
institutions) and civil society organizations. We are also expanding
our border focus beyond interdiction of contraband to include
facilitation of legitimate trade and travel; and we are cooperating in
building strong communities resistant to the corrupting influence of
organized crime. As discussed in recent briefings with congressional
staff, future programs to increase Mexican capacity and to
institutionalize our partnership will focus on four goals:
--Disrupt Organized Criminal Groups.--The United States and Mexico
will continue to collaborate to disrupt and dismantle organized
criminal groups. We will do so by focusing our efforts on
intelligence collection and analysis, training and equipping
special units, enhancing investigative capacity, conducting
targeted work against money laundering, improving interdiction
capability, building effective command and control centers
across Mexico, and developing effective task forces.
--Institutionalize Reforms to Sustain Rule of Law and Respect for
Human Rights.--The United States will partner with Mexico to
help institutionalize justice-sector reforms to sustain the
rule of law and respect for human rights. We will continue
large-scale institution building projects with security and
judicial institutions at the Federal level and expand these
efforts to include additional Federal agencies and to State and
local institutions. The goal of these efforts is to support
sustainable changes in the judiciary to strengthen the rule of
law, promote respect for human rights, and engage with civil
society.
--Create a 21st Century Border.--Our goal is to create efficient,
economically competitive border crossings along the U.S./
Mexican border that ensure ``secure two-way flows'' of
travelers and trade. We will also work to improve enforcement
cooperation between ports of entry. Our immediate law
enforcement challenge is to greatly reduce the flow of drugs to
the north, and guns and bulk cash to the south.
--Build Strong and Resilient Communities.--Mexico will take the lead
to enhance the rule of law, promote respect for human rights,
and create a culture of lawfulness by targeting specific areas
for building community organizations, reducing demand for
drugs, encouraging civil society participation, creating
sustainable economic opportunities, and promoting community
cohesion and violence reduction strategies. The United States
will support specific, geographically focused programs that
advance these goals.
The United States and Mexican governments agree in principle to
this framework for cooperation and are working together closely to
determine the scope of action within each programmatic area. Broadly,
and within this context, we are moving away from equipment purchases,
such as aviation, and into an engagement that reinforces progress by
institutionalizing Mexican capacity to sustain the rule of law and
respect for human rights, build more responsive and transparent
institutions, promote full civil society participation, transform the
nature of our borders, and provide intensive technical assistance and
training. We will also encourage enhanced cooperation with regional
partners, including along Mexico's southern border with Guatemala and
Belize. The $310 million fiscal year 2011 request for Mexico, along
with considerable GOM efforts in these areas, complements the
comprehensive and balanced USG strategy on our side of the border to
reduce drug demand by focusing on prevention, treatment, and
enforcement, and expanded efforts stop illegal arms and bulk cash
flowing south into Mexico.
We are hopeful that we can strengthen U.S. national security by
helping the Calderon Administration break the power of the drug
trafficking organizations and institute lasting institutional reforms
that will continue into future Mexican Administrations. Assistance
under the Merida Initiative, and other regional efforts throughout the
Hemisphere, is strategically targeted to make an impact on the need for
improved citizen safety and security. As we move forward, we will
continue to assess progress and the impact of our assistance. We
especially look forward to continued and regular dialogue with Congress
as an integral part of this ongoing review.
Question. I and other Members of Congress, and the Administration,
have urged the Mexican Government to conduct a credible, transparent,
and thorough investigation of the murder of American citizen Bradley
Will, and the 17 other Mexicans who were killed in Oaxaca in 2006.
Instead, the Mexican Government arrested and accused an innocent man of
killing Mr. Will, and he languished in prison until a court finally
ordered his release. Can you assure me that you will insist that these
cases be thoroughly and credibly investigated?
Answer. The Department of State has and will continue to raise the
case of the death of American citizen Bradley Will with the Government
of Mexico. We have made it clear to the Mexican Government that we
expect a thorough and credible investigation of all evidence by Mexican
authorities with a view to identifying and prosecuting the individual
or individuals responsible for this heinous act.
On the issue of other Mexican citizens who were killed in Oaxaca in
2006, we have raised these as part of our regular dialogue regarding
human rights issues with the Government of Mexico.
Question. For years, there has been talk about the need to reform
the foreign aid budget. There has been any number of commissions,
studies, reports and countless recommendations, all with little effect.
This Administration has its own studies underway, at least one at the
NSC and your Quadrennial Diplomatic and Development Review (QDDR).
Given the strong views in Congress and the special interests with a
stake in the status quo, what do you hope to accomplish this year to
make foreign aid more efficient and effective?
Over the years, USAID has seen its autonomy decrease, as it lost
control of its budget and no longer has a policy office. Whole pieces
of foreign aid have been shifted to the State Department or the
Millennium Challenge Corporation. In my opinion, USAID's effectiveness
has been weakened as a result. I will also ask USAID Administrator Shah
this question when he testifies next month, but what steps do you plan
to rebuild USAID and restore some of its autonomy?
Answer. To make foreign aid more efficient and effective, State and
USAID work closely with other agencies in the field, under the
direction of the Chief of Mission, to coordinate our assistance
activities. In Washington, we are taking specific steps to ensure close
coordination. For example, under our Global Health Initiative, we are
working collaboratively with USAID and Health and Human Services to
review all of our associated health programs in a number of countries.
We will enter into new long-term partnerships building on prior U.S.
international health programs and work with our 80 partner countries to
strengthen health systems and improve sustainable health outcomes, with
a particular focus on women, children and newborns.
The fiscal year 2011 request is critical to helping USAID become
the world's premier development agency. The request includes resources
for hiring an additional 200 officers at USAID and--under the strong
leadership of Administrator Shah--for building a robust policy,
planning and evaluation capacity. USAID is playing a leading role in
the management of priority development initiatives such as working to
improve global health and food security around the world. In each of
these areas USAID will show that it can have impact, make tough choices
about how resources are used to get the most bang-for-buck, and serve
as a whole-of-government platform that invites in other partners to
maximize efforts against specific goals and outcomes.
CLIMATE CHANGE
Question. The Administration committed at Copenhagen to
contributing a total of $1 billion over 3 years in new funds to protect
tropical forests, improve forest management, and increase carbon
sequestration in tropical forests. I strongly support this, and it
builds on what this subcommittee has been doing for years to protect
tropical forests. How do you plan to meet the $1 billion commitment by
fiscal year 2012?
Answer. In Copenhagen, the United States and five other developed
countries collectively pledged $3.5 billion over the 2010-2012 periods
for REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation)
activities, with the United States pledging $1 billion as its share of
the total. We are on a path to meet that commitment.
The fiscal year 2010 appropriation included $233 million in
``Sustainable Landscapes'' for forest-related climate change funding
for State, USAID, and Treasury. This includes a ``core'' allocation of
$153 million, as well as $80 million in USAID biodiversity funding that
has direct climate benefits. The fiscal year 2011 request for State,
USAID, and Treasury includes $347 million for sustainable landscapes.
In addition to this fiscal year 2010 and 2011 ``core'' funding from
State, USAID, and Treasury, additional USAID activities, as well as
assistance activities by MCC and possibly other USG agencies,
contribute to our climate change goals. We are currently reviewing
those assistance portfolios to identify other existing or planned
fiscal year 2010 and 2011 assistance activities that meet the REDD+
criteria and contribute toward our Copenhagen REDD+ pledge.
We are confident the Administration's fiscal year 2012 budget
request, still to be formulated, combined with the fiscal year 2010-11
assistance mentioned above, will allow us to meet the $1 billion
commitment.
Question. The budget request proposes adding American Centers,
expanding English language programs, increasing public diplomacy
programs to Muslim-majority countries, expanding the initiative
specifically for Pakistan, and increasing the Department's efforts with
the Internet and other electronic media tools. This subcommittee has
been very supportive of the Department's public diplomacy programs,
particularly the educational and cultural exchange programs. What are
the Department's priorities for public diplomacy programs, what gives
you confidence that these programs are working and should be expanded,
and how can we be sure that educational and cultural exchange programs
will continue to grow?
Answer. First of all, thank you and the rest of the committee
members for your continued support of public diplomacy.
The core mission of public diplomacy is to support the achievement
of U.S. foreign policy goals and objectives, advance national interests
and enhance national security by informing and influencing foreign
publics and by expanding and strengthening the relationship between the
people and government of the United States and citizens of the rest of
the world.
To that end the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public
Affairs, Judith McHale, after an 8 month review of the current state of
public diplomacy and public affairs, has just recently rolled out a
strategic framework for public diplomacy. After consulting with members
of the hill, NGOs, representatives from academia, and Public Affairs
Officers, Under Secretary McHale found that in significant ways our
public diplomacy was working well to advance America's interests. But
the review also revealed a great degree of consensus about what needs
to be changed to align it to current priorities and guide our efforts
going forward.
As part of this review, we identified five strategic imperatives:
to pro-actively shape global narratives; expand and strengthen people-
to-people relationships; counter violent extremism; better inform
policy-making; and, redeploy resources in strategic alignment with
shifting priorities. Moving forward, we are taking steps to ensure that
all our activities support these requirements.
Creating or maintaining American Centers, increasing English
language training, appropriately using Internet technology and social
media and increased engagement in Muslim majority countries are all
means by which we can better achieve the strategic imperatives laid out
above.
As noted in your question, a great deal of our public diplomacy
efforts have been focused on Pakistan. Last summer, Under Secretary
McHale, working closely with our Embassy in Islamabad, Special
Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke, USAID
and DOD, drafted the Pakistan Communications Plan, a copy of which will
accompany this response.
The Pakistan Plan has four broad goals: expand media outreach,
counter extremist propaganda, build communications capacity, and
strengthen people-to-people ties. Our plan links elements of
traditional public diplomacy with innovative new tools. For instance,
recognizing that extremist voices dominate in some of Pakistan's media
markets, we instituted a rapid response unit and a 24-hour multilingual
hotline for the Embassy to respond to attacks, threats, and propaganda
from the Taliban, al Qaeda, and their sympathizers. This approach
reversed a previous approach of not actively countering such
propaganda. It has been an uphill battle but, as our voice gets more
frequent play, the impact on the discourse in Pakistan's media has been
noticeable.
As we strengthen our people-to-people ties with Pakistanis, our aim
has been to increase positive American presence on the ground in
Pakistan. To do this we are focusing on more exchanges, more presence,
more Lincoln Centers, more face-to-face meetings with engaged citizens
in Pakistan, and more non-official contacts between Pakistanis and
Americans in Pakistan.
A key component of face-to-face engagement is our educational and
cultural exchange programs for which I have every confidence that these
programs will continue to play an increased role in the success of our
foreign policy objectives. Exchange levels have increased significantly
in the last couple of years and we are looking to increase that trend
while ensuring that resources are being placed strategically and
appropriately and that proper oversight and evaluations are being
carried out.
Under Secretary McHale and I agree that in this day and age it is
critical that we engage with foreign publics like never before. It is
the relationships built upon year after year that matter and that
ultimately help us to better realize our foreign policy objectives.
EFFECTIVE OVERSIGHT OF CONTRACTORS
Question. Over the past several years, the Department's Inspector
General and the Special Inspectors General for Iraq and Afghanistan
have identified systemic problems in the Department's contract
management, including inadequate oversight of the contractor's work,
overpayments to contractors, and delayed project completion.
What changes, within what timeframe, is the Department implementing
to address these problems, which are responsible for the waste of
millions of dollars?
Answer. The Department of State is committed to strengthening our
contract management processes. In the last 2 years, the Office of
Acquisitions Management (A/LM/AQM) created a strategy and established a
business process for audits of A/LM/AQM contracts. We developed a close
and professional working relationship with the Defense Contract Audit
Agency (DCAA) and the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) which
are the Department's audit agencies for major programs. We also issued
an A/LM/AQM operational policy pertaining to audit services to ensure
staff is aware of the policy. This strategy ensures that the Department
meets contract administration responsibilities required by the Federal
Acquisition Regulations (FAR). During fiscal year 2009, the Department
initiated 12 external audits of significant programs. In addition to
financial audits, we initiated a series of business system audits to
review contractor accounting and internal controls, billing systems,
estimating systems, labor system controls, subcontractor systems, and
property management systems in conjunction with audits of specific
contracts on a pre-award and post-award basis. The Quality Assurance
Branch works closely and successfully with contracting officers, the
Office of Inspector General, and program offices to obtain
documentation, provide answers to audit related questions, support
negotiations, and reach settlement agreements.
Since 2008, A/LM/AQM has also significantly improved our contract
close-out process. A/LM/AQM designed an effective business process and
formed a team of close-out specialists, trained to identify contractual
and budget issues, perform contract analysis, and to reconcile and
document obligations and payments. This team is developing standard
operating procedures for all of our contract managers to follow and is
training their colleagues in A/LM/AQM on our new business process. In
fiscal year 2010, as of February 24, 2010, nearly 500 contracts have
been closed out, with $16.5 million in deobligations of unliquidated
funds.
The Department is continuing to examine other improvements to
contract oversight through the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development
Review with USAID acquisitions offices.
Question. The fiscal year 2011 budget request includes $3.1 billion
for Department of State operations in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
This includes a significant increase in civilian staff throughout these
countries. Given the severe security constraints on State Department
and other U.S. Government civilians in these countries, how are you
going to use these people effectively and at the same time ensure their
safety?
Answer. Achieving progress in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq will
require continued dedication and sacrifice not only by our military
personnel, but also by the more than 2,000 U.S. government civilians
currently serving in those countries. While security remains a concern
in many parts of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan, the civilian increase
can still be used effectively, without compromising civilian safety or
our mission. For example, the increase in Afghanistan, coordinated by
the Office of the Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan
and the Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources,
includes top experts from 10 different U.S. government departments and
agencies. Many have previous experience in Afghanistan or Iraq. In
Afghanistan, these experts contribute to the mission in the field,
especially in the East and South where a majority of U.S. combat forces
are operating and many of the additional 30,000 forces announced by
President Obama are deploying. They work alongside our military forces
in critical districts where ISAF is focusing its efforts in 2010, and
partner with Afghans to enhance the capacity of national and sub-
national government while helping to rehabilitate Afghanistan's key
economic sectors.
In Afghanistan, U.S. civilians move into dangerous areas only after
ISAF has completed clearing operations, which allows the Afghan
government, U.S. civilian experts and ISAF to deliver an integrated
package of basic services.
Question. I held a hearing in the Judiciary Committee recently
about the roles of State Department, the Department of Homeland
Security, and Federal Bureau of Investigation in the Christmas Day
bombing attempt, and what changes are needed to prevent a similar
incident from occurring again. At that time, the Department of State
indicated that the visa process was under review to determine what
improvements and changes are needed.
What is the status of the Department's efforts to improve the visa
process, and what if any improvements are included in the fiscal year
2011 budget request?
Answer. We took immediate action to improve the procedures and
content requirements for Visas Viper cable reporting that will call
attention to the visa application and issuance information that is
already part of the data that we share with our national security
partners. All officers have been instructed to include complete
information about all previous and current U.S. visa(s) when a Visas
Viper cable is sent. This instruction includes guidance on specific
methods to comprehensively and intensively search the database of visa
records by conducting a wide-parameter, ``fuzzy search,'' leveraging an
existing search capability, when searching our comprehensive repository
of visa records in the Consular Consolidated Database (CCD). Searches
conducted in this manner will identify visa records despite variations
in the spelling of names as well as in dates of birth, places of birth,
and nationality information. Visas Viper cables sent after December
2009 contain this more complete information.
Since the Presidentially ordered Security Review, there have been
exigent changes in the thresholds for adding individuals to the
Terrorist Screening Database, No Fly, and Selectee lists. The number of
revocations has increased substantially as a result. As soon as
information is established to support a revocation, an entry showing
the visa revocation is added electronically to the Department of
State's Consular Lookout and Support System (CLASS) and shared in real
time with the DHS lookout systems used for border screening.
The State Department has broad and flexible authority to revoke
visas and we use that authority widely to protect our borders. Since
2001, we have revoked more than 57,000 visas for a variety of reasons,
including over 2,800 for suspected links to terrorism. Currently, we
are reviewing the procedures and criteria used in the field to revoke
visas and will issue new instructions to our officers. Revocation
recommendations will be added as an element of reporting through the
Visas Viper channel. We have provided additional guidance to the field
on use of the broad authority of visa officers to deny visas on
security and other grounds. Instruction in appropriate use of this
authority has already been a fundamental part of officer training for
years.
We have been actively using this revocation authority as we perform
internal reviews of our data against watchlist information provided by
partner agencies. We are reviewing all previous Visas Viper submissions
and cases that other agencies are bringing to our attention from the No
Fly and Selectee lists, as well as other sources. In these reviews, we
have identified cases for revocation and also confirmed that
substantial numbers of individuals in these classes hold no visas and,
of those few who did, a great many were revoked prior to the current
review.
We are implementing a new generation of visa processing systems
that will further integrate information gathered from domestic and
overseas activities. We have enhanced our automatic check of CLASS
entries against the CCD as part of our ongoing process of technology
enhancements aimed at optimizing the use of our systems to detect and
respond to derogatory information regarding visa applicants and visa
bearers. We are accelerating distribution to posts of an upgraded
version of the automated search algorithm that runs the names of new
visa applicants against the CCD to check for any prior visa records.
This enhanced capacity is available currently at 83 overseas posts,
with the rest to follow soon.
We are deploying an enhanced and expanded electronic visa
application form, which will provide more information to adjudicating
officers and facilitate our ability to detect fraud. We are working
with our interagency partners on the development and pilot-testing of a
new, intelligence-based Security Advisory Opinion (SAO) system that
will make full use of the additional application data.
The fiscal year 2011 budget for Consular Affairs includes
significant resources to fund ongoing and new activities for the Visa
Office. All activities will be funded with fee revenues included in the
new schedule of fees. These activities include: Global Visa System
creation, advanced biometric search capabilities, datasharing with
relevant agencies and other advancements.
Question. Do you think that adding Department of Homeland Security
Visa Security Units at overseas embassies would improve the security of
the consular visa issuance process?
Answer. The Department of State has a close and productive
partnership with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), including
the Visa Security Program (VSP) of Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE). Over the past 7 years both agencies have increased resources
significantly, improved procedures and upgraded systems devoted to
supporting the visa function. We support the assignment of Visa
Security Officers to selected overseas posts where they work together
with Consular Officers and Assistant Regional Security Officer-
Investigators (ARSO-I) to advance the nation's border security
initiatives in the following areas: extending the border overseas;
capitalizing on the visa process to identify national security threats;
identifying unknown threats; sharing information and conducting liaison
activities; providing training and advice; and investigating terrorism,
human trafficking, alien smuggling, marriage fraud.
We work closely with the ICE Visa Security Units (VSUs) established
abroad and with domestically based Visa Security Program supporting
those units. VSUs currently operate at 14 visa adjudicating posts in 12
countries. Since January 19, 2010, we have received requests from ICE
to open four additional VSUs and to augment staff at two existing VSUs.
The Chiefs of Mission have approved the four new VSUs and one request
for expansion with one request for expansion pending.
Question. An article in the February 23rd Washington Post describes
problems in moving forward with the planned Security Training Facility
in Maryland. The most troubling issues mentioned in the article include
missteps by Federal officials, poor communication with the local
communities affected by the Training Facility operations, and the State
Department's acknowledgement that there hasn't been adequate analysis
on whether building a single facility is more cost-effective than the
current leasing of various different sites.
The article also questions the economic impact of the project for
the local community and States that the Department acknowledges that
there may be delays due to the public opposition and possible legal
challenges.
What is the State Department doing to address these problems and
have you determined whether building a single facility is the most
cost-effective approach to providing security training to its
employees? If not, shouldn't that have been done well before this
point?
Answer. The Department of State (DoS) and General Services
Administration (GSA) recognize and understand the concerns of Queen
Anne's County residents regarding this proposed project. It is our goal
to work in conjunction with the citizens of this community to ensure
that the proposed facility benefits the surrounding area and any
adverse impacts are minimal.
To that end, project overview and public scoping meetings were held
in early January, marking the beginning of the public participation
process. Additional public meetings were conducted on February 16 and
February 23, and the public comment period was extended from January
15, 2010 until March 12, 2010. In those meetings, we shared the
evaluation criteria guiding the selection of a preferred site, provided
general background information about the purpose and need of the
project, and requested feedback from local residents and community
groups about what issues should be studied and what areas may need to
receive a greater level of attention during the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) process.
The NEPA process is the tool by which the public is invited to
comment and identify impacts that they believe may result from the
proposed development. The comments will be part of the NEPA analysis
that will be published in the draft Environmental Assessment (EA). Upon
publication of the EA, the public will have another opportunity to
participate in a 30-day comment period. The findings will be used to
modify the plans and operations for the facility to avoid or mitigate
any impact. Development of the site cannot, and will not, begin until
the NEPA process is completed.
Additionally, the DoS and GSA accepted numerous invitations from
local organizations and community groups for open discussions, and are
also working to establish community liaison positions that will
strengthen the dialogue with the local community and continue it on a
more regular basis. We also invited the public to submit feedback on
the proposed training center at any time, by calling the dedicated
phone line at (215) 446-4815 or emailing FASTC.info@gsa.gov.
According to a 2007 DoS Office of the Inspector General report, the
Bureau of Diplomatic Security's (DS) training facilities are not
adequate to accommodate the Bureau's training. The dispersal of
instructors and students among different facilities throughout the
greater Washington, DC, metropolitan and surrounding areas is a barrier
to effective team building, communication, and operational efficiency.
The operating cost to conduct training at the current patchwork of 19
facilities exceeds $19 million annually. Students and instructors
shuttle between facilities that extend from West Virginia to the
Maryland suburbs at a significant productivity cost to employees.
Several off-site annexes used for training are sub-standard facilities.
The Department, over a 15-year period, has pursued possible
locations for a consolidated training facility in Maryland, Virginia,
and Washington, DC. DS collaborated extensively with other agencies
(Drug Enforcement Agency, Customs and Border Protection, Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center, Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Department of Defense and others) to discuss facility sharing and
opportunities for co-location. During this process, DS learned that
these agencies were training at maximum capacity, and could not offer
exclusive scheduling opportunities. Furthermore, they could not
accommodate our highly specialized programs or our diverse and
voluminous student population (Foreign Service Officers, Foreign
Service Nationals, etc.) and unique curriculum (i.e., aggressive
driving/ambush/kidnap scenarios, weapons of mass destruction and
medical courses, explosives, heavy firearms, etc.).
DS also vigorously explored expanding existing facilities. DS
concluded that existing facilities have been expanded to capacity and
unable to meet the demands of an increase in Foreign Service and other
personnel who will serve in high/critical threat environments based on
an expected augmentation of U.S. foreign affairs reconstruction and
stabilization efforts in failing or transitioning states/regions.
Question. Were existing sites, including local military facilities
with excess space capacity, considered and evaluated as part of the
decisionmaking process? If so, which sites were considered and what
were the reasons for deciding to instead build a new site? If existing
sites were not considered, why not?
Answer. The Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS) has been pursuing
space for a consolidated training facility for more than 15 years. This
search has included seeking available land for purchase or exclusive
use from other Federal agencies, operating military bases, and military
bases scheduled to close as a result of the 2005 Base Realignment and
Closure (BRAC) recommendations, as well as facility sharing and
opportunities for co-location. Other agencies with whom DoS has
approached over the years to share their facilities include the Drug
Enforcement Administration, Customs and Border Protection, the Federal
Law Enforcement Training Center, Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Department of Defense, and others.
In addition to seeking new land, DS also vigorously explored
expansion of existing facilities, but concluded that those facilities
are already at full capacity. Over the past several years, some of the
following Federal/military/or commercial facilities have been
investigated as potential sites for a consolidated DS hard skills
training center:
--Camp Dawson, WV;
--National Conservation Training Center, WV;
--Summit Point Raceway Associates, WV (Privately owned land-lease
with DoS-owned buildings);
--Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD;
--Agricultural Research Center, Beltsville, MD;
--Indian Head Naval Surface Weapons Center, MD;
--Fort AP Hill, VA;
--Quantico Marine Base, VA;
--Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, Cheltenham, MD;
--Fort Pickett, VA; and
--U.S. Army Research Facility, Blossom Point, MD.
None of the agencies or locations listed above were able to
accommodate the highly specialized programs (i.e., driving tracks,
firing ranges and mock-urban environments), student populations
(Foreign Service Officers, Locally Employed Staff, etc.), and
relatively unique curriculum and mission needs of DS.
Therefore, during the summer of 2009, a search for other available
land was initiated by the General Services Administration (GSA), Region
3/Philadelphia, on behalf of the Department. Following a search of
declared excess Federal property and commercially listed private lands,
both GSA and the Department concurred additional site options were
needed. GSA posted an announcement seeking interested parties on the
Federal Business Opportunities website (www.fbo.gov) on June 29, 2009.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
Question. Madame Secretary, as briefly mentioned, Hawaii will have
the great honor of hosting the Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation
(APEC) 2011 Leader's Meeting. My constituents have expressed some
concerns about anticipated security-related expenses that will be
associated with this event. It is my understanding that last year's
Group of Twenty Summit, which was hosted by Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
resulted in cost overruns incurred by the State and local governments.
The APEC 2011 Leader's Meeting will be quite an undertaking, and it is
my hope that the State of Hawaii can look forward to the full
cooperation of the Department of State and all the other coordinating
Federal agencies. Would you please speak to the interagency
cooperation, coordination, and cost-sharing anticipated between the
various Federal agencies and Hawaii's local government?
Answer. The Department of State is the lead coordinating agency for
U.S. participation in the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum
(APEC), and will work with a strong interagency team to arrange the
hosting of APEC in 2011. Of the $89 million anticipated spending by
State in fiscal year 2011, we expect that over one-half will be spent
in Hawaii. The majority of the APEC 2011 meetings will take place
during fiscal year 2011, and much of the Hawaii costs will also be
incurred in fiscal year 2011. However, Leaders Week security costs will
fall in the fiscal year 2012 budget period. Diplomatic Security
officers have briefed officials in Hawaii on obtaining National
Security Special Event Status and have requested that Hawaii prepare a
budget of anticipated costs. Governor Lingle has also discussed the
matter with Secretary Napolitano, and the Departments of State and
Homeland Security will coordinate closely in this matter. The State
Department looks forward to working closely with Congress, the
interagency team and officials in Hawaii to ensure successful meetings
in 2011.
Question. The East-West Center was created by Congress 50 years ago
to promote the relationship between the United States and its neighbors
throughout and across the Pacific Ocean. I appreciate the support the
Department has expressed for public diplomacy, and a commitment to
promoting the concept of citizen diplomacy. These are key concepts
promoted by the East-West Center and facilitated by its exchanges and
educational programs. The Center is a key stakeholder and participant
planning and preparing for the APEC 2011 Leader's Meeting. As the
Center looks forward to its next 50 years, how do you see the Center's
extensive alumni network throughout Asia and the Pacific region,
exchange programs, capacities, and partnerships complementing efforts
by the Department, and how might its tremendous resources be further
utilized?
Answer. The Department of State greatly values the East-West
Center's achievements in strengthening relationships between the United
States and the Asia-Pacific region, and in addressing global issues.
The Center is providing important support to our efforts to prepare for
the United States' hosting of APEC in 2011, particularly preparations
for the 2011 APEC Economic Leaders' Meeting.
For 50 years, the East-West Center has played a vital part in
bridging cultural, educational, political, economic and social
distances between the United States and the Asia-Pacific region. I
appreciated the opportunity to speak at the Center as part of its
anniversary celebrations, and to engage with students who will be among
the next generation of leaders in promoting stronger U.S.-Asia-Pacific
relations.
The East-West Center has served as an important forum for meetings
between senior U.S. officials and leaders from the Asia-Pacific region,
including the Heads of State of many Pacific islands nations. It also
brings together journalists, security experts, educators and other
professionals in many fields that are important to our relationship.
Its 58,000 alumni, organized into 50 chapters, form a significant
international network of influence, and our Embassies help to support
the efforts of these alumni overseas.
As the United States further develops our partnerships in the Asia-
Pacific region, the East-West Center offers a unique venue and
expertise to foster cooperation and encourage the sharing of ideas. The
Center's efforts to promote broader systemic and globalized thinking in
the Asia-Pacific region helps build a common understanding of issues
and values among publics and professionals, facilitating the State
Department's work. We anticipate that the Center will become an even
more valuable part of the overall U.S. public diplomacy effort in East,
South, and Southeast Asia and the Pacific in the coming years, and we
look forward to continued collaboration with this important
institution.
Question. The Asia-Pacific region continues to gain more attention
in the media, whether due to economic, trade, or security matters. With
the benefit of having a year in your position as the Secretary, I am
curious how you see the U.S. role in the region growing, adapting, and
changing in the next few years?
Answer. The United States' revitalized relationship with the Asia-
Pacific region will continue to grow in the next few years. We have a
strong interest in continuing our economic and strategic leadership,
and Asia has a strong interest in the United States remaining a dynamic
economic partner and a stabilizing influence.
We will remain a resident power in the region contributing to the
stability that makes economic progress possible. Our economies will
remain inextricably linked. American companies export $320 billion in
goods and services to the Asia-Pacific region every year, creating
millions of jobs. We will continue to work through APEC with other
regional economies to foster free and open trade and investment and
growth that is more inclusive, balanced, and secure.
We will enhance our partnerships with our friends in the Asia-
Pacific region to meet global security and humanitarian needs. We will
continue to work together to help prevent nuclear proliferation,
support our common interests in Afghanistan, combat piracy off the Horn
of Africa and more.
Our people-to-people links will continue to grow with more than 13
million Americans tracing their ancestry to that part of the world.
Hundreds of thousands of students from the Asia-Pacific region study in
the United States, and the number of American students is increasing at
universities in Asia.
The next few years will present the possibility for greater
regional cooperation. We are building the architecture to meet the
challenges faced by the region. Our alliance relationships with Japan,
South Korea, Australia, Thailand, and the Philippines are among the
most successful bilateral partnerships in modern history and will
remain the cornerstone of our regional involvement. We are building
toward launching a Comprehensive Partnership with Indonesia and will
continue to strengthen relationships with other key players, including
China. We are also exploring strengthened multilateral cooperation
across the region.
Question. Last April I shared with you my concerns regarding the
Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) and
specifically, the importance of bigeye tuna (BET) to Hawaii's economy.
The Hawaii longline fleet has been under limited entry regulation
for 15 years while other nations (including China and Taiwan) have
increased their number of boats by 50 percent and increased their
fishing exponentially by entering into multiple charter agreements with
other nations--which are not closely tracked. The WCPFC established a
BET quota of 4,200 metric tons for the U.S. longline fleet for 2006-
2008. For 2009-2011 that quota was reduced to 3,750 metric tons. The
purse seine industry in the United States also catches BET, often
taking more as unwanted bycatch than the longline industry takes as a
target species.
Our longline industry has informed us repeatedly about the
challenges associated with operating within this quota, particularly in
light of the fact that China and Taiwan do not appear to be honoring
the quota limits. To that end, the fishermen in Hawaii have taken the
initiative to map out potential charter agreements with Guam, American
Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in order to
legally take additional catch and ensure a steady supply to the
American market. However, the WCPFC has not adopted mutually agreed
upon parameters for charter agreements, and there is currently no
governing mechanism for how they are entered into or agreed upon, which
is something we encourage the WCPFC to take up at future meetings.
Our challenges are twofold: How do we secure meaningful enforcement
measures to ensure that all WCPFC signatories abide by their quota
while supporting the efforts of our domestic industry to provide a high
quality, reliable supply of fresh seafood to the American market? Even
though the Regional Fishery Management Organizations such as the WCPFC
focus on international issues, I urge State to work with the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to take into account the effect
of international negotiations on domestic industry. How can State
assist with moving this forward?
Answer. The Department of State works closely with NOAA on issues
related to the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission
(WCPFC). Both agencies take seriously the responsibility of making
decisions that affect U.S. economic interests, and our negotiators work
diligently to balance those interests with the conservation imperatives
and priorities in the most equitable manner possible. In particular, in
recognition of the special circumstances surrounding the operation of
the Hawaii-based U.S. longline fleet, our negotiators, on two separate
occasions, fought for and secured special accommodations for that
sector of the industry, which were described in detail in a May 4, 2009
letter to you from Assistant Secretary Verma. Together, these
provisions ensure that reductions in the quota for the U.S. Hawaii-
based fleet are significantly less than the cuts faced by the fleets of
other developed States.
Even so, we fully recognize the challenge in working to ensure that
all WCPFC participants abide by the quotas for bigeye tuna pursuant to
WCPFC Conservation and Management Measure 2008-01. At this time, we
have no evidence to indicate or to suggest that other WCPFC members,
including those mentioned in your question, are exceeding their
established quotas. At the same time, we recognize that the process for
monitoring of catches and collection of information is still under
development and the information available to us to assess the current
situation is imperfect. A large part of our response to the challenges
you have identified must be to continue to strengthen the programs
within the WCPFC for monitoring, control and surveillance of fishing
activities to ensure a greater level of transparency in fishing
operations in the region.
The WCPFC took an important step in this direction at its December
2009 meeting with the adoption of a measure to monitor and regulate the
transshipment of fish caught in the WCPFC Convention Area. Under this
measure, all transshipments of fish by longline vessels will be
observed and recorded by an observer on board either the fishing vessel
or the carrier vessel receiving the fish. (Similar provisions apply to
other fleets.) In our view, this measure closes a significant gap in
our ability to monitor catches and ensure compliance with agreed
measures. Unreported transshipment of fish is one way that vessels can
avoid having catches counted against their national quotas. We will
also continue to push for higher levels of observer coverage on foreign
longline fleets, recognizing the U.S. fleet operates with the highest
level of coverage of any fleet in the region.
The issue of charter operations is one that we are considering
carefully. Under certain circumstances, charter operations can provide
an effective and legitimate means for small island developing States
and territories to develop their domestic fisheries without incurring
large capital expenditures. At the same time, we are concerned that,
without clear rules and guidance on the nature and extent of allowable
charter operations, such operations could allow some fishing States to
increase their catches without having that catch count against their
national quota, but instead against the quota of a small island
developing State or territory, with little direct link to the
development of the domestic fishery in the State or territory in
question. Under this latter scenario, the catch limits for some distant
water fishing nations would have little meaning and the conservation
benefits of CMM 2008-01 would be significantly diminished.
Finally, another way to address concerns about the status of bigeye
tuna, is to explore ways to reduce catches of juvenile bigeye tuna in
the tuna purse seine fishery, especially the fishery associated with
fish aggregating devices or ``FADs.'' At present, different groups are
exploring various options with respect to the development of different
fishing gear and techniques to reduce catches of juvenile bigeye tuna.
WCPFC members are looking to the United States for leadership in this
endeavor. In our view, although this work is expensive and would
require a multi-year funding commitment, the United States should seek
to join these ongoing efforts and contribute to them in a material way.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
Question. Madame Secretary, as you are aware, on April 1, 2008, the
Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption went into full force in the
United States. Since that time, the number of intercountry adoptions
has decreased dramatically from over 22,000 in 2004 to just over 13,000
last year. For the most part, this is because countries of origin have
shut adoption processes down due to concerns of fraud and abuse. It has
been my experience that governments in these countries are both willing
and wanting to receive guidance from the United States in building a
system of intercountry adoption that is both safe and effective. What
is the State Department currently doing to meet this need?
Answer. The reasons for the decline in numbers of intercountry
adoptions vary from country to country. The United States is only one
of several receiving countries experiencing such a trend. However,
since the United States adopts on a greater scale than all other
countries, the decline in raw numbers is larger. The majority of
intercountry adoptions into the United State occur from a handful of
countries of origin. When those few countries of origin alter their
intercountry adoption practices and requirements, the impact on our
overall numbers is disproportionately large.
Over 70 percent of the reduction in fiscal year 2009 was in the
number of children adopted from Guatemala, where the Guatemalan
National Council on Adoption announced in September 2008, that it would
not accept any additional adoption cases, because, among other things,
the Government of Guatemala has not yet met its obligations under the
Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption (the Convention) and has not
yet put into place the required safeguards. This year, due to our
strong interest in encouraging Guatemala's efforts to reform its
adoption system, and pending a determination about whether the program
is consistent with Convention standards, the United States has asked to
participate in a limited 2 year Guatemalan pilot program to allow for
the adoption of a number of special needs children.
Nearly 20 percent of the fiscal year 2009 reduction in intercountry
adoptions was from China, which is making fewer children eligible for
intercountry adoption, while the numbers of prospective adoptive
parents from traditional receiving countries has been increasing. As a
result the wait time for healthy young children is increasing. However,
the wait time for older children and those with special needs remains
low. Russia and Vietnam also registered notable declines. The
Department remains in close contact with the governments of Russia and
Vietnam on adoption matters.
The United States takes a multi-faceted approach in working with
other countries on adoption issues. The Convention is an important tool
in helping the United States promote intercountry adoption practices
that focus on the best interests of each child. The accreditation
process for adoption service providers who wish to operate in
Convention countries establishes clear, strong, enforceable standards.
Although the accreditation process is only a few years old, it is our
judgment that U.S. efforts in accreditation have ``raised the
performance bar,'' and helped to improve the standard for services
provided in non-Convention as well as Convention adoptions.
As the U.S. Central Authority for the Convention, the Department of
State encourages and supports implementation of best practices in child
protection and welfare in order to achieve Convention goals of
incorporating intercountry adoption in an integrated child protection
and child care system. As a matter of policy, we take every opportunity
to encourage all countries to take the necessary steps toward joining
and properly implementing the Convention. For example, the Kyrgyz
Republic, which is not party to the Convention, halted intercountry
adoptions in 2008 over concerns of corruption and fraud in the adoption
process. The Department has engaged the Kyrgyz government at the
highest levels on numerous occasions to encourage the strengthening of
safeguards in the adoption process and accession to the Convention. In
addition to these efforts, we have advanced the issue through outreach
programs that included sending a U.S. adoption expert to the Kyrgyz
Republic last year, and sponsoring an adoption-themed study tour to the
United States for senior Kyrgyz officials.
Another country not party to the Convention is Vietnam. Adoptions
from Vietnam were suspended in 2008. However, the United States remains
in frequent contact with the government of Vietnam on adoption matters.
Discussions have focused on the broad range of child welfare
responsibilities encompassed by the Hague Adoption Convention, the
principles underlying the Convention, and the practical requirements
for implementing procedures that the Convention requires.
Cambodia is a member of the Hague Adoption Convention, but due to
fraud, irregularities, and an insufficient legal framework to provide
safeguards for the protection of children, the former Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS) suspended adoptions from Cambodia on
December 21, 2001. Despite accession to the Convention in 2007, the
Royal Government of Cambodia (RGC) has been unable to implement Hague-
compliant procedures necessary to meet its treaty obligations. Working
in cooperation with the Hague Permanent Bureau (HPB), as well as with
several receiving countries, the United States has sought to provide
assistance for Cambodia's establishment of implementing legislation
necessary for an ethical and transparent adoption program that meets
Convention standards. The United States has supported efforts by the
HPB and joined a receiving country Working Group comprised of
Convention states to provide coordinated input on Hague law and
procedures to the RGC. The United States also supports UNICEF's
continuing work with the RGC to implement law, as well as improve and
strengthen the child welfare system in Cambodia. As part of a multi-
country assistance grant to UNICEF, the USAID Displaced Orphan's and
Children's Fund (DCOF) is providing approximately $1 million for this
purpose.
Finally, the United States supports the work of the Hague Permanent
Bureau as it responds to inquiries from countries on intercountry
adoption issues. The Department has an ongoing and active record of
sponsoring and participating in the work of the Hague Conference on
Private International Law's Inter-Country Adoption Training and
Technical Assistance Program (ICATAP). Created in 2007, ICATAP provides
assistance directly to governments that are planning to ratify or
accede to the Convention, or have already done so but are experiencing
difficulties with implementation. The United States contributed
$200,000 in 2008 to the Hague Permanent Bureau's Supplementary Budget,
which funds ICATAP and other child welfare programs.
Question. As you know, one of the founding principles of the Hague
is that children are best served in a family. Under what is called its
principle of subsidiarity, convention countries agree to pursue family
reunification and domestic adoption before allowing a child to be
adopted by a family in another country. Convention countries also agree
that institutionalization and long term foster care are not considered
permanent and should therefore not be used as long term solutions.
Madam Secretary, I am concerned that while it appears to be U.S. policy
that intercountry adoption should take precedence over long term foster
care and institutions, our practice appears to be quite the opposite.
Can you confirm that it is in fact the U.S. policy that long term
foster care and institutionalization are not long term solutions and
should therefore not be given preference over intercountry adoption?
Answer. Yes, that core Convention principle reflects our policy as
well. In situations where children will not be reunited with their
families, permanency planning should be undertaken as quickly as
possible. Long-term foster care or institutionalization is not in the
best interests of children. The principle of subsidiarity as expressed
in the Convention stands for the principle that national adoption be
given precedence over intercountry adoption. However, the practice of
stopping intercountry adoptions pending the development of a viable
national adoption system or enactment of long-term child care reform,
in most cases runs contrary to the core ``best interests of the child''
principle of the Convention.
Question. As you know, one of the many challenges in addressing the
needs of orphan children in Haiti is the lack of a universally accepted
definition of what is an orphan. In fact, the often cited estimate that
there were 380,000 orphans in Haiti prior to the earthquake include
children who had one living parent and/or extended family. What can the
United States do to assist the Government of Haiti in developing the
data necessary to better understand what children's precise needs are?
Answer. The United States is actively assisting the development of
the data necessary to better understand children's precise needs by
providing expert technical assistance to the U.S. mission child
protection team, technical assistance and transport for GOH/UNICEF
assessments of the needs of children in hundreds of orphanages in the
Port au Prince area, and by supporting nationally representative
surveys such as periodic Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) and a
recent survey of child trafficking, restaveks, and child victims of
violence.
The figure of 380,000 is the UNICEF estimate of the number of
children under 18, before the earthquake, who had lost one or both
parents. Of this number, 330,000 children had lost one parent and
50,000 had lost both parents. The great majority of these children were
living with the surviving parent (if a single orphan) or with extended
family members, usually a grandparent or aunt or uncle.
Prior to the earthquake, only 67 of an estimated 600 residential
care centers (referred to as ``orphanages,'' though many of the
children have one or both parents living) had been registered with the
Government of Haiti (GoH). Because a majority of these centers were
unregistered, there is little official data or statistics on children
living in these conditions. Approximately 300 of these centers were
located in Port-au-Prince and the surrounding earthquake-affected area.
The USG is supporting the GoH and UNICEF to map and build a
database of children's residential care centers to facilitate stronger
oversight through registration and monitoring in the future. As of
March 1st, the UNICEF-led Child Protection Sub-cluster (CPSC) had
completed assessments in 280 residential care centers. More than 17,000
children were residing in 205 of the assessed centers. The remaining
assessed centers were found to be no longer hosting children.
With USAID support, Haiti carried out Demographic and Health
Surveys in 1994-1995, 2000, and 2005-2006. The 2005/6 survey included
information for children under 18 about whether the parents are alive,
whether the children live with their parents and the relationship to
other members of the household. The United States can assist the
Government of Haiti to conduct another such survey as soon as possible,
preferably with additional questions about the changes in these
relationships following the earthquake. If possible, the survey should
be accompanied by special data collection on children who live in
residential care centers.
Question. The UNHCR stipulates 2 years as a ``reasonable period''
for the tracing of and reunification with parents or other surviving
family members. Understanding the detrimental effects of prolonged
institutionalization, particularly for children ages 0 to 5, what is
the United States plan for ensuring that children are not placed in
institutions for significant portions of those 2 years?
Answer. The duration of the tracing process varies per child and is
largely influenced by prospects for success, as well as the age and
specific needs of the child and the circumstances of the child's
interim care placement. It is the USG's view that it would be
inappropriate to mandate 2 years of tracing before decisions about
long-term placement and care are made, particularly for young children.
With adequate resources, we believe that the GOH capacity could be
developed so that, when a child is identified as currently not living
with a family, a ``best interests of the child'' determination (BID)
could be made for each child. Once a BID is completed, then placement
decisions about short and long-term care could be made concurrently.
The following are priorities that USAID aims to address for child
protection in Haiti:
--Assist reunited families to remain intact and viable through social
and economic support;
--Reduce the number of children abandoned (as measured by new
admissions to orphanages);
--Increase the number of children in family-based interim and long-
term care in communities (e.g. family reunification, kinship
care, foster care, small group homes, supervised independent
living for older children, adoption);
--Reduce the number of children living in orphanages; and, improve
the quality of care for children living in orphanages awaiting
a family placement; and
--Strengthen the capacity of the Government of Haiti to build and
lead a national child protection program based on international
standards, robust monitoring and evaluation, an expanded cadre
of professional social and child welfare workers.
Question. As you are well aware, U.S. Federal law requires that
State and local officials who place children in foster care are to
pursue the primary goal of family reunification, while at the same
time, developing an alternative permanency plan for the child. If the
family reunification efforts fail, then the alternate plan will already
be in place and well on its way to completion. This practice, which is
called concurrent planning, is intended to reduce the total period of
time a child will remain in out of home care before being permanently
placed with a family. Is this an approach that the United States might
encourage its international partners to consider adopting so that
children in Haiti are not spending unnecessary time in non-permanent
situations?
Answer. Yes, we are aware of and support the concept of concurrent
planning for children in care. We note that the main problem in Haiti
before and after the earthquake is that the GOH does not have a
functioning child welfare system, including the sophisticated social
work capacity required to engage in case-by-case analysis of each
child's situation and needs so that, if needed, a concurrent plan could
be written, approved, and executed. Now that so many children are in
need of emergency care, such as food and shelter, the immediate
priority has been to focus on those needs first.
Question. Long term solutions to the issues facing Haiti's orphan
children will undoubtedly require the mobilization and coordination of
both traditional and non-traditional partners. Have you given any
thought about how you might mobilize faith based, corporate and
professional partners around the goal of providing families for orphan
children?
Answer. Yes, a great deal of thought has been given to the
mobilization of such partners. Faith-based partners in particular have
long played a central and seminal role in assisting children and are
well positioned to scale-up such services. USG agencies are currently
working with a variety of faith-based partners in Haiti to address the
needs of orphans and vulnerable children.
Question. This year will mark the third year of the 10-year
memorandum of understanding between Israel and the United States on
important military assistance to Israel. The President's budget request
for FMF to Israel--$3 billion--is the amount noted in the MOU and we
are appreciative of the President's ongoing commitment to ensure Israel
has the tools it needs to defend itself. What do you perceive to be the
security threats Israel faces today? How will this assistance help to
enhance security and stability in Israel and throughout the region?
Answer. Support for Israel's security is a cornerstone of our
Middle East policy. Israel faces potential threats from a number of
sources, including terrorist organizations such as Hizballah and Hamas,
as well as states including Iran. Our Foreign Military Financing (FMF)
memorandum of understanding is intended to contribute to Israel's
ability to defend itself from these regional threats by committing the
Administration to seek congressional approval to provide Israel $30
billion in FMF over a 10-year period, beginning in fiscal year 2009.
The United States provided Israel with $2.55 billion for fiscal year
2009, and forward-funded $555 million of Israel's $2.775 billion fiscal
year 2010 FMF allocation via the fiscal year 2009 Supplemental
Appropriations Act.
Israel uses this assistance both to procure U.S.-origin defense
articles, ranging from ammunition to advanced weapons systems and
training, and to develop and support its own defense industry. U.S.
assistance will help ensure that Israel maintains its qualitative
military edge over potential threats, preventing a shift in the
security balance of the region, and safeguarding U.S. interests. Our
assistance is also aimed at building Israel's confidence to make
historic concessions necessary for comprehensive regional peace.
Question. The President's request included $400.4 million in
economic assistance for the West Bank and Gaza ``to strengthen the
Palestinian Authority as a credible partner in Middle Eastern peace and
continue to respond to humanitarian needs in Gaza.'' The request also
states that this assistance ``will provide significant resources to
support the stability of the PA, economic development of the West Bank,
and increase the capacity of the PA to meet the needs of its people.''
Can you tell us how these funds will be disbursed? What specific
projects will be funded and through what specific mechanisms? What
portion of these funds will be used for humanitarian assistance in
Gaza? Are you confident that there are safeguards in place to ensure
this assistance reaches its intended recipients and does not land in
the hands of Hamas or benefit Hamas? If yes, can you please provide an
explanation of the safeguards in place?
Answer. The Department's $400.4 million request in fiscal year 2011
for the West Bank and Gaza Economic Support Funds (ESF) program
supports the Palestinian Authority's (PA) development and institution-
building priorities through the following bilateral economic support:
--Up to $200 million in direct budget support to the PA.
--$72.5 million for the delivery of basic education, health, and
water services.
--$81.4 million in programs to help develop the environment for
growth in the Palestinian private sector.
--$15.5 million in food, medical, and other humanitarian assistance
for Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.
--$31 million to enhance democratic reform, respect for human rights
and the rule of law, and increase civic engagement.
The more than $400 million ESF requested in fiscal year 2011 will
continue support for priority reform and institution-building
priorities identified by the PA, and will be disbursed primarily
through either new or existing USAID and MEPI contracts or grants with
international organizations, U.S. non-governmental organizations, and
local vetted organizations. As noted above, the Administration has
requested $15.5 million for humanitarian assistance in the West Bank
and Gaza for fiscal year 2011. At this stage, USAID cannot predict the
exact amount that will be spent on humanitarian assistance in Gaza
versus the West Bank. The decision on funding for Gaza will be based on
the changes in the situation and the evolving needs.
The United States has installed safeguards that will ensure that
our funding is only used where, and for whom, it is intended, and does
not end up in the wrong hands. USAID and MEPI provide all project
assistance through International organizations, U.S. non-governmental
organizations and local vetted organizations. Before making an award of
either a contract or a grant to a local NGO, USAID or MEPI, as
appropriate, checks the organization against information in U.S.
government databases. USAID and MEPI also check these organizations and
the organization's principal officer, directors, and other key
individuals through law enforcement and other systems accessed by
USAID's Office of Security. All NGOs applying for grants from USAID and
MEPI are required to certify, before award of the grant will be made,
that they do not provide material support to terrorists. These
organizations also work with local organizations through sub-grants.
All local sub-grantees are likewise vetted to ensure no terrorist
connections.
Once an award has been made, USAID and MEPI have established
procedures to safeguard U.S. investments and ensure the transparency
and integrity of U.S. assistance. In order to ensure that funding
through local and U.S. NGOs is used only for agreed upon purposes, all
NGOs are required to submit quarterly financial reports on how funds
are spent. Also, all direct USAID grantees, contractors, and
significant sub-grantees and subcontractors' local costs are audited by
USAID's Inspector General on an annual basis. In addition, the
Mission's vetting procedures are the subject of regular GAO audits.
Before transferring U.S. taxpayer dollars to the PA as budget
support, the Secretary of State certifies that the PA maintains a
Single Treasury Account; has eliminated all parallel financing
mechanisms outside of the treasury account; and established a single
comprehensive civil service roster and payroll. The PA is only
authorized to use budget support funds for purposes approved by USAID.
In 2008 and 2009, U.S. budget support was tied to specific PA
expenditures, i.e., payment of debt to Israeli energy or utility
companies and private sector financial institutions providing credit
for purchases from these companies. Vetting of specific private sector
creditors is a prerequisite to disbursements of funds. Funds are
transferred into a separate local currency sub-account of the PA's
Single Treasury Account, and USAID had access to all information
pertaining to the separate sub-account in order to monitor funds. The
PA must notify USAID in writing when disbursements are made from the
separate sub-account, including the amount disbursed and the recipient.
The Regional Inspector General also audits each cash transfer. We
anticipate using the same process for fiscal year 2011 budget support.
In addition to tight USG procedures and controls, the PA, under
Prime Minister Fayyad, has undertaken substantial economic and fiscal
reforms that have increased transparency and accountability. The PA's
budget, including revenue sources and actual expenses and commitments,
is publicly available on the Ministry of Finance's website. In
addition, the Ministry of Finance (MOF) has taken a number of
additional steps to increase fiscal oversight and streamline budget
execution, including by establishing a General Accounting Department
and a Computerized Accounting System to link the MOF to line ministries
and ensure that funds are used for their intended purpose.
Question. The President also requested $150 million for security
assistance for the Palestinian Authority, indicating these funds will
support reform of the Palestinian security sector. This is an increase
of $50 million over last year's funds. Please explain the reason for
this increase.
Answer. The Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement
(INL) will use most of the $50 million increase in funding over fiscal
year 2010 levels to train, equip and garrison an additional Special
Battalion of the Palestinian Authority's (PA) National Security Force
(NSF). The total fiscal year 2011 request of $150 million provides
enough funds to train, equip, and garrison three Special Battalions.
This level of funding will bring us to our goal of training and
equipping a total of 10 battalions (including one in reserve) and
garrisoning nine.
INL will direct a portion of this additional request to provide
training, equipment, infrastructure, and technical assistance to
prosecutors, investigative police, and prison officials in the Justice
and Corrections Sectors to complement our security force programs.
Question. In December, you acknowledged that efforts to engage Iran
in negotiations on its nuclear program had not had the desired results,
saying, ``I don't think anyone can doubt that our outreach has produced
very little in terms of any kind of positive response from the
Iranians.'' Iran continues to enrich uranium, test missiles and work on
its heavy water reactor. The global community cannot sit idly by as
Iran continues to build a nuclear weapons capability. Can you provide
us with an overview of the Administration's strategy to prevent Iran
from obtaining and using a nuclear weapon?
Answer. The Administration remains committed to its dual-track
strategy to address Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability,
which ultimately presents Iran with two choices: It can fulfill its
international obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
and to the U.N. Security Council and International Atomic Energy
Agency, or it can face increasing international pressure and
condemnation for its activities.
At the moment, our focus is on getting the international community
to consider new multilateral sanctions, while also implementing all
existing U.N. Security Council resolutions through national measures.
We believe that these kinds of multilateral pressures can most
effectively underscore to the Iranian government the cost of defying
the international community. They are also the most difficult for Iran
to evade.
We also continue to work independently and with our allies to take
measures to deny Iran access to the technology and know-how it needs to
develop further its nuclear program, while underscoring our continued
support for a peaceful nuclear energy program in Iran. We are also
working with our partners to prevent Iran from abusing the
international financial system to facilitate its proliferation
activities.
Finally, we are working with our counterparts on the IAEA Board of
Governors to support the IAEA's investigation into Iran's nuclear
program and compliance with its obligations. Through the IAEA's
investigation, we have learned much concerning Iran's activities and
many questions have been raised that reinforce our concern regarding
the nature of Iran's nuclear intentions. We support fully the IAEA's
efforts to address those questions.
Question. As part of the administration's sanctions effort, will
the State Department begin to implement the Iran Sanctions Act (ISA) by
making determinations about companies investing in the Iranian
petroleum sector?
Answer. The Department of State takes its obligations under the
Iran Sanctions Act (ISA) very seriously and we have reviewed many
reports of potentially sanctionable activity under the Act. In addition
to this ongoing process, we recently conducted a preliminary review of
a number of reported activities that were mentioned in a letter sent
from 50 Members of the House to President Obama in October and a letter
sent to me by Senator Kyl and 10 other Senators in November. During the
course of this review, we found the activities of some companies to be
problematic and therefore warranting more thorough consideration under
the standards delineated in the ISA. We are continuing to collect and
assess information on these cases.
We work aggressively on three fronts to ensure that our review of
such reports is serious and thorough and that we have a rigorous
process in place for implementation of the ISA. First, we raise in our
bilateral engagement with numerous countries the need to strengthen our
cooperation in promoting a united front for restricting investment in
Iran's energy sector. Second, we supplement our efforts by working with
our Embassies overseas to collect information on potentially
sanctionable activity. Finally, we review with the intelligence
community reports of activities of some companies that warrant further
scrutiny under the ISA. Through these mechanisms we ensure that
credible reports are examined fully while reports with no substance are
put to rest. It is worth noting that the Iranian government, in its
efforts to deny its increasing international isolation, promotes and
publicizes all manner of transactions and purported investments that
may or may not have any truth to them.
If the Secretary makes a final determination that sanctionable
activity has occurred, Congress will be notified promptly.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg
Question. We saw with the Sean Goldman case that international
parental abduction is a major problem. Although we were able to secure
a positive outcome in that case with your help, many other parents are
still struggling to bring their children home and it is clear that the
current system falls short. What are you doing to improve the
Department's ability to locate and help safely return American children
who are victims of international parental abduction?
Answer. The Department has designated the Office of Children's
Issues (CI) in the Bureau of Consular Affairs as the U.S. Central
Authority for the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of
International Child Abduction (Hague Abduction Convention) and to work
with parents and our posts abroad on cases of international parental
abduction to countries that are not Hague partners. CI works to reunite
parents with abducted children and has expanded in size as the number
of international parental child abductions has grown. In the last year
alone, the Department has hired 21 new employees in the Office of
Children's Issues to work exclusively on abduction cases, bringing
total staff for the issue of abduction to over 70 employees spread
among five issue-specific and geographic branches. In addition, the
management structure of CI has been expanded and a number of new
higher-graded positions have been introduced. The CI Director is a
member of the Senior Foreign Service. A Senior Advisor will also be
added to provide senior management with analysis and policy
recommendations. Additionally, in the fall of 2009, CI added a
Diplomatic Security officer to its staff to strengthen its cooperation
with law enforcement authorities. These additional resources will
enable CI to continue to broaden its prevention-related activities,
improve its ability to locate abducted children abroad, ensure
consistently high levels of service among case workers, improve
training, and carry out more vigorous bilateral and multilateral
engagement with countries that are parties to the Hague Abduction
Convention, and those that are not.
These bilateral and multilateral efforts are critical to resolving
cases of international parental child abduction. As the Goldman case
with Brazil demonstrated, complying with the Hague Abduction Convention
and returning children remains an ongoing challenge for some countries.
When countries fail to comply with the Hague Abduction Convention, the
Department, in coordination with other treaty party countries and the
Hague Conference on Private International Law, offers technical
assistance and guidance. The Department participates in and helps to
sponsor judicial seminars on the Convention in party countries across
the globe. In the last few years alone, the Department has participated
in judicial conferences or training in Argentina, Brazil, Chile,
Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, France,
Israel, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, and Spain.
The Department has seen how its diplomatic efforts can produce
positive results. As recently as 2007, for example, Germany was one of
the most difficult countries from which to recover an abducted child.
But active engagement with Germany through quarterly bilateral meetings
has resulted in consistent and prompt action by German courts. Germany
has returned 17 children to the United States over the past 2 years.
Intensive cooperation with other Convention countries has also been
critical to enhancing our ability to stop abductions before they
happen. When the Department becomes aware that a parent may be in the
process of abducting a child from the United States to another country,
it works with U.S. law enforcement to stop the departure from the
United States. Once the abductor is on the way to another country, the
Department works with officials in other Convention countries to
intercept the taking parent, if possible. In 2009, these efforts
resulted in the prevention of 147 abductions from the United States to
61 different countries.
The Department is engaged in multilateral efforts to obtain better
cooperation from countries that are not parties to the Convention. In
Japan, for instance, our ambassador has recently joined his
counterparts from Australia, Canada, France, Italy, New Zealand, Spain,
and the United Kingdom in a persistent effort both to encourage Japan
to recognize foreign custody orders and to adjust its laws so that
Japan can join the Hague Abduction Convention. The Department will
continue and increase these efforts with Japan and around the world in
the coming months.
The Department's abduction staff is expert in the field, speaks 21
different languages, and works closely with embassies and consulates
around the world to do everything the Department legally can to assist
parents in preventing abduction and recovering their children. CI has
developed resources for left-behind parents that are easily accessible,
regardless of a parent's immigration status, English-language
capability, or financial situation. These include: information on our
website at travel.state.gov; a 24-hour toll-free number for parents;
lists of attorneys abroad and in the United States; a language line for
parents who do not speak English; law enforcement liaison; and victim
assistance resources. The CI Staff are available to assist 24 hours a
day, 7 days a week, worldwide. An improved website focused on
international child abduction and intensified outreach programs in
domestic and international fora are contributing to public awareness of
both the problem and of resources to combat it.
The Department assisted in the return of 422 children to the United
States from other countries during fiscal year 2009. During the same
period, 132 children were returned from the United States to their
countries of habitual residence. More detailed information about
international parental child abduction cases and the Department's work
to resolve longstanding cases will appear in the Department's upcoming
2010 Report to Congress on Compliance with the Hague Convention on the
Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Previous reports can be
found online at www.travel.state.gov/childabduction.
Question. Eighty-five years ago, Haiti's tropical forest covered 60
percent of the country. Today, that number has fallen to less than 2
percent. As we work to fight global warming, this environmental
degradation has serious implications for Haiti and the world. What role
will environmental issues such as reforestation play in the long-term
recovery plan for Haiti?
Answer. Root causes of environmental disaster in Haiti include
acute poverty, rapid population growth and unplanned urbanization. In
the short term, it is critical to convert hillsides to tree-based
perennial agriculture to improve soil conservation. Lessons learned
from decades of reforestation programs demonstrate that, if a tree has
value, a farmer is likely to maintain and manage it; if not, it will
likely disappear. Therefore, strengthening tree crop value chains is an
approach with proven ability to restore degraded landscapes.
USAID/Haiti's Watershed Initiative for National Natural
Environmental Resources (WINNER) Project, an agricultural and watershed
management program, applies best practices such as this. WINNER is
already active in the Cul-de-Sac watershed where Port-au-Prince is
located, as well as the Cabaret, Mirebalais, Archaie and Gonaives
regions of Haiti. Prior to the January 12, 2010 Haiti earthquake
disaster, the United States planned to invest $126 million in the
project over the next 5 years. WINNER is strengthening the value chains
for tree crops and focusing on tree crops with high value (such as
mango) as these are effective incentive to hillside farmers to plant
and manage perennial crops.
In addition to tree crops, the USG strategy in Haiti also includes
plans to promote cleaner and more efficient cooking technologies, such
as liquid petroleum gas (LPG), to decrease charcoal consumption and
reduce the rate of deforestation and environmental degradation. After
completing a rigorous assessment of the potential market for improved
cooking technologies, the USG will implement a program that will
address market barriers such as high upfront costs or lack of awareness
and achieve large-scale reduction of charcoal consumption over a 5-year
period. Beneficiaries are likely to include households, food vendors
and energy-intensive businesses such as laundries and bakeries.
Finally, a Programmatic Environmental Assessment will be conducted
for proposed earthquake reconstruction activities, which will pay close
attention to addressing these issues across the mission's portfolio of
projects.
Question. I applaud President Obama's immediate rescission of the
Mexico City Policy, also known as the Global Gag Rule, upon taking
office. What impact did the previous 8 years of this policy have on
women's health? What impact does uncertainty surrounding this policy
have on organizations' ability to address these critical health
challenges?
Answer. During the period in which the Mexico City Policy (MCP) was
in place, all family planning funds were successfully programmed with
an emphasis on the countries with the greatest need. This included
funds that might have otherwise gone to international non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) that chose not to work with USAID while the policy
was in place.
More than 450 foreign NGOs elected to accept assistance subject to
the MCP and received USAID funding. USAID programs demonstrated
continued success during this period--shown by an increase in modern
family planning use among married women from 33 to 39 percent between
2001 and 2008 in 38 countries with USAID-assisted family planning
programs which have data over this period. Since the rescission of the
MCP, the USG has had the opportunity to reengage with additional
experienced and qualified family planning providers working at the
grassroots level, furthering our work to meet the growing demand for
voluntary, safe family planning and other critical health services. We
expect that should this situation change, these organizations would
reassess their decision to work with USAID.
Question. Aid programs too frequently focus on one problem and fail
to provide the integrated approach necessary for successful
development. What is the Administration doing to better integrate U.S.
development programs on food security, health, the environment, and
family planning?
Answer. USAID has made great strides in establishing mechanisms to
ensure that its development activities are undertaken within the
framework of a comprehensive and integrated development approach, which
employs strategic multi-sector synergies for improving performance and
producing greater results. For example, the Agency's new USG Global
Hunger and Food Security Initiative (GHFSI) is multi-disciplinary and
being developed and undertaken with a cross-cutting sector approach
that includes the direct participation of development experts from a
wide variety of sectors--including agriculture, environment, nutrition,
maternal and child health, education, infrastructure, gender, and
family planning and reproductive health. Similarly, one of the
principles of President Obama's new Global Health Initiative (GHI) is
integration with other sectors to ensure a cross-cutting sector
approach that will benefit from the development linkages within USAID
and across the USG. In addition, USAID's Global Climate Change Agency
Policy Coordinating Committee (APCC) is working closely with the GHFSI
APCC, the GHI Interagency Team and the Agency's Extended Water Team to
identify integrated approaches to the four programs. Designed to
address the unique settings of each development and humanitarian
challenge, this comprehensive integrated management structure
strengthens USAID's development efforts, and particularly, the Agency's
new initiatives both in Washington and the field.
Under the GHI and in the Agency approach generally, USAID is
engaging in smart integration to maximize gains from development funds.
Using an increasingly integrated and coordinated approach, several
principles derived from experience serve as a guide. These principles
focus on:
--Country-led coordination and strategic decisionmaking on
integration of services is required for the sustainability of
development;
--All partners--public and private--are important in maximizing
achievement of outcomes in limited resource settings;
--Integration of U.S. programs must be based on specific country
circumstances;
--Integration and coordination have a cost--they add a level of
complexity and administrative burden to programs that must be
weighed against the urgency of rapid results;
--Resources are required to research, monitor and evaluate the
expected causal relationship between increased integration and
outcomes;
--In order to build country capacity for integration, systems and
structures (such as the health system) should be a deliberate
focus of U.S. assistance with documentation on the impact on
outcomes; and
--Critical assessment of other multilateral and bilateral investments
and increased coordination will be essential to the achievement
of ultimate success.
Question. I was pleased to see the increase in funding for the
Clean Technology Fund and the Strategic Climate Fund. How will these
two programs address the national security threats caused by global
warming?
Answer. Climate change poses a significant threat to the national
security of nations around the globe. Variations in weather patterns
caused by rising temperatures threaten to create dangerous changes in
the climate system, increasing floods and droughts, altering natural
resource availability, and creating conditions likely to cause regional
conflict and destabilize security situations throughout the world.
Given the urgency of the climate challenge and the threats it poses to
national security, it is essential to be able to mobilize and disburse
climate assistance quickly and effectively. The CIFs, which were
launched just 2 years ago as a partnership of developed and developing
countries, are doing just that.
The Clean Technology Fund and the Strategic Climate Fund (together,
the Climate Investment Funds or ``CIFs'') have become an essential
pillar of the international community's effort to mobilize funding to
help developing countries mitigate their greenhouse gas emissions and
adapt to the effects of climate change. With $6.3 billion pledged so
far, the CIFs constitute the largest multilateral fund dedicated to
climate assistance. Funds mobilized under the CIFs are being utilized
to help those countries which are most vulnerable to the effects of
climate change increase their resilience and capacity to adapt to its
effects which will in turn reduce national security concerns caused by
effects like changes in natural resource availability. Those funds
mobilized to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions are working to directly
address climate change by limiting the increase in temperature rise and
reducing the source of the problem which poses such extensive national
security concerns throughout the world.
Question. As you have stated, the Middle East Peace process has
effectively stalled. How do you plan to reestablish the trust of the
parties and move the peace process forward?
Answer. We are pursuing a two-pronged approach toward comprehensive
peace based on the two-state solution: first, to encourage the parties
to enter direct negotiations to reach an agreement on all permanent
status issues; and second, to help the Palestinians build their economy
and the institutions that will be necessary when a Palestinian state is
established. The two objectives are mutually reinforcing. Our goal is
to re-launch direct, bilateral negotiations between Israel and the
Palestinians as soon as possible with a 24-month timeline for their
successful conclusion. We expect that all concerned will demonstrate
the leadership to make bold commitments and take bold actions to make
peace possible.
Question. We saw with the Sean Goldman case that international
parental abduction is a major problem. Although we were able to secure
a positive outcome in that case with your help, many other parents are
still struggling to bring their children home and it is clear that the
current system falls short. What are you doing to improve the
Department's ability to locate and help safely return American children
who are victims of international parental abduction?
Answer. The Department has designated the Office of Children's
Issues (CI) in the Bureau of Consular Affairs as the U.S. Central
Authority for the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of
International Child Abduction (Hague Abduction Convention) and to work
with parents and our posts abroad on cases of international parental
abduction to countries that are not Hague partners. CI works to reunite
parents with abducted children and has expanded in size as the number
of international parental child abductions has grown. In the last year
alone, the Department has hired 21 new employees in the Office of
Children's Issues to work exclusively on abduction cases, bringing
total staff for the issue of abduction to over 70 employees spread
among five issue-specific and geographic branches. In addition, the
management structure of CI has been expanded and a number of new
higher-graded positions have been introduced. The CI Director is a
member of the Senior Foreign Service. A Senior Advisor will also be
added to provide senior management with analysis and policy
recommendations. Additionally, in the fall of 2009, CI added a
Diplomatic Security officer to its staff to strengthen its cooperation
with law enforcement authorities. These additional resources will
enable CI to continue to broaden its prevention-related activities,
improve its ability to locate abducted children abroad, ensure
consistently high levels of service among case workers, improve
training, and carry out more vigorous bilateral and multilateral
engagement with countries that are parties to the Hague Abduction
Convention, and those that are not.
These bilateral and multilateral efforts are critical to resolving
cases of international parental child abduction. As the Goldman case
with Brazil demonstrated, complying with the Hague Abduction Convention
and returning children remains an ongoing challenge for some countries.
When countries fail to comply with the Hague Abduction Convention, the
Department, in coordination with other treaty party countries and the
Hague Conference on Private International Law, offers technical
assistance and guidance. The Department participates in and helps to
sponsor judicial seminars on the Convention in party countries across
the globe. In the last few years alone, the Department has participated
in judicial conferences or training in Argentina, Brazil, Chile,
Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, France,
Israel, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, and Spain.
The Department has seen how its diplomatic efforts can produce
positive results. As recently as 2007, for example, Germany was one of
the most difficult countries from which to recover an abducted child.
But active engagement with Germany through quarterly bilateral meetings
has resulted in consistent and prompt action by German courts. Germany
has returned 17 children to the United States over the past 2 years.
Intensive cooperation with other Convention countries has also been
critical to enhancing our ability to stop abductions before they
happen. When the Department becomes aware that a parent may be in the
process of abducting a child from the United States to another country,
it works with U.S. law enforcement to stop the departure from the
United States. Once the abductor is on the way to another country, the
Department works with officials in other Convention countries to
intercept the taking parent, if possible. In 2009, these efforts
resulted in the prevention of 147 abductions from the United States to
61 different countries.
The Department is engaged in multilateral efforts to obtain better
cooperation from countries that are not parties to the Convention. In
Japan, for instance, our ambassador has recently joined his
counterparts from Australia, Canada, France, Italy, New Zealand, Spain,
and the United Kingdom in a persistent effort both to encourage Japan
to recognize foreign custody orders and to adjust its laws so that
Japan can join the Hague Abduction Convention. The Department will
continue and increase these efforts with Japan and around the world in
the coming months.
The Department's abduction staff is expert in the field, speaks 21
different languages, and works closely with embassies and consulates
around the world to do everything the Department legally can to assist
parents in preventing abduction and recovering their children. CI has
developed resources for left-behind parents that are easily accessible,
regardless of a parent's immigration status, English-language
capability, or financial situation. These include: information on our
website at travel.state.gov; a 24-hour toll-free number for parents;
lists of attorneys abroad and in the United States; a language line for
parents who do not speak English; law enforcement liaison; and victim
assistance resources. The CI Staff are available to assist 24 hours a
day, 7 days a week, worldwide. An improved website focused on
international child abduction and intensified outreach programs in
domestic and international fora are contributing to public awareness of
both the problem and of resources to combat it.
The Department assisted in the return of 422 children to the United
States from other countries during fiscal year 2009. During the same
period, 132 children were returned from the United States to their
countries of habitual residence. More detailed information about
international parental child abduction cases and the Department's work
to resolve longstanding cases will appear in the Department's upcoming
2010 Report to Congress on Compliance with the Hague Convention on the
Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Previous reports can be
found online at www.travel.state.gov/childabduction.
Question. According to the Justice Department, Teodoro Nguema
Obiang, the forest and agriculture minister of Equatorial Guinea and
the son of its president, has accumulated most if not all of his wealth
through corruption while the people of Equatorial Guinea live in severe
poverty. Nonetheless, Mr. Obiang has been granted multiple visas to
enter the United States in violation of U.S. law and reportedly
purchased a $35 million home in Malibu. Why has Mr. Obiang continued to
receive visas despite U.S. anti-kleptocracy laws? What are you doing to
enforce those laws and commitments?
Answer. The Department of State is committed to combating
kleptocracy and corruption internationally and to use Presidential
Proclamation 7750 and other provisions to deny entry to corrupt foreign
government officials. We are aware of the concerns you raise and of
ongoing congressional interest in Mr. Obiang. Under Section 222(f) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act visa records are considered
confidential, and therefore I cannot comment on any individual case.
The Department would be happy to share such relevant information in a
closed setting.
Combating corruption is a foreign policy priority for the
Department. We coordinate and cooperate with other Departments to
foster a comprehensive approach including by law enforcement and other
agencies. In our overall international anticrime strategy we recognize
the central role of corruption, as the ``grease'' that facilitates
virtually all transnational illicit activities, from drug trafficking
to terrorist financing. We take the role of Presidential Proclamation
7750, which allows for denial and revocation of corruption foreign
government officials and their families, very seriously. However, it is
only one part of our Anti-Corruption Policy Framework.
The United States has been a leader on anticorruption issues
globally:
--With the passage of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in 1977, the
United States was the first country to criminalize foreign
bribery.
--In 1999 the USG developed and launched the premier government-to-
government event, the Global Forum, the first-ever
international conference on corruption and how to combat it.
--The first multilateral enunciation of the No Safe Haven policy for
kleptocrats and their ill-gotten assets occurred at Evian in
2003. Each G-8 summit since then has sought to deepen political
commitment and foster concrete action. The G-20 has also
undertaken similar anticorruption commitments.
--The U.S. International Anti-Kleptocracy Strategy was promulgated in
2006, in part to spur greater interagency cooperation in taking
concrete action against kleptocrats and their assets.
--Denial and revocation of the visas of kleptocrats continues to play
an important role in both of the preceding initiatives.
--The United States supported the negotiation and implementation of
the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC), which
entered into force in December 2005, and was ratified by the
Senate in 2006. It now has 143 States Parties.
--The United States supported the UNCAC as the first truly global
anticorruption treaty and the most comprehensive anticorruption
instrument. It has chapters on criminalization and law
enforcement, prevention, recovery of stolen assets,
international legal cooperation, and technical assistance. In
November 2009, the United States helped lead its Conference of
Parties to establish a comprehensive review mechanism, a
significant and rare accomplishment for a United Nations
instrument.
--Another key treaty is the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention. The United
States was a leader in the OECD's push to tackle foreign
bribery. The OECD Convention has many similarities with the
U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and targets the
supply side of the corruption equation. The United States is an
active participant in the treaty's peer review process and the
Working Group on Bribery.
--The United States also supports and participates in regional
treaties or initiatives in the Americas (Inter-American
Convention), Western and Eastern Europe (Council of Europe/
GRECO), Middle East/North Africa, and the Asia-Pacific region.
These are useful to bring together countries to press each
other on progress and to share good practices.
--The USG is one of the largest donors of technical assistance in
anticorruption and good governance. In fiscal year 2009, the
Department of State and USAID provided a total of over $1
billion in anticorruption and related good governance
assistance.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mitch McConnell
Question. Last September, Secretary Clinton announced the
administration's new strategy of engagement with the Burmese regime. We
are now 6 months into the new strategy, what tangible benefits have
come about as a result of the new approach? Has the denial of Aung San
Suu Kyi's appeal led to a reevaluation of the engagement policy?
Answer. Last year the Administration launched a review of Burma
policy, acknowledging that neither sanctions nor engagement alone had
succeeded in influencing Burma's generals to adopt a course of reform.
The conclusions of the policy review reaffirmed our fundamental goals
in Burma. We want a democratic, prosperous Burma that respects the
rights of its people. To achieve that end, the administration decided
to engage Burmese authorities in a senior-level dialogue while
maintaining the existing sanctions regime and expanding humanitarian
assistance.
We understood at the outset that this process would be long and
difficult, in particular given the regime's focus on this year's
planned elections. We have not yet achieved concrete progress on our
core concerns and with respect to the electoral process, the regime has
taken a step backwards. However, our new approach has helped advance
the interests of the United States, both in Burma and in the wider
region. Through our senior-level dialogue, we have been able to get our
message in directly to senior leaders in Nay Pyi Taw and we have had
been able to meet with imprisoned democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi for
the first time in years. The channels of communication we developed
through our dialogue were instrumental in securing the release of Kyaw
Zaw Lwin (aka Nyi Nyi Aung), a U.S. citizen imprisoned on politically
motivated charges. More broadly, our outreach to Burma and our
determination not to allow Burma to be an obstacle to a strong U.S.-
ASEAN relationship has strengthened the position of the United States
in Southeast Asia. We were able to hold the first ever meeting between
the United States and ASEAN at the leaders' level and to sign on to the
Treaty of Amity and Cooperation.
We continue to monitor and evaluate events in Burma carefully and
have and will continue to adjust our strategy as necessary to advance
our policy goals.
Question. What is the Department of State's understanding of
Burmese nuclear capabilities and ambitions?
Answer. We closely follow Burma's pursuit of nuclear technology,
ostensibly for peaceful scientific applications, as well as reports
that Burma is pursuing a clandestine nuclear program.
Burma joined the IAEA in 1957, acceded to the NPT in 1992, and
signed a Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA in 1995. Burma is also a
Party to the 1995 Treaty of Bangkok that established the South-East
Asia Nuclear Weapons Free Zone. In 1997, Burma established a Department
of Atomic Energy and in 1998 passed an Atomic Energy Law. The IAEA
provides training to Burmese nuclear researchers through a number of
Technical Cooperation projects, most involving nuclear applications in
medical research, food, and agriculture.
After several years of bilateral discussions between Burma and
Russia, Moscow agreed in 2007 to provide a small pool-type research
reactor to Burma, conditioned on the reactor being under IAEA
safeguards. While there has been little or no movement on implementing
this agreement, Burmese students have been studying nuclear science at
several Russian universities and institutes for several years.
It is incumbent on Burma, as a signatory to the NPT and the Bangkok
Treaty and as a member of the IAEA, to be transparent in all its
nuclear undertakings and live up to its international obligations. In
addition, we urge Burma to modify its Small Quantities Protocol (SQP)
with the IAEA and implement the IAEA's Additional Protocol.
Question. Please characterize the relationship between North Korea
and Burma.
Answer. Burma and North Korea have clearly both been subject to
substantial international scrutiny for numerous aspects of their
behavior, including disregard for human rights and for international
standards on nonproliferation. We are concerned, in particular, about
the military relationship between North Korea and Burma. U.N. Security
Council Resolutions 1718 and 1874 requires all member states to
prohibit the procurement by their nationals, or using their flagged
vessels or aircraft, of conventional arms and related materiel,
nuclear-related, ballistic missile-related, and other WMD-related items
from North Korea. The UNSCRs also prohibit any associated technical,
training, advice, services, or assistance. The Burmese government has
publicly committed to enforcing UNSCR 1874 fully and transparently, and
we have reminded the Burmese of their obligations under both UNSCRs
1718 and 1874. We have encouraged all states, including Burma, to be
vigilant and transparent in their dealings with North Korea.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Christopher S. Bond
Question. Does the Administration support any conditionality on FMF
assistance for Indonesia?
Answer. Indonesia is the world's third-largest democracy. Over the
last decade, it has undergone a democratic transformation to become a
stable and peaceful nation. It is committed to democratic reform and
has become an ally in promoting democracy and human rights in the
region, including through the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.
As part of its transformation, the Indonesian government has taken
significant steps to reform its military, emphasizing respect for human
rights, and generally maintained effective civilian control of the
military. Indonesia is also an important partner of the USG on a broad
range of issues, including combating terrorism and addressing maritime
security threats in the region. The Department supports Indonesia's
efforts to address these security-related areas that are of mutual
concern to both our countries, including by providing FMF assistance.
Given Indonesia's progress in promoting and protecting human rights
and our close collaboration on security issues, we believe FMF
assistance to Indonesia is warranted without conditionality.
Question. Can you describe for us the role our International
Affairs programs play in helping spur economic growth here at home and
creating American jobs? How do these programs help U.S. businesses and
entrepreneurs to remain competitive in the global market place?
Answer. The State Department supports the efforts of U.S. companies
and farmers to expand their business through exports. As flourishing
international trade requires at least two parties, our efforts support
U.S. businesses wishing to export and also help our trading partners
develop so that those countries will have a healthy demand for those
exports. The Department promotes U.S. exports by providing advocacy on
behalf of U.S. companies, urging enforcement of intellectual property
rights, and helping to develop high-potential overseas markets. State
Department officers manage the commercial function at 96 U.S. missions
worldwide that have no U.S. Commercial Service presence. State
Department officers also provide vital political and economic insight
to U.S. companies about foreign countries. U.S. Embassies and
Consulates are key advocates for U.S. business overseas. Embassies can
offer U.S. exporters critical country-specific insight on markets,
assist in commercial and investment disputes, and provide expertise on
local judicial systems. Our advocacy efforts are to ensure that
exporters of U.S. goods and services get fair and equitable treatment
in foreign markets.
On the other side of the trade equation, State and USAID foreign
assistance programs help developing country economies grow, resulting
in increased demand for U.S. goods and services over time. More
directly, some U.S. Trade Capacity Building (TCB) programs help
countries streamline customs and other import administration procedures
and improve trade-related infrastructure, thereby lowering the cost of
U.S. products in those markets and opening up new export and job
opportunities for U.S. suppliers. Other TCB programs help countries
comply with their trade commitments under bilateral Free Trade Area
agreements and the World Trade Organization, such as their commitments
to ensure that agriculture and food safety standards are based on sound
science.
Question. I note with concern that funding overall for Southeast
Asia took a $22 million cut below the fiscal year 2010 enacted level.
Can you provide me with an overview of where some of these cuts were
made and why a reduction in overall funding?
Answer. The United States must have strong relationships and a
strong and productive presence in Southeast Asia. This region is vital
to the future of not only the United States and each of the ASEAN
countries, but to the world's common interests: a significant and
trade-oriented regional economy; a critical strategic location; and a
set of countries that will be key to any solutions we pursue on climate
change, counterterrorism, global health, and so much else. Our fiscal
year 2011 request for Southeast Asia increased by $65 million (11.2
percent) over our fiscal year 2010 request. While there are always more
assistance needs in the region than we are able to fund, given current
budget realities, this increase strongly reflects the importance of
Southeast Asia to the Administration. Not all regions in the Department
experienced an increase, or even a straight-line; some were reduced
from the fiscal year 2010 request level. The Department faces difficult
choices in allocating limited foreign assistance funding, and the
ability to fund Frontline States necessarily requires trade-offs in
funding in other regions, including Southeast Asia.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Sam Brownback
Question. The French government has recently announced its plans to
sell several Mistral-class helicopter carriers to Russia and a French
company is reportedly negotiating to sell tanks as well. A Russian
admiral, Vladimir Vysotsky, stated recently that if Russia had had a
Mistral ship during the Georgia war in 2008 it could have won the
conflict in 40 minutes. Baltic States such as Estonia are furious over
the ship sale and it is a direct threat to Georgia and our national
interests, as well as our billion dollars in rebuilding assistance. Do
you share the concerns raised by our NATO allies? Most importantly,
does the sale violate the Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls as
well as the European Union Code of Conduct for Arms Exports?
Answer. We understand that reports of this potential sale have
raised concerns among some of Russia's neighbors. Inflammatory comments
from a senior Russian military officer added to this anxiety. We would
urge all parties to focus on efforts to promote stability in the region
and avoid actions that could escalate tensions. I made these points
when I met with President Sarkozy in January.
Export control decisions in the Wassenaar Arrangement are left to
national discretion. The European Union Code of Conduct for Arms
Exports, to which the United States is not a party, sets criteria under
which EU countries are obligated to assess arms export licenses.
Implementation is an internal matter for each EU party.
Question. As of today, Russia is continuing to build military bases
and station elite troops in regions of Georgia not under the Georgian
government's control. What concerns does the United States have toward
the sale of advanced weapons to Russia that could be used in a future
conflict against Georgia or a NATO ally?
Answer. The United States supports Georgia's sovereignty and
territorial integrity within its internationally recognized borders. We
are concerned about recent Russian announcements to introduce
additional military facilities and troops into the Georgian regions of
Abkhazia and South Ossetia. We would regard such actions to be in
violation of the August and September 2008 ceasefire agreements and the
principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and host nation
consent for the stationing of foreign forces. We support the ongoing
Geneva talks, which established the Incident Response and Prevention
Mechanisms (IPRMs) to increase communication and transparency among the
parties to the conflict and decrease the escalation of tension along
the ceasefire lines. We continue to emphasize the importance of re-
starting the South Ossetian IPRM.
Russia's possible procurement of a French Mistral-class helicopter
carrier has raised concerns among some of Russia's neighbors. While we
recognize that arms sales are a sovereign decision for individual
countries to make in keeping with international law and treaty
obligations, we continue to follow these developments closely, and we
urge all parties to focus on efforts to promote stability in the region
and avoid actions that could escalate tensions. These points have been
raised at high-levels with the French government.
Question. A recent Senate Foreign Relations Committee report
determined that the United States should move forward and rearm the
Georgian government with the weapons it needs to defend its territory.
Do you support this step? If not, why? If so, when will the United
States begin the sale of arms to an ally that is deploying 1,000 troops
to Afghanistan?
Answer. The Administration remains committed to supporting
Georgia's sovereignty and territorial integrity. Our security
assistance and military engagement with Georgia is focused on
rebuilding Georgia's defense and security architecture. This approach
is consistent with Georgia's objectives in its NATO Annual National
Program. It also helps Georgia advance toward NATO membership by
supporting Georgian defense modernization and reform and improving
Georgia's ability to contribute to international security operations.
Our focus in the near term is enhancing self-defense capabilities
through an emphasis on doctrine, personnel management, education, and
training.
Additionally, the United States is assisting the Georgian Armed
Forces by training and equipping four infantry battalions for
successive deployment to Afghanistan, around twice a year for 2 years.
Georgian forces will sustain this rotation without caveats, and will
fight alongside the U.S. Marines as part of NATO's International
Security Assistance Force in Regional Command--South, Helmand Province,
to conduct distributed operations in a counter-insurgency environment.
The first Georgian battalion of approximately 750 troops began training
September 1, 2009 and will deploy to Afghanistan in April for six
months. Three follow-on battalions will be trained and deployed to
Afghanistan in 7-month rotations.
Question. In a letter exchange between Secretary Clinton and
Senators Feingold, Brownback, and Durbin, the State Department stated
that it had begun mapping the mineral rich zones controlled by armed
militias in the Congo. When will this map be made available to the
public and/or Members of Congress? The letter also indicated that the
State Department is considering additional efforts to address conflict
minerals in the Congo. What are these ``additional efforts'' that the
State Department is exploring to address conflict minerals in the
Congo?
Answer. The map of mineral-rich zones and armed groups in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), which was mandated in Public
Law 111-84, will be made available to the appropriate congressional
committees and the public shortly.
In terms of additional efforts, we plan to strengthen our public
diplomacy to draw attention to the conflict minerals challenge; to
enhance diplomatic outreach with the DRC, in the region and with
countries in the supply chain; to intensify engagement with the private
sector to discourage illegal minerals trade; to continue examining and
further expand reporting on the link between illegal exploitation of
natural resources, corruption, and human rights abuses in the State
Department's annual human rights report on the DRC; and to contribute
to the work of the United Nations Security Council's Democratic
Republic of the Congo Sanctions Committee's Group of Experts (UNSC DRC
Group of Experts) on due diligence guidelines for importers, processing
industries and consumers of mineral products.
Question. What are the current programs within both the State
Department and USAID to improve the livelihood prospects of communities
affected by human rights abuses in eastern Congo, particularly victims
of sexual and gender based violence?
Answer. USAID social protection programs in the Democratic Republic
of the Congo (DRC) include economic strengthening activities for
survivors of sexual and gender-based violence and their families.
Economic assistance is also provided to other highly vulnerable women.
Current programs include:
--Program for Psychosocial Support and Reintegration of Survivors of
Sexual and Gender-Based Violence in Eastern DRC.--Implemented
by Cooperazione Internazionale (COOPI), operating in Ituri
District, Orientale Province and Maniema Province, funded at
$4,945,045 (December 15, 2008, to December 14, 2011). COOPI and
its local partners are providing medical, psychosocial, socio-
economic, and legal support to 24,000 survivors of sexual and
gender-based violence. Through this project, 4,000 survivors
benefit from income generating activities each year through
self-help groups and women's NGOs.
--ESPOIR: Ending Sexual Violence by Promoting Opportunities and
Individual Rights.--Implemented by International Rescue
Committee, operating in North and South Kivu Provinces, funded
at $7,000,000 (September 17, 2009, to September 30, 2012). IRC
and its local partners are providing medical, psychosocial,
socio-economic, and legal support to 14,500 survivors of sexual
and gender-based violence. IRC's sub-grant to Women-for-Women
International is supporting more than 6,000 women in income-
generating activities and vocational training.
--Program for Assistance and Reintegration of Abducted Girls and Boys
and Other Gender-based Violence Survivors.--In partnership with
UNICEF (COOPI is the implementing partner), operating in Ituri
District, Orientale Province, funded at $1,511,644 (July 20,
2006, to December 31, 2009). This program assists girls and
boys formerly associated with armed groups, many of whom are
affected by sexual and gender-based violence, with social and
economic reintegration. Community-based reintegration includes
returning to school and engaging in income-generating
cooperatives for vulnerable children (children who have been
separated directly from armed groups, as well as children who
encounter challenges in reintegrating with their families,
particularly girls and girl mothers).
--USAID Food for Peace programs in the DRC provide livelihood
assistance to displaced and other highly vulnerable people in
North and South Kivu, areas most affected by insecurity, human
rights abuses, and sexual and gender-based violence.
Development food aid programs support individuals and small
farmers' associations to increase agricultural productivity
through training and food-for-work programs.
--USAID Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance programs support
livelihood activities for vulnerable individuals in eastern
DRC. In fiscal year 2009, USAID's Office of U.S. Foreign
Disaster Assistance provided $33 million for agriculture and
food security, economic recovery and market systems,
humanitarian coordination and information management, health,
logistics and relief commodities, nutrition, protection,
shelter and settlements, and water and sanitation programs.
--The Department of State Office of Population, Refugees, and
Migration provided more than $45 million in fiscal year 2009
for humanitarian programs for refugees and internally displaced
persons from and in DRC. Funding includes programs for
agriculture and food security, education, emergency food
assistance, health, protection for refugees and internally
displaced persons, livelihoods, psychosocial services, refugee
integration, sexual and gender-based violence protection and
response, shelter, and water and sanitation programs.
Question. What resources, including personnel, are dedicated both
within the State Department and USAID to the issue of conflict minerals
in the Congo?
Answer. The United States dedicates significant financial and
personnel resources to address illicit mining in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo. We have supported incorporation of the mining
issue into the mandates of both the U.N. Mission in the Congo (MONUC)
and the U.N. Group of Experts on the DRC. Through USAID, we support
livelihoods programs for Congolese artisanal miners who are the great
majority of miners nationwide. Through the U.S. Department of Labor, we
fund programs to remove child laborers from the mines and enroll them
in school. Embassy Kinshasa is working with the DRC Ministry of Mines
to support the implementation of the country's 2002 Mining Code, and
the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs is
training Congolese border and customs police in interdiction
techniques.
Question. Please explain the decrease in the State Department's
budget request for peacekeeping operations in Sudan, an account that
among other things is used to professionalize the SPLM and provide
communications and other equipment for the military.
Answer. The State Department's $42 million budget request for non-
assessed peacekeeping operations in Sudan is the same in fiscal year
2011 as it was in fiscal year 2010. Congress appropriated $44 million,
$2 million more than the Administration's request, for voluntary
peacekeeping operations in Sudan in fiscal year 2010. At this time, the
request of $42 million will be sufficient to advance the Department's
fiscal year 2011 programs for supporting the Government of Southern
Sudan's (GoSS) goals and objectives to transform its military, the
Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA), into a professional military
body.
Question. Can the United States include radar for the SPLM capable
of detecting aerial attack within its peacekeeping operations budget
request or as part of another State Department funding vehicle?
Answer. Section 7070(f)(5) of the fiscal year 2010 Department of
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act
authorizes the provision of ``non-lethal military assistance, military
education and training, and defense services controlled under the
International Traffic in Arms Regulations'' to the Government of
Southern Sudan (GoSS), provided that the Secretary of State provides
Congress 15-days advance notice of her determination that the provision
of such items is in the U.S. national interest. Deputy Secretary
Steinberg made this determination on February 3, 2010, with respect to
fiscal year 2010 funds. As a general matter, a radar system would be
considered non-lethal assistance, although the exact configuration of
radar and its integration into a weapons system could change this
conclusion.
Currently, the priority use of peacekeeping operations (PKO) funds
supporting the development of the SPLA is as outlined in the fiscal
year 2010 and fiscal year 2011 congressional budget justifications--
namely the transformation of the SPLA into a professional military--and
does not include providing a radar system to the SPLA.
Question. What resources, including personnel, is the State
Department employing to monitor and report on human rights conditions
throughout Sudan?
Answer. The human rights situation in Sudan is poor, and human
rights abuses continue to be wide-ranging. The Obama Administration is
committed to improving the situation.
The State Department monitors human rights abuses through a
collaborative process that involves personnel both in the field,
including at Embassy Khartoum and Consulate Juba, and in the United
States. Our staff has regular contact with human rights activists,
victims of abuse, and non-governmental organizations in Sudan. Special
Envoy Gration also travels extensively in Sudan, and he regularly
raises human rights issues with his high-level counterparts in Khartoum
and in Southern Sudan. Finally, United States Government (USG)
personnel based in Washington, DC, meet regularly with a variety of
Sudanese diaspora, civil society, and advocacy groups to discuss human
rights issues. We place a high value on these discussions, and we work
to ensure that we follow-up on the information and concerns presented
to us by these constituencies.
The USG, through the State Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human
Rights, and Labor, issues Country Reports on Human Rights Practices and
the International Religious Freedom Report. The Department's Office to
Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons issues the annual Trafficking
in Persons Report. Taken together, these reports provide detailed
information on human rights issues in Sudan. The State Department also
continuously collaborates with the United Nations on its efforts to
monitor the human rights situation. We have successfully worked to
ensure that the U.N. Human Rights Council maintains a reporting and
monitoring mechanism focused on Sudan, through the establishment of the
independent expert on the situation of human rights in Sudan. We also
continue to closely follow the work of the U.N. Panel of Experts on
Sudan.
Question. As we've seen in Darfur, many non-Arab Sudanese Muslims
have longstanding grievances against the central government in Khartoum
that can lead to conflict. What is the State Department doing to help
prevent new crises among marginalized peoples and regions in Sudan?
Answer. The United States government (USG) has a long standing
commitment to the people of Sudan. The central Sudanese government in
Khartoum has marginalized many groups of non-Arab Muslims throughout
various regions within Sudan, and we have long been greatly concerned
about the marginalization of these populations. We continue to pursue
policies and implement programs that will help to mitigate the effects
of marginalization by the government and promote peacebuilding and
conflict resolution within marginalized communities. Additionally, the
USG continues to work tirelessly to achieve the goals of the Sudan
Strategy, including full implementation of the Comprehensive Peace
Agreement (CPA) that ended the North-South civil war and a definitive
end to violence, gross human rights abuses, and genocide in the Darfur
region.
Since the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in
2005, the people of Sudan have made progress in developing a stable
political environment where residents can work and live without the
overt threat of violence. However, parts of Darfur, Southern Sudan, the
Three Areas and Eastern Sudan remain volatile and are flashpoints for
destabilization. The U.S. Government is working with international
partners to support Sudanese communities to prevent or moderate
conflict in these flashpoints so that problems do not escalate and
interfere with Sudan's higher political processes. The State Department
and USAID will implement complementary programs. USAID efforts focus
primarily on supporting state and local governments, organizations, and
communities to manage conflict, to provide economic alternatives to
raiding and banditry, and to implement reconciliation processes
important to a sustainable peace in Sudan. State Department activities
focus primarily on building state and local capacity to stabilize the
security and political situation.
Question. Revenue-sharing from the oil sector is a key element of
the CPA. What is the State Department doing to ensure Khartoum lives up
to its promises to share oil revenues with the South?
Answer. Over the course of 2009, the United States Government (USG)
brought together the National Congress Party (NCP) and the Sudan
People's Liberation Movement (SPLM) to address outstanding
Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) implementation issues, including
issues related to the sharing of oil revenues. Due to this U.S.-led
Trilateral initiative, the two parties signed 10 Points of Agreement in
August 2009, one of which was devoted to wealth-sharing and oil
revenue. Following this agreement, the Government of National Unity
(GoNU) returned approximately $52 million to the Government of Southern
Sudan (GoSS), a sum that was incorrectly deducted from monthly oil
revenue transfers to finance election activities. While in the past,
GoNU payments to the GoSS had been late or partial, as of December
2009, the parties broadly agreed that the GoNU shall transfer the full
oil revenue amount allotted to the GoSS. As a result, all agreed-upon
arrears have been paid to the GoSS by the GoNU.
During the Trilateral Process, the two parties also agreed to an
independent audit of the oil sector, to determine whether the payments
made to the GoSS represented the full amount due under the CPA. While
progress has been slow in obtaining approval from relevant government
bodies for the audit to move forward, it is hoped that the audit can
proceed after the formation of new national and regional governments in
the wake of April's elections.
Question. What is the State Department doing to persuade Khartoum's
economic partners, particularly those with major investments in the oil
sector such as China, India, and Malaysia, to use their influence to
encourage Khartoum to implement the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA)
fully and to avoid the resumption of a destructive, and economically
disruptive, North-South civil war?
Answer. A key part of the U.S. Sudan strategy is reinvigorating and
strengthening international attention to outstanding Comprehensive
Peace Agreement (CPA) implementation issues. The United States
Government (USG) continues to work with all international stakeholders
to bring attention to remaining CPA issues such as demarcation of the
North/South border and appointment of commissions for the Southern
Sudan and Abyei referenda. Central to this is the promotion of
sustainable economic development and stability in both Northern and
Southern Sudan. This is an area in which China, other major investors
in Sudan, and the United States have the same objectives. We continue
to urge all countries, especially those with key interests in the oil
sector, to advocate for continued attention to this matter as a central
part of CPA implementation. U.S. officials discuss these issues
regularly with their foreign counterparts. Additionally, we are
engaging with all international stakeholders to coordinate
international support for negotiations on post-referendum arrangements,
an important component of which will be oil sector development and
continued North/South oil revenue sharing.
Question. The State Department's Office of International Religious
Freedom has been without an Ambassador for International Religious
Freedom for over a year. Given both President Obama's remarks in Turkey
and Egypt and Secretary Clinton's remarks in Qatar regarding the
importance of addressing religious freedom, when can we expect someone
to be nominated for this post?
Answer. A candidate for the position of Ambassador at Large for
International Religious Freedom has been identified and is in the
vetting process. We look forward to the announcement from the White
House.
International Religious Freedom remains a top focus for both the
President and the Secretary of State. The Office of International
Religious Freedom continues to pursue a robust agenda of monitoring and
promoting religious freedom under the leadership of a Senior Foreign
Service Officer. Religious Freedom issues are regularly raised by the
Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor,
Michael Posner, as well as other State Department principals.
Question. There continues to be severe and ongoing religious
freedom violations in Vietnam, including the active suppression of
independent religious activity and the detention and arrest of members
of particular religious organizations for their religious freedom
advocacy. As the State Department makes Country of Particular Concern
(CPC) designations under the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA)
this year, what criteria, specific to Vietnam, will be used to
determine whether Vietnam will be re-designated a CPC?
Answer. The State Department applies the statutory standard found
in IRFA Sec. (3)(11) to determine whether a country should be
designated a CPC, and will consider CPC designations, as warranted, for
all countries found to be, in the words of the Act, committing
``systematic, ongoing, egregious violations'' of religious freedom.
We are concerned about a number of religious freedom violations in
Vietnam, including treatment during the past year of Buddhist monks and
nuns of the Plum Village Order who were evicted from two pagodas, as
well as the use of force against Roman Catholics in property
restitution disputes. We are also watching closely whether the
Government of Vietnam will fulfill its commitment to register more
religious congregations.
After being designated a CPC in 2004, Vietnam addressed its most
serious violations (religious prisoners, church closings, forced
renunciations, and the lack of a transparent registration system) and
instituted policies and practices to protect religious freedom. The
State Department removed Vietnam from the list in 2006 because it no
longer fit the criteria of a CPC under the IRFA. Each year, we
carefully monitor the status of religious freedom in Vietnam and
reevaluate whether it merits designation as a CPC. We will report on
further developments in Vietnam in our next International Religious
Freedom Report, due in September.
Question. Secretary of State Clinton has publicly spoken about the
importance of freedom of worship. Is the Administration prioritizing
the freedom of worship as a matter of diplomacy and if so, in what way?
Does the Administration see any distinction between freedom of
religion, as defined by international standards such as the ICCPR, and
freedom to practice or worship?
Answer. International religious freedom remains a central component
to our promotion of human rights around the world. Promoting all
aspects of freedom of religious belief and expression remains a high
priority in our diplomatic efforts, as reflected in President Obama's
Cairo speech in June, where he emphasized that ``freedom of religion is
central to the ability of peoples to live together.'' In meetings with
government leaders around the world, State Department officials
consistently raise concerns regarding violations of religious freedom,
and the annual International Religious Freedom Report is an important
tool in that effort.
As a matter of international human rights law, there is a
difference between the terms ``freedom of religion'' and ``freedom of
worship,'' and one encompasses the other. Article 18 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights describes the
right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion as including
freedom to manifest one's religion or belief ``in worship, observance,
practice and teaching.'' Freedom of worship is a component of the
broader freedom of religion. As an informal matter, the terms ``freedom
of religion'' and ``freedom of worship'' have often been used
interchangeably through U.S. history, including in this Administration.
Question. International NGOs continue to report on periodic violent
attacks against Burmese Rohingya refugees in Thailand and Bangladesh.
What resources are the State Department and USAID employing to offer
assistance to the Rohingya refugees? How is the State Department
engaging the governments of Thailand and Bangladesh regarding the
protection of Rohingya refugees?
Answer. We are closely following the situation of Burmese Rohingya
refugees and asylum seekers in Bangladesh, Thailand and elsewhere in
the region. The State Department and USAID are very concerned by
credible reports of a growing humanitarian crisis among the
unregistered Rohingya population residing outside of Kutupalong refugee
camp in Bangladesh and the increased numbers of arrests and push-backs
to Burma at the border. We are urging the Royal Thai Government to
provide assistance to Rohingya ``boat people'' distressed at sea who
are encountered in international waters near Thailand or within Thai
waters, in accordance with international maritime law and practice.
In fiscal year 2009, the State Department provided more than $2
million in funding to several international humanitarian organizations
to provide assistance and protection activities to both the registered
and unregistered Rohingya populations in Bangladesh, Malaysia,
Indonesia and elsewhere in the region. These organizations include
ActionAid, Handicap International, Action Contre La Faim and the
International Organization for Migration. Humanitarian assistance
includes the provision of healthcare, water and sanitation, education,
vocational skills training, conflict resolution, community
mobilization, mental health and psychosocial support, gender-based
violence prevention and response, and access to essential services for
Persons with Disabilities. USAID implements development programs in
Southeast Bangladesh on sectors that include population, health,
energy, natural resource management, and democracy and governance.
PACOM is constructing seven multi-purpose cyclone shelters and schools.
Given the sizeable Rohingya population in Southeast Bangladesh, these
programs also indirectly benefit the unregistered Rohingya.
We are urging the Government of Bangladesh (GOB) to allow UNHCR to
properly document the unregistered Rohingya population to ensure its
protection. We also urge the GOB to respect the principle of non-
refoulement, to investigate allegations of abuse, and take actions as
necessary. UNHCR has also gained agreement with the Government of Burma
to expand operational space in Northern Rakhine State. Third-country
resettlement remains an important strategic durable solution for some
Rohingya refugees in the region. The eventual voluntary repatriation of
refugees from Burma in safety and dignity and when conditions allow is
also another solution. Both the registered and unregistered Rohingya,
recognized as Persons of Concern by UNHCR, need freedom of movement and
access to opportunities for work, which would enable them to become
self-reliant and improve their chances for voluntary repatriation.
The issue of the Rohingya is complex with a strong international
dimension that requires a concerted effort by affected countries in the
region. Thailand and Bangladesh have an important role to play in the
Bali Process, where the Rohingya situation is being addressed
regionally, to help combat people smuggling, trafficking in persons,
and related transnational crimes in the Asia-Pacific region and beyond.
The State Department continues to urge UNHCR to work in close
coordination with IOM through the Bali Process in developing a
coordinated regional response and comprehensive plan of action with
affected countries to address the plight of the Rohingya.
Question. How is the State Department engaging Japan in diplomatic
discussions regarding International Child Parental Abduction (IPCA)
issues? At what level are these discussions occurring? What has been
the outcome of these discussions thus far?
Answer. For several years, IPCA has been a high priority as the
number of children abducted to Japan has steadily increased. Japan has
consistently opposed signing the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil
Aspects of International Child Abduction. This places United States
left-behind parents of abducted children to Japan at a great
disadvantage given Japan's family law system and traditions.
The Embassy and the Bureaus of Consular Affairs and East Asian and
Pacific Affairs continue to raise this issue during meetings with
Japanese officials at all levels. Japanese officials have consistently
stated that:
--The Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Justice are studying the
Hague Convention.
--Japanese family law is not consistent with the Hague Convention.
--The Diet would have to pass the required legislation to change
domestic law.
However, as Japanese officials have recently begun to take IPCA
more seriously, we have been more actively engaged on a number of
fronts. On October 16, 2009, U.S. Ambassador to Japan Roos, and the
Ambassadors of Canada, France, Italy, New Zealand, Spain, the United
Kingdom, and the deputy head of mission of Australia, demarched the new
Minister of Justice about IPCA. They urged Japan to accede to the Hague
Convention and take measures to improve access for parents separated
from their children. A joint press statement was issued by the eight
embassies following the meeting. On January 22, 2010, American Citizen
Services Chief William Christopher and staff from the Office of
Children's Issues met with officials from Ministry of Justice to
discuss Japan's legal statutes as they relate to IPCA, in particular
the legal definition of domestic violence, how courts determine custody
in divorce cases, and mechanisms used to enforce court orders.
On January 30, 2010, Ambassador Roos, accompanied by the same six
ambassadors and one deputy head of mission from other embassies in
Japan, demarched Minister of Foreign Affairs Katsuya Okada about IPCA.
The Ambassadors urged Japan to accede to the Hague Convention and to
take measures to improve access for parents separated from their
children. Minister Okada expressed appreciation for the meeting and
stated that the new government must decide how to deal with IPCA. There
was good media coverage of the meeting and the statement in both Japan
and overseas.
The third annual symposium on IPCA was held from March 17-18 in
Tokyo. The symposium brought together key stakeholders and professional
counterparts from the co-hosting nations in an expert level forum. The
event was in response to Japanese Justice Minister Keiko Chiba's
October 2009 expression of interest in learning about the experiences
of Hague signatory nations.
Our joint efforts have encouraged Japanese officials to more
seriously consider the issue of child abduction and look for ways to
address both accession to the Hague Convention and resolution of
current cases. We are encouraged by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs'
decision to establish the Division for Issues Related to Child Custody,
and we expect this to be an avenue for discussion of individual cases.
Question. The budget request to combat Trafficking in Persons seems
inadequate. If the State Department and USAID were to have more
resources devoted to combating trafficking, how would they be used?
Answer. The Department of State (DOS) uses foreign assistance funds
to stimulate governments to take action to combat trafficking in
persons (TIP) through criminal justice sector improvements, trafficking
prevention programs, and support for protection and assistance services
to victims. Funds for these anti-trafficking programs are critical to
fulfilling the mandate of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA)
of 2000 and our bipartisan policy priorities.
Since 2006, the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons
(G/TIP) which manages a portion of the State Department's anti-TIP
funds has funded a mere fraction of the requests received, which is
approximately $21 million of the over $288 million requested. G/TIP has
seen a 325 percent increase in requested funds for anti-trafficking
projects in a 4 year period from $45 million in fiscal year 2006 to
over $288 million in fiscal year 2010. G/TIP's most recent solicitation
resulted in 531 Statements of Interest for fiscal year 2010 funding,
which is a significant increase from the previous year's 372 proposals.
If an increase in funding to combat TIP were appropriated, DOS and
USAID would look to:
--Fund a greater percentage of the proposals received for
international anti-TIP projects;
--Increase the number of innovative TIP prevention programs,
including TIP-specific development projects;
--Increase the number of TIP research projects to promote greater
understanding of the scope of the problem and increase efficacy
of USG anti-TIP resources;
--Create dedicated training and technical assistance program to
include recruitment and deployment of experienced counter-
trafficking professionals in areas of victim assistance and
protection, rule of law, and investigation and prosecution.
Question. How is the Senior Policy Operating Group, which the State
Department chairs, ensuring the coordination of anti-trafficking
funding across the State Department and United States government per
the mandate established in the TVPRA?
Answer. The Senior Policy Operating Group (SPOG) coordinates
programs and policies at several levels:
--Quarterly SPOG meetings.--G/TIP chairs quarterly, interagency
meetings involving every USG agency involved in anti-
trafficking programs--DOS, DOL, DOJ, DHS, and others. The
quarterly meetings provide a forum for agencies to coordinate
anti-trafficking policies and programs.
--SPOG Committee meetings.--The SPOG created working-level committees
to further its work, one of which is focused on grant-making.
--SPOG Programs Review Process.--Before issuing anti-trafficking
grants or contract funds, all USG agencies submit their
proposed anti-trafficking actions for review by the other key
SPOG members. Anti-trafficking program proposals are subject to
a 7-day comment period, during which SPOG member agencies
provide comments on whether the project will duplicate other
USG activities, whether the project presents opportunities for
cooperation with other USG activities, and whether the project
is consistent with USG anti-trafficking policy.
--Fiscal Year Chart on USG Spending.--At the end of each fiscal year,
SPOG staff gathers and organizes data on USG funds obligated in
that fiscal year for TIP projects.
Question. India has arguably the world's largest Trafficking in
Persons population, with its millions of bonded laborers. Given the
importance of our bilateral relationship, is the State Department
ensuring that combating trafficking in persons is conveyed as a
strategic priority for the United States throughout all diplomatic
discussions with the Government of India?
Answer. The Department places great importance on the need to build
a stronger partnership with the Government of India on addressing
shared human trafficking concerns. We encourage the Indian government
to research the phenomena of sex trafficking and bonded labor within
India. Over the last year, Secretary Clinton and other senior officials
have raised the issue of human trafficking with the Indian government
and the Department continues to convey the priority the Obama
Administration places on this human rights issue. We believe the
Government of India is committed to combating human trafficking and in
achieving faster progress against this global problem.
Question. How is the State Department leveraging U.S. trade to
further encourage other nations to actively combat trafficking in
persons?
Answer. The State Department is committed to expanding trade and
market opportunities in developing countries to help create an
environment not conducive to trafficking. Economic pressures make more
people susceptible to the false promises of traffickers. Embassy
employees worldwide provide country-specific data for the annual
Trafficking in Persons report, as well as the Department of Labor's
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) list of
products made by forced labor and child labor in violation of
international standards. Products on the TVPRA list are not permitted
to be imported into the United States.
Question. As Haiti has shown us all too clearly, disasters in
general (and Haiti in particular) often necessitate expertise and
resources specific to combating trafficking in persons in our
protection response. What can the State Department learn from Haiti and
how can the U.S. government best ensure preplanning is done such that
the United States is ready to meet that need when the next disaster
strikes?
Answer. As past natural disasters have proved, commandeering the
appropriate response on a wide-range of issues takes absolute
coordination, communication, resources, and resolve.
Specifically to trafficking in persons, the Department was actively
involved in anti-trafficking efforts prior to the January 2010
earthquake in Haiti. The Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in
Persons funded efforts in fiscal year 2008 by its non-government
partners to: increase public awareness; create a whole of community
efforts with targeted interventions, economic opportunity, and
psychological support; and address the ``restavek'' issue in country.
We were able to translate our pre-existing efforts into response in
the immediate aftermath of the earthquake. The Office to Monitor and
Combat Trafficking in Persons was involved with the Child Protection
Subcluster and it participated in a host of task forces and working
groups to ensure a whole of government response that was both
coordinated and concerted against trafficking.
One of the challenges we face in combating human trafficking in
post-natural disaster areas is the fact that many of these nations
already are facing an uphill battle against modern slavery before the
whole new set of post-disaster challenges emerge. We can learn from
every experience in disaster response. Perhaps the greatest lesson in
post-earthquake Haiti is recognizing that trafficking in persons must
be interwoven in the disaster-response in the immediate, interim, and
long-term plans. From the beginning, the United States Government must
train itself to translate human trafficking and be mindful of the
cultural contexts that increase vulnerability to TIP as a subset of the
protection pillar of disaster response, whether it is child protection,
protection against gender-based violence, or overall security issues.
It cannot come days later, or after a news story breaks, but should be
in pre-planning efforts across the board.
Fortunately, we were aware of the increased likelihood of human
trafficking in the days following the Haiti earthquake and worked
around the clock to make sure we could supplement and strengthen our
efforts. However, it is vital to ensure that the first boots on the
ground are fully aware of the warning signs and the trends of human
trafficking and are readily equipped to properly address this issue.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator George V. Voinovich
Question. I am concerned about--and would appreciate your thoughts
on--the pace of constitutional reform in Bosnia-Herzegovina. I am
particularly worried that the Presidential/Parliamentary campaign
rhetoric in Bosnia this Fall will ``poison the well'' for the extension
of NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP) to Bosnia. I know you agree that
we must continue to push Bosnia towards NATO and the EU, and not allow
it to become an economic and political black-hole in Europe. I'm
heartened that, in the Republik of Srpska, Prime Minister Dodik has
stated his support for Bosnia's membership in NATO despite great public
opposition within his entity.
What is your view on the possible extension of MAP--or a
declaration by NATO of an intention to grant MAP--to Bosnia before the
Fall elections? Senator Shaheen and I met with the leaders and foreign
ministers of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia,
and Serbia during our visit to the region last week, who all believed
that such a step would be a positive signal to Bosnia's leaders that
NATO is serious about Bosnia's future.
Answer. The United States continues to support Bosnia and
Herzegovina's aspirations for NATO and EU membership and we are working
in Sarajevo and Brussels to encourage Bosnia along its Euro-Atlantic
integration path.
At the December 2009 NATO Foreign Ministerial, Allies noted that
Bosnia and Herzegovina has made substantial progress in cooperation
with NATO and urged its leaders to work together to pursue national
integration and improve the efficiency and self-reliance of state-level
institutions. Allies expressed support for Bosnia and Herzegovina's
participation in MAP once it achieves the necessary progress in its
reform efforts, and pledged to keep its progress under active review.
In order to successfully participate in MAP, a country needs to
have the institutional structures in place to make timely decisions and
implement difficult reforms. We have made clear to the leaders of
Bosnia and Herzegovina that they must demonstrate concrete evidence of
a sufficient capacity for political decisionmaking and a level of
government functionality to meet the commitments under MAP.
The next opportunity to assess Bosnia and Herzegovina's
preparedness for MAP will come at the meeting of NATO Foreign Ministers
in Tallinn on April 22. We will continue to encourage Bosnia's leaders
to intensify their reform efforts and to demonstrate their commitment
to advancing their aspirations.
Question. The Iranian regime remains the single greatest threat to
the peace and security of the Middle East. The neighboring nations of
the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), which include the United Arab
Emirates, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, and Kuwait, are valuable
allies for the United States and have forged an important strategic
partnership with us. The GCC represents an important bulwark against
Iranian aggression.
What other forms of cooperation can the United States pursue with
the GCC to further strengthen our partnership and to enhance the
regional security?
Answer. The United States is actively working to strengthen our
partnership with the GCC states via significant engagement on regional
security, non-proliferation, alternative energy development (including
nuclear energy and renewables), and support for economic
diversification.
On the political front, we consult with our Gulf partners to
coordinate efforts to manage regional political, diplomatic, and
security challenges, including threats posed by Iran. With respect to
Iran, these consultations have resulted in Gulf country support for
five U.N. Security Resolutions on Iran, increased vigilance and action
against Iranian efforts to evade sanctions, active participation in a
GCC-plus-3 forum (with Egypt, Jordan, and Iraq), and increased U.S.
security and military cooperation throughout the Gulf.
Our political dialogue is complemented by a robust security
relationship among the U.S. and Gulf States. Using multilateral
exercises, training, and Foreign Military and Direct Commercial Sales,
the United States strengthens the GCC nations' capacity to defend
against regional threats, thereby limiting their vulnerability to
Iranian pressure.
Similarly, we cooperate with Gulf States on counterproliferation
issues. This growing cooperation is best exemplified by our cooperation
with the UAE. In 2006, we initiated a senior-level bilateral
counterproliferation dialogue (Counterproliferation Task Force or
``CTF''). The CTF meets annually in addition to supporting working
groups that meet throughout the year. Since 2006, we have seen the UAE
make significant progress on counterproliferation issues by actively
enforcing United Nations Security Council Resolutions related to Iran
and North Korea, participating in the Proliferation Security Initiative
and the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, passing and
implementing an export control law, and preventing transshipments of
sensitive items from going to countries of proliferation concern such
as Iran.
Moreover, the United States is taking active steps, along with our
Gulf allies, to provide a counterweight to Iran's energy strategy. We
have encouraged our regional partners to help us reduce international
reliance on Iranian natural resources as a way to sharpen the choice
for Iran--opt to comply with nuclear obligations or face further
isolation. On civil nuclear energy issues, we concluded a landmark 123
Agreement on civilian nuclear energy with the UAE in 2009 which
includes the highest nonproliferation standards and a commitment by the
UAE to forgo enrichment and reprocessing on its soil. This civil
nuclear energy agreement represents a powerful countermodel to Iran in
demonstrating how a country can pursue civil nuclear energy and still
meet its international obligations.
We are also actively engaged in building commercial ties with the
GCC nations. Using tools such as our Free Trade Agreements with Bahrain
and Oman, proactive commercial advocacy and technical assistance on
commercial law development, the United States is encouraging expanded
American commercial ties in the region. Not only does this expand U.S.
business opportunities, but it also supports Gulf States' efforts to
diversify their economies.
Question. The Conference Agreement for the fiscal year 2010
Departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act includes specific language stating
that ``The Conferees support the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)'s initiatives to combat anti-Semitism in
Europe and Eurasia and expect the Coordinator for United States
Assistance for Europe and Eurasia to provide adequate funding to ensure
continued leadership within the OSCE.''
Madam Secretary, can you provide me in writing with specific
details of your team's fiscal year 2010 work toward compliance with the
expectations of the House and Senate conferees concerning U.S.
financial support for OSCE efforts to combat anti-Semitism in Europe
and Eurasia--including support for OSCE extra-budgetary programming
efforts?
Answer. The OSCE is committed to combating all forms of racism,
xenophobia, anti-Semitism, and discrimination in the 56 participating
States (pS). The United States supports efforts to ensure that OSCE
commitments in the fields of tolerance and non-discrimination and
freedom of religion or belief are implemented effectively. We believe
the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR)
projects should focus on those countries where the gap between
commitments and practices is the greatest. The United States has
successfully insisted that ODIHR treat freedom of religion as a
fundamental freedom as well as an issue of promoting mutual respect (as
demonstrated during the Supplemental Human Dimension Meeting on Freedom
of Religion in July 2009). We have successfully lobbied Chairs-in-
Office to appoint or re-confirm the three special representatives on
anti-Semitism, anti-Muslim discrimination, and discrimination against
people of other religions including Christianity, who track government
activity to promote respect for religious differences and ensure the
rights of people of all faiths in the OSCE region.
The fiscal year 2010 appropriation levels approved by Congress will
enable the State Department will meet all U.S. financial obligations to
the OSCE and will also provide voluntary contributions for elections
support, U.S. personnel on secondment to the OSCE, and extra-budgetary
projects. OSCE funding comes from a combination of the Assistance for
Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia (AEECA), and Diplomatic and Consular
Affairs Program (D&CP) accounts. We expect to provide significant
financial and extra-budgetary contributions to the OSCE in support of
the efforts of ODIHR and the OSCE Personal Representatives on tolerance
to combat anti-Semitism throughout Europe and Eurasia. We continue to
encourage the OSCE and the ODIHR to attach a high priority to combating
anti-Semitism and we will continue to support the organization's
pioneering efforts in this area. We look forward to sending a
delegation to a planned OSCE high-level conference on mutual respect
and non-discrimination issues this summer and to engaging on a robust
agenda there.
Question. I would also appreciate from your team during the next 30
days a written strategic plan outlining the Department of State's
policy initiatives to combat anti-Semitism, including milestones,
metrics, and expected future financial resource requirements from
Congress.
Answer. To effectively combat anti-Semitism, we are building strong
channels of communication and collaborating with nongovernmental
organizations. This includes greater engagement in interfaith efforts,
active outreach among Muslim leaders, as well as reaching out to other
groups that experience discrimination.
The President has appointed Hannah Rosenthal as the new Special
Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism. Special Envoy Rosenthal
joined the Department of State in late November. Since that time she
has traveled extensively both overseas and in the United States to
advance her mandate.
One of Special Envoy Rosenthal's goals is to work more closely with
the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Enclosed
please find her strategic outline to elevate and increase the
visibility of the work that the OSCE does to combat anti-Semitism.
On January 27, Special Envoy Rosenthal was part of the President's
delegation to the 65th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz
commemoration in Poland. Prior to the actual ceremony at Auschwitz-
Birkenau, she met with the Education Ministers from 29 countries to
learn more about their Holocaust and anti-discrimination education. All
29 countries reported that they are implementing curriculum and
activities to educate about the Holocaust and to confront intolerance.
However, the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights
(ODIHR) was not present at this gathering and none of the countries in
attendance mentioned use of the ODIHR curriculum or expertise.
Immediately after the ceremony, Special Envoy Rosenthal stayed on in
Poland for several more days to better understand this situation. She
went to Warsaw and had an excellent meeting with the staff at ODIHR,
where she learned that ODIHR representatives had tried unsuccessfully
to get invited to that Education Ministers' meeting. She discussed how
we can ensure that does not happen again, how to increase ODIHR's
visibility, and how best to get ODIHR the credit that is its due.
ODIHR has virtually no funds for public relations and clearly needs
people with higher visibility to talk about its mission, expertise, and
accomplishments. To assist with this challenge, Special Envoy Rosenthal
planned three major actions upon her return to Washington from Poland:
a trip to Lithuania in April to discuss with the U.S. Embassy in
Vilnius a proposal to develop a ``training the trainers'' approach to
tolerance education; clearance for all her speeches in the United
States and abroad to highlight the work of OSCE-ODIHR; and a new
initiative to be rolled out at the OSCE high-level conference on
tolerance and non-discrimination in Astana, Kazakhstan June 29-30.
These are included in the attached outline.
The outline was created after Special Envoy Rosenthal consulted
with Rabbi Andrew Baker; ODIHR; Human Rights First; the
Interparliamentary Coalition to Combat Anti-Semitism; the Co-Existence
Trust of England; and several human rights NGOs in Poland, the United
Kingdom, and domestically.
Increasing the Visibility of the OSCE
Hannah Rosenthal Speech Highlights
Meetings with over 10 NGOs in Warsaw January 28-29, 2010.
Jewish Council for Public Affairs annual conference February 22,
2010.
Community Security Trust in London March 8, 2010.
Yale Institute of Research on Anti-Semitism April 12, 2010.
Testimony HFAC April 14, 2010.
University, Kaunas, Lithuania April 27, 2010.
ADL Leadership Conference May 3, 2010.
Graduation speech Madison, Wisconsin May 15, 2010.
Maryland Jewish Council May 27, 2010.
Canadian Interparliamentary Council to Combat Anti-Semitism
November 2010.
Partnerships--promote to their members and activities,
cover on websites
Jewish Council for Public Affairs.
American Jewish Committee.
B'nai Brith.
Anti-Defamation League.
Human Rights First.
Joint Distribution Committee.
Simon Wiesenthal Center.
Reiterate recommendations to governments
Acknowledge and condemn anti-Semitism and hate crimes.
Enact laws that address hate crimes.
Strengthen enforcement and prosecute offenders.
Train law enforcement.
Undertake interagency, parliamentary and other special inquiries.
Monitor and report on hate crimes, and ensure delineation for anti-
Semitism.
Strengthen anti-discrimination and human rights bodies.
Reach out to NGOs.
Speak out against official intolerance and bigotry.
Encourage international cooperation and joint statements.
OSCE to publicize
Help countries to meet obligation to collect and report hate crimes
data to ODIHR.
Make more visible three personal representatives.
Expand administrative resources to support three representatives
and provide public affairs capacity.
Support ODIHR's Tolerance and Non-Discrimination unit
--Ensure law enforcement program participation;
--ODIHR convene national points of contact and NGOs to build trust
and cooperation between law enforcement agencies, civil society
groups, and victims;
--Distribute materials and reports widely; and
--build funding through regular OSCE budget and extrabudgetary
contributions.
High-level conference on Tolerance and Non-Discrimination--June
2010.
Develop a ``side event'' at the OSCE high-level conference in
Kazakhstan June 29-30 to roll-out the ``ART Initiative: Acceptance,
Respect and Tolerance.'' SEAS and USOSCE will bring 8-10 NGOs that work
with governments to move beyond tolerance and advance acceptance and
respect. Highlight their ``best practices'' with easy-to-share
demonstration models. The proceedings will be both videotaped and
transcribed for official documents and websites for broad dissemination
at conferences, country visits, State Department website, OSCE website,
partners' websites, etc.
US Government and leadership
ART promotion.
Bilateral discussions.
Funding and TA expertise.
Human Rights Report and International Religious Freedom Report
annually.
Clearly state our freedom of expression issues.
Clearly state our definition of anti-Semitism (and where it is part
of anti-Israel rhetoric and activities).
Award/Recognition program
Develop an annual nomination and selection process for high
visibility recognition to individual and organizational work to advance
ART (acceptance, respect and tolerance).
Question. Secretary Clinton, I understand that the Department of
State recently entered into a contract with a new provider of crystal
stemware to be used at all American embassies.
Could you please explain the circumstances surrounding this award
and the process by which the new vendor was selected?
Answer. The Department of State had a new departmental requirement
for lead-free crystal ware design, production, inventory management and
fulfillment services for U.S. embassies. Department officials met with
SDI, a company that had earlier been introduced to the Department of
State by the Small Business Administration (SBA), to discuss the
company's capabilities in fulfilling the contract requirements.
In accordance with complying with FAR 6.302-5, ``Other Than Full
and Open Competition, Authorized or Required by Statue,'' the
Contracting Officer sent an offer letter to SBA to negotiate and award
a contract under the 8(a) program with SDI, an 8(a) program
participant. SBA accepted the requirement into the 8(a) program and
authorized DOS to negotiate a contract with SDI on May 18, 2008. A
solicitation was released to the firm who then submitted a proposal.
SDI subsequently informed the Department that they could not find a
U.S. manufacturer of lead-free crystal, and planned instead to
subcontract manufacturing to Orrefors/Kosta Boda, USA located in New
Jersey. Market research conducted by the Department indicated there was
no company that manufactured lead-free table top crystal ware in the
United States. The Department evaluated SDI's proposal, determined it
to be technically acceptable and that the price was fair and
reasonable. An award for a base year and four option years was made to
SDI on September 24, 2009, for a total ceiling for the contract of $5.4
million (total for 12-month base year, and four 12-month option years).
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Madam Secretary. This hearing is
recessed.
[Whereupon, at 12:21 p.m., Wednesday, February 24, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]