[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ASSESSING U.S. FOREIGN POLICY PRIORITIES AND NEEDS AMIDST ECONOMIC
CHALLENGES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 1, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-33
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
64-869 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
DAN BURTON, Indiana GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
ELTON GALLEGLY, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
DANA ROHRABACHER, California Samoa
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California BRAD SHERMAN, California
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
RON PAUL, Texas GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
MIKE PENCE, Indiana RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
JOE WILSON, South Carolina ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
CONNIE MACK, Florida GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas DENNIS CARDOZA, California
TED POE, Texas BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio ALLYSON SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
DAVID RIVERA, Florida FREDERICA WILSON, Florida
MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania KAREN BASS, California
TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York
RENEE ELLMERS, North Carolina
VACANT
Yleem D.S. Poblete, Staff Director
Richard J. Kessler, Democratic Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESS
The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State, U.S.
Department of State............................................ 9
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
The Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Florida, and chairman, Committee on Foreign
Affairs: Prepared statement.................................... 4
The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton: Prepared statement......... 13
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 72
Hearing minutes.................................................. 73
The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress
from the Commonwealth of Virginia: Statement................... 75
The Honorable Howard L. Berman, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California: Material submitted for the record..... 76
Questions submitted for the record to the Honorable Hillary
Rodham Clinton by the Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen............ 84
Written responses from the Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton to
questions submitted for the record by:
The Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.............................. 93
The Honorable Howard L. Berman, a Representative in Congress
from the State of California................................. 168
The Honorable David Rivera, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Florida......................................... 174
The Honorable Gregory W. Meeks, a Representative in Congress
from the State of New York................................... 177
The Honorable Jeff Duncan, a Representative in Congress from
the State of South Carolina.................................. 179
The Honorable Russ Carnahan, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Missouri........................................ 183
The Honorable David Cicilline, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Rhode Island............................... 195
Questions submitted for the record to the Honorable Hillary
Rodham Clinton by:
The Honorable Dan Burton, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Indiana, and chairman, Subcommittee on Europe and
Eurasia...................................................... 201
The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress
from the Commonwealth of Virginia............................ 207
The Honorable Edward R. Royce, a Representative in Congress
from the State of California, and chairman, Subcommittee on
Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade....................... 208
The Honorable Karen Bass, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California.......................................... 209
The Honorable Michael T. McCaul, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Texas...................................... 212
The Honorable Gus Bilirakis, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Florida......................................... 215
The Honorable Mike Kelly, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania................................. 218
The Honorable Tim Griffin, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Arkansas........................................ 220
The Honorable Renee Ellmers, a Representative in Congress from
the State of North Carolina.................................. 221
ASSESSING U.S. FOREIGN POLICY PRIORITIES AND NEEDS AMIDST ECONOMIC
CHALLENGES
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 2011
House of Representatives,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m. in
room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ileana Ros-
Lehtinen (chairman of the committee) presiding.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The committee will come to order.
Madam Secretary, it is a pleasure to welcome you to our
committee for the first time as chairman. In order to maximize
our time for discussion, after my opening remarks and those of
my good friend, the ranking member, Mr. Berman, I ask that you
summarize your written testimony and then we will move directly
into questions from members.
Madam Speaker, we must maintain firm ties with our allies,
and enemies must be clearly identified. I hope that this
administration can tell who's who.
In Lebanon, we have witnessed the conquest of the country
by the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah axis. The U.S. should never have
been supporting a government with Hezbollah. Now, with
Hezbollah in control, what is the justification for continued
U.S. taxpayer investment? In Egypt and elsewhere, successive
U.S. administrations failed to move beyond the status quo and
prepare for the future. We should not associate the protests in
Jordan and Bahrain with events transpiring in Tripoli, Cairo,
and Beirut.
But there is one constant. We have failed to effectively
use our resources to help build strong, accountable
institutions that protect basic human rights. This
administration's prior decision to cut support from pro-
democracy civil groups in Egypt and to only fund groups pre-
cleared with the Mubarak government is a mistake we must never
repeat.
Then there is the mistake of the Bush administration,
continued under the current administration, to conduct business
as usual with the Libyan regime following the lifting of U.N.
Security Council sanctions imposed in response to Libya's
state-sponsored attacks, which claimed the lives of many,
including Melina Hudson and John Cummock.
John's wife Victoria, my constituent, and Melina's father
and aunt are in the audience today. Madam Secretary, I have a
letter that they have written requesting yours and Director
Mueller's help in securing information on the role of Qadhafi
and others in attacks on Western targets in the '80s and the
'90s.
Some of us objected to the normalization of relations with
the Libyan regime, raising its deplorable human rights record.
Regrettably, Libya's deployment of fighter jets and tanks to
murder those daring to express a desire for freedom is proof
that the oppressors cannot be coddled or engaged.
Then, the U.N. Human Rights Council refused to do anything
about Libya's gross human rights abuses. On the contrary, Libya
was elected to the Human Rights Council last year. Days ago,
the Council was forced to act due to the Qadhafi regime's
slaughter of hundreds of people in the streets. However,
another U.N. entity, the Security Council, did find time just
weeks ago to target our democratic ally, Israel. The United
States needs to condition its funding for the U.N. on real
reforms. Just as administration officials talk about smart
power and smart sanctions, when it comes to the U.N., we need
smart withholding.
In our hemisphere, the U.S. approach is one of misplaced
priorities. The Havana tyranny has again ramped up its assault
against the democracy movement in Cuba, detaining dozens of
peaceful protestors, beating mourning mother Reina Luisa
Tamayo, and this weekend sending its shameless thugs after the
Ladies in White. Yet the administration has repeatedly eased
regulations on the Castro regime. Just weeks after the latest
appeasement, the dictatorship announced its intention to seek a
20-year prison sentence for U.S. citizen Alan Gross, whose
trial starts on Friday.
When it comes to those countries that do share our values
and our priorities, there appears to be no end to the stall
tactics and empty rhetoric. Our partners in Colombia and Panama
have gone above and beyond meeting the politically determined
and ever-changing benchmarks placed in the way of long-awaited
free trade agreements. Hondurans who fought for their
Constitution and rule of law against Mel Zelaya's attack on
their democracy are still suffering under the veiled reprisals
of our State Department.
These examples crystallize the complaints that the American
people have about foreign assistance programs. My constituents
in letters, e-mails, and talks with me and through our new
interactive feature on the main committee Web site,
ForeignAffairs.house.gov, keep asking: What is the return on
our investment?
Rafael Santana, from Miami, whose letter was published in
the Miami Herald on Monday, wrote,
``We are the most generous nation in the world and
foreign aid should go to those countries that are
friendly to us. When was the last time we heard of good
will toward America? The majority of us haven't--and
don't expect to.''
Some attempt to obscure the facts through novel ways of
slicing and dicing the numbers. But the budget request for
International Affairs continues the significant increases of
recent years. The cumulative $61.4 billion International
Affairs request is a 42 percent increase over Fiscal Year 2008
levels. The increases are more dramatic when we focus on the
State Department's own salaries and operations. The $12 billion
State Programs request is a 25 percent increase over 2010
actual levels and a nearly 75 percent increase since 2008.
There is also a problem of misplaced priorities. The
administration should not propose massive increases in global
health and climate change programs while cutting key programs
such as the Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Partnership and the
Partnership for Regional East Africa Counterterrorism,
particularly as al-Qaeda affiliates in Africa set their sights
on American targets and American citizens are being captured
and killed by Somali pirates.
The safety of our men and women serving with distinction in
Afghanistan, Madam Secretary, and the country's transition to a
more stable and Democratic future must forever guide us.
Pakistan must also do more to meet the pressing United States
concerns, including the release of Raymond Davis, our detained
American diplomat, and shifting its approach to Afghanistan,
away from armed proxies and toward constructive and legitimate
political partners.
We must make those decisions in light of the unfortunate
fiscal realities facing our Government and every American
family.
Those who complain about diminished levels of International
Affairs funding need to ask themselves how much less would an
insolvent United States of America be able to do? Our funding
baseline has to change. The real question is not, ``Is this
activity useful?'' but, rather, ``Is this activity so important
that it justifies borrowing money to pay for it and further
endangering our Nation's economy?''
At this point, Madam Secretary, I would like to recognize
my good friend and partner, the ranking member, for his opening
remarks.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Ros-Lehtinen follows:]
Mr. Berman. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Before I start my opening remarks, I would just like to
acknowledge the tremendous work of Rich Verma, sitting behind
the Secretary. He is the Assistant Secretary of State for
Legislative Affairs, and he will be leaving the State
Department shortly. He was a tireless advocate for the
Secretary's agenda and the administration's agenda and for
issues of tremendous interest to this committee, including Iran
sanctions. I want to thank him for his service and wish him all
the best in his next endeavor.
Madam Secretary, thank you very much for being with us here
today. Geneva yesterday, Washington today. It sounds like just
a repeat of your regular schedule. We appreciate this
opportunity to discuss the International Affairs budget and the
various policy initiatives you have championed as Secretary of
State.
Madam Secretary, in these challenging economic times it is
critical that we make the most of every taxpayer dollar; and
although the International Affairs budget makes up only 1
percent of the entire Federal budget, it funds some of the most
essential elements of our national security. I know you are
committed to getting the most bang for the buck.
In the first Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review,
completed last December under your leadership, the State
Department places a welcome emphasis on improving monetary
evaluation of programs, increasing transparency of aid
projects, and on aligning priorities and resources.
With all due respect to my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle, the responsible approach taken in the QDDR to
achieve cost savings stands in stark contrast to the Republican
appropriations bill passed by the House 2 weeks ago. The
reckless cuts in that legislation weren't chosen because they
looked at programs and said, here's something that is not
working, or here's something we don't need to do. No, the total
level of reduction was purely arbitrary, plucked out of a hat,
and totally unrelated to any thoughtful calculation of what was
actually needed and how much it should cost.
Their bill isn't about making government more cost
effective or more efficient. It doesn't promote the kind of
reforms and streamlining needed to ensure that our aid reaches
those who need it most in the most efficient possible manner.
It is simply a slash-and-burn process, with no consideration
for all the critically important work that is being destroyed
or how it undermines our national security.
The bill savages nearly every program that protects the
poorest and most vulnerable people: Humanitarian assistance for
victims of natural disasters, Pakistan, Haiti--I could go on
and on--slashed by 50 percent, massive cuts in refugee aid.
Look what is going on in Tunisia and Egypt right now, Libya.
Food aid. Water and sanitation. Programs to fight AIDS,
malaria, and tuberculosis. Meanwhile, funding for the diplomats
and aid workers that carry out these programs is also slashed.
If there is anything we have learned over the past few
years, it ought to be that we don't just hand over money to
contractors and other governments without adequate oversight
and accountability.
Supporters of the Republican bill overlooked two critical
facts.
First, as you, Madam Secretary, Secretary Gates, and our
senior military leadership have said repeatedly, America's
national security depends not only on our men and women in
uniform but also on the diplomats and aid workers who risk
their lives every day to support America's interests abroad. In
fact, 15 percent of the Fiscal Year 2012 International Affairs
budget request is dedicated to supporting critical U.S. efforts
in the frontline states of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. In
the face of mounting deficits here at home, it is important to
remember that these civilian efforts are much more cost
effective than deploying our military.
And, second, aid to others isn't a gift. The United States
provides foreign assistance because it serves our interests.
Helping countries become more democratic, more stable, more
capable of defending themselves, and better at pulling
themselves out of poverty is just as important for us, our
national security, and our economic prosperity as it is for
them. The more we slash our foreign assistance, the more we
cede the playing field to China, which is more than happy to
fill the vacuum in Africa, Latin American, and Asia.
Madam Secretary, over the past month we have witnessed a
stirring series of popular revolutions across the greater
Middle East. As Americans, we are inspired to see the people of
Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and other countries rise up to fight for
the universal values that all of us hold dear: Freedom,
democracy, and human rights. We all hope that the upheaval in
the Middle East will lead to a brighter future for the people
of the region, but we also must guard against the possibility
that these movements for change will be hijacked by those
determined to restore an autocratic form of government or by
forces hostile to the United States and our allies in the
region.
Madam Secretary, as we all know, the Iranian regime is
continuing its efforts to develop a nuclear weapons capability,
and this remains one of the most pressing foreign policy
challenges facing our Nation and the international community.
When you testified before this body 2 years ago, you pledged
that the administration would pursue crippling sanctions
against Iran; and we have certainly moved in that direction.
Last year, the Obama administration had unprecedented success
in building the diplomatic support for tougher sanctions on
Iran at the U.N. Security Council. Congress followed by passing
the comprehensive Iran Sanctions Accountability and Divestment
Act, the most rigorous sanctions ever imposed on Iran. That
legislation, which was signed into law 8 months ago, helped
galvanize international opinion on Iran's nuclear weapons
program and laid the groundwork for other countries to impose
their own national sanctions.
Madam Secretary, we appreciate the fact that you have
pursued the Iranian nuclear threat with great urgency and look
forward to working with you to ensure that our sanctions laws
are fully implemented, including against Chinese firms that, as
you have indicated, continue to engage in sanctionable
activity.
My concern is this. We have not yet sanctioned any non-
Iranian bank or energy company, even though we know several are
engaged in sanctionable activity. Companies need to know that
there are consequences for these types of activities. So far,
no company has any reason to think there are such consequences.
Finally, I do want to express my appreciation for the
administration's recent veto of a Security Council resolution
targeted at Israel, which was a powerful reaffirmation of your
support for Israel and for direct Israeli-Palestinian
negotiations leading to two states living side by side and a
permanent Israeli-Palestinian peace.
Once again, it is a pleasure to have you with us today, and
I look forward to your presentation.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Mr. Berman.
Madam Secretary, Mr. Berman and I are honored to welcome
you before our committee today.
The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton has served as the 67th
Secretary of State for the United States since January 21,
2009, the latest chapter in her four-decade career of public
service. She has served previously as a United States Senator
from the State of New York, as First Lady of the United States
and of the State of Arkansas, and as an attorney and law
professor.
Madam Secretary, without objection, your full written
statement will be made part of the record. If you would be so
kind as to summarize your written remarks, we can then move
directly to the question and answer period under the 5-minute
rule in the hopes of getting all our members to have a question
before you depart.
Madam Secretary, the floor is yours. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, SECRETARY OF
STATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Secretary Clinton. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and
congratulations on your assuming this post. I want to thank you
publicly for traveling to Haiti with our team on behalf of the
efforts that the United States is pursuing there. I also want
to thank the ranking member for his leadership and support over
these last years.
Late last night, I came back from around-the-clock meetings
in Geneva to discuss the unfolding events in Libya. I would
like to begin by offering a quick update.
We have joined the Libyan people in demanding that Qadhafi
must go--now, without further violence or delay--and we are
working to translate the world's outrage into action and
results.
Marathon diplomacy at the United Nations and with allies
has yielded quick, aggressive steps to pressure leaders. USAID
is focused on Libya's food and medical supplies and is
dispatching two expert humanitarian teams to helping those
fleeing the violence and who are moving into Tunisia and Egypt,
which is posing tremendous burdens on those two countries. Our
combatant commands are positioning assets to prepare to support
these critical civilian humanitarian missions, and we are
taking no options off the table so long as the Libyan
Government continues to turn it is guns on its own people.
The entire region is changing, and a strong and strategic
American response is essential. In the years ahead, Libya could
become a peaceful democracy, or it could face protracted civil
war, or it could descend into chaos. The stakes are high. This
is an unfolding example of using the combined assets of smart
power, diplomacy, development, and defense to protect American
security and interests and advance our values. This integrated
approach is not just how we respond to the crisis of the
moment. It is the most effective--and most cost-effective--way
to sustain and advance our security across the world, and it is
only possible with a budget that supports all the tools in our
national security arsenal, which is what we are here to
discuss.
The American people are justifiably concerned about our
national debt. I share that concern. But they also want
responsible investments in our future that will make us
stronger at home and continuing our leadership abroad. Just 2
years after President Obama and I first asked you to renew our
investment in development and diplomacy, we are already seeing
tangible returns for our national security.
In Iraq, almost 100,000 troops have come home, and
civilians are poised to keep the peace. In Afghanistan,
integrated military and civilian surges have helped set the
stage for our diplomatic surge to support Afghan-led
reconciliation that could end the conflict and put al-Qaeda on
the run. We have imposed the toughest-ever sanctions to rein in
Iran's nuclear ambitions. We have reengaged as a leader in the
Pacific and in our own hemisphere. We have signed trade deals
to promote American jobs and nuclear weapons treaties to
protect our people. We have worked with northern and southern
Sudanese to achieve a peaceful referendum and prevent a return
to civil war. We are working to open up political systems,
economies, and societies at a remarkable moment in the history
of the Middle East and to support peaceful, orderly,
irreversible democratic transitions in Egypt and Tunisia.
Our progress is significant, but our work is far from over.
These missions are vital to our national security, and I
believe with all my heart now would be the wrong time to pull
back.
The Fiscal Year 2012 budget we discuss today will allow us
to keep pressing ahead. It is a lean budget for lean times. I
did launch the first-ever Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development
Review to help us maximize the impact of every dollar we spend.
We scrubbed this budget and made painful but responsible cuts.
We cut economic assistance to Central and Eastern Europe, the
Caucasus, and Central Asia by 15 percent. We cut development
assistance to over 20 countries by more than half.
And this year, for the first time, our request is divided
into two parts. Our core budget request of $47 billion supports
programs and partnerships in every country but North Korea. It
is essentially flat from 2010 levels.
The second part of our request funds the extraordinary,
temporary portion of our war effort the same way that the
Pentagon's request is funded, in a separate overseas
contingency operations account, known as OCO. Instead of
covering our war expenses through supplemental appropriations,
we are now taking a more transparent approach that reflects our
fully integrated civilian military efforts on the ground. Our
share of the President's $126 billion request for these
exceptional wartime costs in the frontline states is $8.7
billion.
Let me walk you through a few of our key investments.
First, this budget funds vital civilian missions in
Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. In Afghanistan and Pakistan,
al-Qaeda is under pressure as never before. Alongside our
military offensive, we are engaged in a major civilian effort
that is helping to build up the governments, economies, and
civil societies of both countries and undercut the insurgency.
These two surges, the military and civilian surge, set the
stage for a third--a diplomatic push in support of an Afghan
process to split the Taliban from al-Qaeda, bring the conflict
in an end, and help to stabilize the region.
Our military commanders are emphatic they cannot succeed
without a strong civilian partner. Retreating from our civilian
surge in Afghanistan with our troops still in the field would
be a grave mistake.
Equally important is our assistance to Pakistan, a nuclear-
armed nation with strong ties and interests in Afghanistan. We
are working to deepen our partnership and keep it focused on
addressing Pakistan's political and economic challenges as well
as our shared threats.
As to Iraq, after so much sacrifice we do have a chance to
help the Iraqi people build a stable democratic country in the
heart of the Middle East. As troops come home, our civilians
are taking the lead, helping Iraqis resolve conflicts
peacefully and training their police.
Shifting responsibilities from soldiers to civilians
actually saves taxpayers a great deal of money. For example,
the military's total OCO request worldwide will drop by $45
billion from 2010 as our troops come home. Our costs, the State
Department and USAID, will increase by less than $4 billion.
Every business owner I know would gladly invest $4 to save $45.
Second, even as our civilians help bring today's wars to a
close, we are working to prevent tomorrow's. This budget
devotes over $4 billion to sustaining a strong U.S. presence in
volatile places where our security and interests are at stake.
In Yemen, it provides security, development, and
humanitarian assistance to deny al-Qaeda in the Arabian
Peninsula a safe haven and promote the kind of stability that
can lead to a better outcome than what might otherwise occur.
It focuses on these same goals in Somalia. It helps northern
and southern Sudan chart a peaceful future. It helps Haiti
rebuild. And it proposes a new Global Security Contingency Fund
that would pool resources and expertise with the Defense
Department to respond quickly as new challenges emerge.
This budget also strengthens our allies and partners. It
trains Mexican police to take on violent cartels and secure our
southern border. It provides nearly $3.1 billion for Israel and
supports Jordan and the Palestinians. It helps Egypt and
Tunisia build stable and credible democracy, and it supports
security assistance to over 130 nations.
Now, some may say, Well, what does this get us in America?
Let me give you one example. Over the years, these funds have
created valuable ties with foreign militaries and trained in
Egypt a generation of officers who refused to fire on their own
people. And that was not something that happened overnight. It
was something that happened because of relationships that had
been built over decades. Across the board, we are working to
ensure that all who share the benefits of our spending also
share the burdens of addressing common challenges.
Third, we are making targeted investments in human
security. We have focused on hunger, disease, and climate
change and humanitarian emergencies because these challenges
not only threaten the security of individuals, they are the
seeds of future conflicts. If we want to lighten the burden on
future generations, we have to make investments that make our
world more secure for them.
Our largest investment is in global health programs,
including those launched by former President George W. Bush.
These programs stabilize entire societies that have been and
are being devastated by HIV, malaria, and other diseases. They
save the lives of mothers and children and halt the spread of
deadly diseases.
Global food prices are approaching an all-time high. Three
years ago, this led to protests and riots in dozens of
countries. Food security is a cornerstone of global stability,
and we are helping farmers grow more food, drive economic
growth, and turn aid recipients into trading partners.
Climate change threatens food security, human security, and
national security. Our budget builds resilience against
droughts, floods, and other weather disasters, promotes clean
energy and preserves tropical forests. It also gives us
leverage to persuade China, India, and other nations to do
their essential part in meeting this urgent threat.
Fourth, we are committed to making our foreign policy a
force for domestic economic renewal and creating jobs here at
home. We are working aggressively to promote sustained economic
growth, level the playing fields, and open markets. To give
just one example, the eight Open Skies Agreements that we have
signed over the last 2 years will open dozens of new markets to
American carriers. The Miami International Airport, Madam
Chairman, which supports nearly 300 jobs, including many in
your district, will see a great deal of new business thanks to
agreements with Miami's top trading partners, Brazil and
Colombia.
Fifth and finally, this budget funds the people and the
platforms that make possible everything I have described. It
allows us to sustain diplomatic relations with 19 countries. It
funds political officers who are literally right now out
working to diffuse political crises and promote our values,
development officers who are spreading opportunity and
promoting stability, and economic officers who wake up every
day thinking about how to help put Americans back to work.
Several of you have already asked our Department about the
safety of your constituents in the Middle East. Well, this
budget also helps fund the consular officers, who evacuated
over 2,600 people thus far from Egypt and Libya and nearly
17,000 from Haiti. They issued 14 million passports last year
and served as our first line of defense against would-be
terrorists seeking visas to enter our country.
I would like to say just a few words about the funding for
the rest of 2011. As I told Speaker Boehner, Chairman Rogers,
and many others, the 16-percent cut for State and USAID that
passed the House last month would be devastating for our
national security. It would force us to scale back dramatically
on critical missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. And as
Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen, and General Petraeus have all
emphasized to the Congress, we need a fully engaged and fully
funded national security team, and that includes State and
USAID.
Now, there have always been moments of temptation in our
country to resist obligations beyond our borders. But each time
we have shrunk from global leadership, events have summoned us
back, often cruelly, to reality. We saved money in the short
term when we walked away from Afghanistan after the Cold War,
but those savings came at an unspeakable cost--one we are still
paying 10 years later, in money and lives.
Generations of Americans, including my own, have grown up
successful and safe because we chose to lead the world in
tackling the greatest challenges. We invested the resources to
build up democratic allies and vibrant trading partners; and we
did not shy away from defending our values, promoting our
interests, and seizing the opportunities of each new era.
I have now traveled more than any Secretary of State in the
last 2 years, and I can tell you from firsthand experience the
world has never been in greater need of the qualities that
distinguish us--our openness and innovation, our determination,
our devotion to universal values. Everywhere I travel, I see
people looking to us for leadership. Sometimes I see them after
they have condemned us publicly on their television channels
and then come to us privately and say, We can't do this without
America. This is a source of great strength, a point of pride,
and I believe an unbelievable opportunity for the American
people. But it is an achievement. It is not a birthright. It
requires resolve, and it requires resources.
I look forward to working closely together with you to do
what is necessary to keep our country safe and maintain
American leadership in this fast-changing world.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Clinton follows:]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
I will begin with my questions.
Madam Secretary, former Libyan officials are coming forward
claiming to have proof that Qadhafi personally ordered the
attack on Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie. What is the Obama
administration doing to depose and secure proof for the
criminal prosecution of Qadhafi and his henchmen? Also, will
the United States support the implementation of a no-fly zone
over Libya? And when will the United States expand the asset
freeze to include those who have been identified on the United
Nation's sanctions list? And, also, when will we institute a
travel ban? What is the role of our U.S. military in the
region? Is it humanitarian support along with our allies, and
limited to that?
On Iran, Madam Secretary, I remain concerned that the
Department is not fully implementing the Iran sanctions law.
Can you comment on the status of the five companies that the
administration waived sanctions against through the utilization
of a special rule in CISADA based on their pledge to cease all
investment in the Iranian energy sector? How many
investigations are currently open? And will you commit to us to
brief the committee or staff on all investigations that the
administration is undertaking on Iran sanctions law?
I ask for U.S. protection for the many residents of Camp
Ashraf, many of whose family members are here today in the
audience and are concerned about their relatives.
Thank you, Madam Secretary.
Secretary Clinton. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Let me begin by saying that, when it comes to Libya, the
United States has led the way in imposing very strict sanctions
that are finding assets and preventing those assets from going
to the Qadhafi family or the Qadhafi leadership. We have also
worked closely with the European Union and member countries,
because they also have many assets from the Libyans that they
are tracking and freezing.
We also, as you know, passed in a very quick, aggressive
manner a strong Security Council resolution on Saturday, which
gets the entire world behind targeted sanctions, arms embargo,
humanitarian assistance; and yesterday in Geneva I had the
opportunity to discuss further what more could be and needed to
be done. There will be additional announcements coming from
other countries, coming from the EU; and the United States
continues to look at every single lever it can use against the
Qadhafi regime.
We are well aware of the ongoing efforts by Colonel Qadhafi
to defend the area of Tripoli and a few other places that he
continues to hold. The opposition forces have been working to
create more of a military presence so that they can not only
defend the places that they have already taken over but even
try to take Tripoli away from Colonel Qadhafi.
We are also very conscious of the desire by the Libyan
opposition forces that they be seen as doing this by themselves
on behalf of the Libyan people, that there not be outside
intervention by any external force because they want this to
have been their accomplishment. We respect that. But we have
also with our NATO allies and with the Pentagon begun to look
at potential planning preparedness in the event that we feel it
is necessary for both humanitarian and other reasons that there
would have to be actions taken. One of those actions that is
under review is a no-fly zone. There are arguments that would
favor it, questions that would be raised about it, but it is
under active consideration.
With respect to Iran--and I know the time is so short and I
want to be able to supplement any of these questions with
written material--we are seeing the difference that coordinated
sanctions can make. It is not only what the United States did
with the cooperation and leadership of Congress with the CISADA
legislation that added to the Iran Sanctions Act, gave the
United States many more tools, but it is also because of the
international cooperation through the United Nations Security
Council and through additional add-on sanctions from many of
our partners, including the EU, Japan, and others.
Because when you are trying to sanction Iran, no matter how
powerful the United States is economically and no matter how
much we can do on our own, it is imperative that we get the
international community to support it. Otherwise, there is just
too much leakage. We have really limited that. I feel strongly
that we are making an impact on that.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Madam Secretary. I
respectfully request written responses as you offered to the
questions that you were not able to answer because I asked so
many, including the deposition of the Libyan officials, which
is so timely.
My good friend, the ranking member, Mr. Berman.
Mr. Berman. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
I do want to commend to my colleagues on the committee the
speech that Secretary Clinton gave, in addition to her
excellent testimony today, but yesterday going to the Human
Rights Council, where she discussed Libya, Iran, and other
issues. It is really quite a remarkable presentation,
particularly pointing out the hypocrisy of Iran's condemnations
of violence in Libya and what they do to their own people and
protestors in Iran.
I would like to try to get into two issues in this short
time. One, the Israeli-Palestinian process. And I ask that
because I struggle in my own mind with the right approach at
this particular point. Has the emergence of protest movements
throughout the Arab world altered the dynamics of the Israeli-
Palestinian peacemaking?
Given Egypt's preoccupations with its internal issues, I
assume Egypt in the immediate future is not going to be very
involved in Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy. How important is the
removal of Egypt from the peace process equation? Is this a
time when we should be pushing forward with peace efforts or
should we wait for the regional dust to settle--sort of a bad
metaphor, I guess, here--before making another push? What do
you anticipate from the next Quartet meeting, which as I
understand is likely to take place this month?
And I have one other question after that.
Secretary Clinton. Well, thank you very much, Congressman
Berman.
We believe that a continuing effort on behalf of the two-
state solution is first and foremost in Israel's interest and,
in addition to that, in the interest of presenting a very
affirmative effort in the midst of all of this turmoil and
change. So our work continues.
We understand the changed landscape very well. One thing
that both the Israelis and the Palestinians depended on was
Egypt's support for Camp David, Egypt's support for the peace
process. I was pleased that the Supreme Council of the Armed
Forces in one of its earliest actions declared that it would
respect the Camp David Accords. That was a very important
message. We have made it clear to our Egyptian counterparts
that we expect that, and we will do everything that we can to
support it.
I think it is fair to ask, given what is going on in the
region, what is the chance for any kind of break-through or
resolution of these ongoing matters. We know that it is
difficult at any time, but we believe that this is an
opportunity for Israel. There was a speech that Prime Minister
Netanyahu gave yesterday that is reported in our press today in
which he says he is well aware of the growing isolation of
Israel in the international community. That is not good for
Israel. That is not good for Israel's economy. That is not good
for Israel's position and leadership.
So I know that the Prime Minister recognizes that we have
some very tough decisions ahead of us. So we work extremely
closely with the Israeli Government, and we will continue to do
so. As you and others have noted, the Security Council of the
United Nations is not the place for these kinds of
negotiations, but trying to get the parties back to direct
negotiations remains our highest priority.
Mr. Berman. Thank you very much.
Across the Middle East and North Africa, as we have all
noted, we are witnessing a transformational moment. These
countries will need external support as they undertake
successful transitions to democratic governments. Will the
United States be able to provide sufficient support to
transitional governments in Egypt and Tunisia and be prepared
to assist in other countries as needed? We look at what is
going on in Libya, Bahrain, Jordan, and Yemen, and are we going
to keep in place a current policy that restricts USAID from
providing democracy and governance support to NGOs that are not
registered under the Egyptian NGO law?
Secretary Clinton. Well, first, Congressman Berman, we are
going to do everything we can to support this transition to
democracy that is under way. Each country is different; and,
very candidly, each country wants different things from us.
They want either economic aid or they want the full menu of
support on politics, governance, human rights, and the like. It
is our intention, as we have already communicated with teams
that we have sent out. Under Secretary Bill Burns has just
finished an intensive tour of the region, talking to the
leadership in the key countries, that we will stand ready, as
we have already announced, with $150 million of reprogrammed
money in Egypt, for example. We are trying to better coordinate
with our European and other partners around the world so that
we don't duplicate what is being done.
But with respect to the question about getting money into
certain organizations and individuals----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Madam Secretary, I am going to be a
little ruthless, because we want to get all our members in.
Thank you. I know my good friend understands.
I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights, Chris
Smith of New Jersey.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam Secretary, welcome to the committee.
I just returned from visiting our friend and ally, Japan,
where I spoke with members of the Foreign Affairs, Ministry of
Justice, and the Diet, regarding the fact that Japan has become
a destination country, a haven, for international child
abduction. I want to note parenthetically our Foreign Service
Officers were extremely competent, as well as our Consul
General, and empathetic.
As you know, there are at least 171 abducted children and
131 brokenhearted parents who are worried sick and have no
access in most cases to even see their children. All of us, of
course, want Japan to sign the Hague Convention on the Civil
Aspects of International Child Abduction. But, as you know,
that treaty will not solve the current cases, and they stand a
great risk of being left behind a second time.
My question is, what is the administration's plan to
resolve the current cases? On at least five occasions President
Obama has met with both Prime Minister Kant and Hetoyama. Did
he personally raise the issue of those children and their left-
behind parents?
Secondly, I would like to ask you, if you would, since
1979, brothers and sisters have been illegal in China as part
of the barbaric one-child-per-couple policy. For over 30 years,
the U.N. Population Fund has vigorously supported, funded,
defended, promoted, and even celebrated these massive crimes
against humanity. The facts are these--and they are
uncontested--any Chinese woman, Tibetan woman, or Uighur mother
without a birth permit is put under coercive pressure to abort;
if need be, physically forced to do so. All unwed moms are
compelled to abort their child. And in what can only be
described as a search-and-destroy mission, disabled children
are aborted as part of a nationwide eugenics program. Each day,
Chinese family planning cadres impose huge compensation fees on
any woman who lacks permission to give birth or somehow evades
detection.
There is no doubt that the UNFPA-supported one-child-per-
couple policy in China has led to the worst gender disparity in
any nation in human history. Where are the missing girls? Dead.
Aborted because they were female. Systematically destroyed over
30 years by sex selection abortion. Today, there are as many as
100 million missing girls in China--gendercide, the evil twin
of genocide.
The societal implications of the UNFPA-supported one-child-
per-couple policy are absolutely staggering. According to the
World Health Organization, about 500 Chinese women commit
suicide every day in China. China has become a magnet for sex
trafficking, in large measure due to the missing girls of
China.
In light of this massive ongoing crime against women, I
would like respectfully to know if you or the President raised
directly in a face-to-face manner the issue of forced abortion
in China when President Hu Jintao was in Washington.
Secretary Clinton. Well, Congressman, let me start with
your visit to Japan and thank you for bringing greater
visibility to this very painful problem that I am deeply
concerned about.
In fact, I, for the first time, created in the Department
the position of Special Adviser on Children's Issues. It is
something that I have worked on for my entire adult life, and
we are actively engaging foreign governments to go ahead and
join the Hague Conventions both on child abduction and on
adoption. And I have raised it in every meeting that I have had
with my Japanese counterparts--and I have had many Japanese
counterparts because the government has changed in the 2 years
I have been involved. And I know the President has also raised
it.
I appreciate your going to Japan, and I thank you for the
kind words about the consular affairs officers there, because
this is at the highest priority level in the administration.
It is not only Japan. But Japan, unfortunately, has many
more of these cases. We are also concerned about South Korea
and many other countries in Asia. And in fact our Special
Adviser hosted a meeting for all of our chiefs of mission from
Asian countries, including Bangladesh, China, Japan, Laos,
Nepal, the Philippines, South Korea, and Timor to encourage
that this be put on the top of the list.
With respect to the pending cases, it is my belief that if
we can get the conventions approved, we will have a stronger
argument on the pending cases. I think that there will be a
recognition that Japanese society has changed its views about
how these cases should be handled; and I think that will open
more possibilities for the families that are, unfortunately,
suffering from the abduction of their children.
With respect to China, its one-child policy, its forced
sterilization, its forced abortion----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I am sorry, Madam Secretary. Thank
you so much.
Mr. Ackerman, the ranking member on the Subcommittee on the
Middle East and South Asia, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Ackerman. Just when it was getting good.
Madam Secretary, it seems like just yesterday that a
faceless, frustrated fruit vendor devoid of a future set
himself afire and now tomorrow ain't what it used to be.
Certainly not for millions of people in the Middle East,
certainly not for most of the rest of the world. We have seen
amazing things happen and taking place--things that we didn't
necessarily anticipate.
Others are watching it carefully as well. We see people
demonstrating in the streets in countries which, to our
amazement, are not holding up signs that say death to America
or death to Israel or death to anybody else there. They are
raising their own flags proudly, without trampling or burning
ours. They are holding up signs--signs that are in English.
You referred to meeting with people who made statements on
TV and told you different things. These are people who are--
publicly, their prayers may be going upward, but their hopes
and dreams are directed to us. They are talking to us in our
language. It is fascinating.
We have to have a plan. They are looking westward. Others
have been caught flat-footed, as well as have we. We see a
young man who was one of the leaders in Egypt, an Islamic but
secular young man, when asked who he wants to meet, he doesn't
say Muhammad, the Prophet. He says, ``Mark Zuckerberg, the
Jew.''
There is an opportunity here that we have never sensed.
This is a new generation of people. People have not been sent
out into the streets by their parents to die, but parents are
willing to die for the next generation. They have dreams, and
they are looking to us to help them.
What are we going to do? The opportunity is here. Why don't
we come up with something out of the box, something creative?
Pick 500 of the finest young men and women from some of our
business schools, give them each $10,000. Maybe the Israelis
will do the same. Let them start businesses with these young
people. Let them work together. Let them find their own future.
Let them find the way that they have indicated in the streets
in which they are demonstrating that they want to go.
This is a new direction. Let's not wring our hands and say,
Oh, my God, others are going to take advantage. The future
isn't there for us to react to. The future is to be made. Do we
have a plan?
Secretary Clinton. Well, Congressman, we do. We have lots
of plans. I am very excited by your idea, and I would welcome
every member of this committee to offer ideas that would give
us additional ways of interacting with the--particularly young
people who are at the base of these transformational movements.
Let me just say three quick things. We do have a lot of
ongoing efforts that have been funded by this Congress over the
last many years for entrepreneurial training. The President had
an entrepreneurial conference last year, where we brought
people from Muslim majority countries. I run into them all the
time as I am traveling in the region. We have a Web site that
keeps them in contact that helps to mentor them. We can take
that and build on it and make it even greater.
We have a lot of the MEPI programs and the so-called NERD
programs, the Near-East programs, that have played a major role
in bringing a lot of these young people to the United States on
international visitors programs, on reaching out to them where
they were in their own countries. We have to continue that.
This is a labor-intensive, person-by-person kind of outreach
program; and it is one of our hopes that we will get the
resources to do that.
We have increased dramatically what I call 21st century
statecraft so that we have a social network connections system
where we are talking to people in Arabic and Farsi, never done
by our Department before; and I have empowered a lot of people
to go and get this under way and be connected to their
counterparts around the world.
We do have to be conscious and aware of what people want
from us and what they don't want from us. And, again, that is
evolving. So our Embassy and Bill Burns and others who have
been visiting have been meeting with representative groups of
young people who come from the entire political spectrum
because we do not want to make the mistake of not including in
our dialogs those with whom we have some difficulties because
we want them also to feel that they can realize democratic
aspirations, which is more than just having an election.
So there is a lot to be done, and I think your idea is a
very good one, and I will follow up on that, Congressman.
Mr. Ackerman. Thank you. I am glad you are there.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
Mr. Burton of Indiana, subcommittee chair on Europe and
Eurasia, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Burton. Madam Secretary, we take an oath of office when
we become Congressmen and you, as Secretary of State, to
protect the United States from enemies both domestic and
foreign. One of the big concerns that I have is our dependence
on foreign energy. Right now, we import about 65 percent of our
energy from outside the United States. When we had the oil
embargo back in 1972, the early '70s, we imported about 28
percent. So we are importing more than double the amount of
energy we did back then.
The concern I have is the unrest in Libya, in Egypt. If you
look all the way across the northern tier of Africa and into
the Persian Gulf, you will see that the potential for unrest is
really, really severe. And I know you are doing your best. But,
nevertheless, there is still that problem. If the Straits of
Hormuz is bottled up, if the Persian Gulf is bottled up, if
they do something in the Suez Canal, we could lose at least 30
percent of our energy. We are dependent on that part of the
world.
Now, this country has not moved toward energy independence
at all in the last 40 years. We were importing 28 percent back
in 1970, 1972, and now it is 65 percent. Our dependency has
continued on. And we have said we want energy independence.
T. Boone Pickens was in to see me a couple of weeks ago,
and I have talked to others that say we have the ability to
become energy independent if we really want to do it. But
because of environmental concerns, we are not moving. We are
not drilling off the Continental Shelf. We are not drilling in
the Gulf of Mexico. We are not drilling in the ANWR. We have
got millions and maybe trillions of coal shale that can be
converted into oil, and we are not doing a darn thing about it.
We are increasing and continuing to depend on foreign sources
of energy.
This administration is doing absolutely nothing to deal
with it. As a matter of fact, they are impeding our ability to
become energy independent. Now we have got to do something
about that.
If we have everything go to hell over in the Middle East
and if our good friend in Venezuela, Mr. Chavez, who is working
with Tehran right now--they have flights going back and forth
every week--if they decide to put the kibosh on us, we are
really in trouble. Can you imagine what it would be like to
lose 30 to 40 percent of our energy from foreign sources
because we are not drilling and getting energy right here in
the United States?
So my question very simply is this. Why is this
administration--and you as Secretary of State are one of the
leaders who is supposed to make sure that we are protected from
enemies, both domestic and foreign--and right now, you know
because you have been over the problems that we have in the
entire Middle East. You know of the problems that we have in
Venezuela. You know of all these problems, and you know of our
increased dependence on foreign energy. Why is it? And can you
take a message back to the President and just say, Look, it is
time to get on with it. We need to do what is necessary to
become energy independent.
And the experts with whom I have talked--and I have talked
to many of them--tell us we can become energy independent in
the next decade if we really want to. As a matter of fact, T.
Boone Pickens said if we do one thing, and that is convert our
18-wheel tractor-trailer units to natural gas, we could cut our
dependence on foreign oil by 50 percent in the next decade;
that one thing, and we are not doing a thing about it.
And this administration, in my opinion, is being derelict
in its responsibility, and you as Secretary of State, I implore
you to go back to the President and say, This is just not just
an economic issue; this is a national defense issue that we are
not doing a thing about and we need to get on with it.
And I would like to have your response.
Secretary Clinton. Well, Congressman, I actually agree that
our energy dependence is a national security issue. When I
served on the Armed Services Committee, I authored some of the
earliest legislation so that we would begin to look at
alternatives, that we could begin to use the large Defense
Department budget to try to explore what could be done.
I don't think there is any one answer, however. I do
believe--and I followed up on that by having the first-ever
international energy coordinator. In the QDDR, I recommended
that we have a whole bureau devoted to energy because I do see
it as you do, as a critical part of our national defense.
I would take issue, as you might expect me to, with respect
to your characterization of what this administration has done.
There is a lot that can be done right now that would make us
more energy efficient. There were a lot of programs and a lot
of funding to move toward energy efficiency, which every expert
I talk to, says can have a dramatic impact on reducing our use
of foreign and domestic sources. That doesn't mean that we
don't need to look carefully at what else we can do in terms of
drilling and the like. That is a longer-term prospect.
I am worried about right now, and I think some of the
short-term decisions that are being made by the Congress
undermine our march toward energy independence, and I think we
have to look at a whole menu of what needs to be done.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much. Mr. Faleomavaega,
the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam Secretary, it is always a pleasure and a personal
honor for me to welcome you before this committee. I am sure
our Nation deeply appreciates your service and outstanding
demonstration of your leadership as the President's chief
diplomat in representing our Nation throughout the world.
Just yesterday, you made a very important speech before the
United Nations Human Rights Council in Europe, and now this
morning you will be making a serious effort to save what is
left of the State Department's proposed 2012 budget, which, in
my humble opinion, with a machete and a sledgehammer our
friends in the majority are proposing to cut by as much as 50
percent of what the administration is requesting in order for
your Department to carry out your many responsibilities
throughout the world.
How ironic, Madam Secretary, that here you are as the
President's most senior member of his Cabinet, and yet your
Department's budget is less than half a percent of the U.S.
gross domestic product, or 1 percent of the entire Federal
budget.
Madam Secretary, it is my understanding that some of our
colleagues in the majority have suggested that we should
utilize the 2008 budget operations as the benchmark for the
2012 budget cycle, which means a reduction of about 42 percent
in the administration's proposed budget.
My question is, will your department be able to function
with these kinds of proposed cuts that we are now considering
seriously in the Congress?
Secretary Clinton. Well, Congressman, I hope we don't get
to that, because it would seriously affect the missions that
the State Department and USAID have been assigned, not only by
this President but by the prior President. When President Bush
and the Bush administration signed, for example, the Strategic
Framework Agreement with Iraq, it was filled with the kinds of
work that was supposed to be ongoing in order to solidify the
relationship that had been built after our military leaves
Iraq.
I cannot stress to you how strongly I think it is
imperative that we continue the mission in Iraq. We are talking
about democracies in the Middle East. Forget about how we got
there. The fact is they are trying to figure out how to have a
democracy.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Madam Secretary, in other words, you are
going to be hurting.
Secretary Clinton. Well, it is not me personally. It is our
country and our interests and our security that will be
devastated, in my opinion.
Mr. Faleomavaega. The chairman has a very strong hand with
the gavel here, but Madam Secretary, I do have my laundry list
for your consideration.
Two months ago, as a member of the Western Hemisphere
Subcommittee, I submitted a strong letter to Assistant
Secretary Arturo Valenzuela in your Department concerning the
current crisis of the abuse and mistreatment by the Chilean
military forces against the people of Easter Island, or Rapa
Nui. Unfortunately, I have not received any response from
Secretary Valenzuela's department or agency. I don't know
what--maybe he is sick or just didn't care or bother to
respond.
And secondly, Madam Secretary, I want to know if the State
Department has any information or details concerning the plight
and the suffering of some tens of millions of indigenous
Indians living throughout Latin America, their problems
economically, especially economically and socially, in terms of
their critical situation.
Also, the administration's recent announcement that you
were going to bring USAID back to the Pacific, and with the
budget cuts now, does this mean that there is going to be no
USAID for the Pacific region? And I am talking about some 16
island Nations that I am sure really have a need for this
program.
Also, the unexploded ordnance cluster bomb issues for the
countries of Laos and Cambodia, the debt reduction also for
Cambodia that has been going on now for 30 years and still
don't understand what happened there. I think my time is about
ready to go, Madam Secretary.
Secretary Clinton. Congressman, I will get answers on all
of these. But specifically, let me just respond on USAID's
presence in the Pacific. Here is an area where, number one, we
are finding large energy deposits. I am sorry that Congressman
Burton is gone, because also Papua New Guinea and in the land
mass, there is a huge deposit that ExxonMobil is developing. We
are in a competition with China that is unbelievable. They are
expending enormous amounts of money. They have a huge
diplomatic presence across the Pacific. The very least we could
do is have a USAID office in either Fiji or Papua New Guinea so
that we fly the flag and people know we care about them. That
will be on the chopping blocks. It is one thing, but it really
stands for a much bigger challenge that we are facing in that
region of the world.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I might also mention China has about a
$600 million development program for these Pacific island
nations. And what do we have in response? Zero. My time is up
Secretary Clinton. Also, they will vote with us in the
United Nations consistently, and China is trying to undo that.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. Five minutes for Mr.
Rohrabacher, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations, is recognized.
Mr. Rohrabacher. First of all, Madam Secretary, let me
compliment you on your energy and clarity after arriving here
from meetings in Europe and arriving late last night. I don't
know how you do it. You have done a terrific job in advocating
what your administration wants you to advocate.
Let me ask you, I would like to be specific and give you a
chance to answer this. Did President Obama confront President
Hu during his visit to Washington on the issue of forced
abortion? I think that could be answered with probably a yes or
no.
Secretary Clinton. We consistently raise that with the
Chinese and I want to just say----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Is that a yes; President Hu was actually
confronted by President Obama?
Secretary Clinton. I cannot answer that--I cannot answer
that yes or no on that particular visit. I can tell you that we
consistently raise it in our highest diplomatic encounters with
our Chinese colleagues.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Would that include the highest--has
President Hu been confronted with the issue of forced abortion
by our President?
Secretary Clinton. I will have to get an answer for you,
but let me say that this is an issue that I started raising in
1995.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
Secretary Clinton. And I continue to raise it, and I am the
chief diplomat and I raise it in every setting that I can.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. Can you get back to me? You can't
give us a yes or no now, but maybe you can get back to us, and
we will call you on this, as to whether President Hu has been
confronted himself on the issue of forced abortion.
Secretary Clinton. I will certainly do that, and let me
just quickly add, because Congressman Smith's question----
Mr. Rohrabacher. You know what, Madam Secretary, I only
have a couple of minutes to ask you some questions, and I agree
with the question, but I was also doing Mr. Smith a favor.
I would like to ask you a little bit about the nature of
foreign aid. It seems to me that we give--when we are talking
about the amounts of money that is being spent, the billions of
dollars we spend, does it make any sense at all for us to be
borrowing money from China and giving it to other countries,
especially giving it back to China?
I have noticed that you will be asking in your budget
request for $1.3 billion to the--let's see, it says here the
global fund and the global fund assistance program. China
happens to be the fourth largest recipient and has received
almost $950 million. Now, what sense does it make for us to
borrow money from China and then give it back to them in a
grant, and then we are paying the interest, of course, on the
money that we have borrowed from them? This is insane.
Secretary Clinton. Well, Congressman, first, you are not
going to get an argument from me. I was part of, in an indirect
way, the last administration that balanced the budget, and I
wish we had stuck with it. And we find ourselves in a very
challenging position now because of what happened between 2001
and 2009. So I am one of those who believe we have to be smart
and tough and do what is necessary to balance the budget, and I
don't think it can all be done by slashing our foreign aid and
our State Department budget.
With respect to your specific question, we do support the
global fund. It has been an efficient way for the United States
to amplify our own efforts with respect to PEPFAR. And yes,
China is a recipient, and China is stepping up and assuming
greater responsibility than when we started, when they would
deny they even had an HIV/AIDS problem. And from our
perspective, HIV/AIDS is a communicable disease that actually
affects the world, and therefore we want to stamp it out
wherever we can find it.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And your answer to my question is, yes, it
does make sense for us to borrow money from China and give it
back to them as a grant as part of this global fund assistance.
Let me just note that we can disagree as to who caused the
problems for our economy. Let us just note that we are $1.5
trillion more in debt this year and the year before since this
administration has taken power as compared to the last year of
the Bush administration. Whether or not who is responsible for
that, we can talk about later.
Let me ask about aid to Pakistan, and again, we have only
got a few seconds here. Pakistan has received billions of
dollars' worth of aid; yet they have a U.S. citizen, Raymond
Davis, who is now being held under very questionable
circumstances. Are we going to demand--are we still going to
give our money away to people who support the Taliban and put
our intelligence assets at risk?
Secretary Clinton. Well, Congressman, we are working very
hard in order to achieve the release of Mr. Davis. It is one of
our highest priorities across our Government.
We do believe that the combination of military and civilian
aid that we have pursued with Pakistan is in America's
interests and that is our first and most important----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yeah, we develop the plan, give to
Pakistan, and Pakistan creates nuclear weapons----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. I would
like to recognize Mr. Payne, the ranking member on the
Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights for 5
minutes.
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much. If you didn't give the
whole title, I might have had 4 or 5 seconds more.
But let me just rest and say that it is so great to see you
again, and let me commend you, Madam Secretary, for the
outstanding work that you continue to do with your firmness and
your knowledge of world affairs.
I am also very distressed that H.R. 1, as it relates to our
whole foreign affairs, issues at the National Family Planning,
cutting $200 million; 83 percent less for debt restructuring
for Haiti; 49 percent reduction in international disaster
assistance funds which helps with clean water, emergency
shelter, health care, et cetera, rape prevention; 41 percent
reduction in refugee and migration assistance; 17 percent
decrease in the Peace Corps, which everyone says is the
greatest program in the world, what we get back for our
investment; 29 percent reduction in the Millennium Challenge
Corporation. And we can go on and on.
It is absolutely to me insane. Whereas it has been
indicated 1 percent of our budget goes to foreign affairs and
we are slashing it. This is not going to solve our problem in
this country by taking 1 percent and cutting that in half to
make you have one-half of 1 percent going to alleviate problems
in the world. So I would hope that there can be some changes
made on the way to the budget question.
Let me just ask quickly some questions in regard to south
Sudan with the recent elections. Will cuts prevent us from
really getting in there and assisting that new government? I am
concerned about Darfur, that we don't give up tough sanctions
on the Bashir regime until Abyei is concluded in south Sudan,
which it should be a part of south Sudan and the whole Darfur
situation.
I also would hope that we can step up our support for the
transitional Federal Government in Sudan. I think there is a
new offensive going on, and if we can support the African
peacekeepers that are going to try to have this new offensive,
I think that we can secure that area in Somalia.
I will stop there for a minute and maybe try to give you a
minute to answer a couple of those questions.
Secretary Clinton. Well, Congressman Payne, I appreciate
your listing the cuts that are in H.R. 1 because obviously
those will have a dramatic impact on our ability to wield our
power. I mean, that is what I am interested in. I am interested
in results for America. And if we are basically going to people
empty-handed or we are having to close offices and cut back
programs so that we don't have that relationship that enables
us then to turn around, as we did with the Egyptian military,
and say, ``Hey, guys, remember us, we trained you, we worked
with you, here is how we think you can do this,'' we will be
weakened. I mean, that is the bottom line.
I mean, it is not a pleasant thing to say because I think
at this moment in history, as much as any, it is not like there
is no competition out there. Iran is competing with us. China
is competing with us. We have people who are more than happy to
step forward and fill the void that we leave behind.
I was struck, for example, that the conservative government
in the United Kingdom actually increased their development
budget. While they were cutting everything else, they said, you
know, if we don't compete, if we are not present, we are really
going to be off the map. And so they are actually increasing
their development budget.
So on these issues, like you mentioned, south Sudan,
Darfur, Somalia, the United States is the major player, and I
think we deserve a great deal of the credit for helping the
Sudanese referendum for south Sudan to go peacefully. We are
deeply engaged in working to resolve Abyei. We are still
focused on Darfur.
You mentioned Somalia and the transitional Federal
Government. We are the largest supporter of the African Union
forces that are in there taking the fight to al-Shabab Chicago
which is allied with al-Qaeda.
I mean, I could go around the world and point to where our
aid and our diplomatic effort coincide with our security
challenges, and what our military is doing and places where our
military is not present, where we are the only representation
of American power. You know, look, it is up to the Congress to
make this decision, but as I said in my opening remarks, every
time we pull back, we have paid a bigger price, and that is
what I worry about.
Mr. Payne. Even in Cote d'Ivoire where Bagwell is still
staying in office, it has an impact on our chocolate industry,
which is a big industry in New Jersey. So we are interconnected
financially.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Payne. Mr. Manzullo,
subcommittee chair on Asia and the Pacific.
Mr. Manzullo. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam Secretary, it is good to have you here this morning.
I represent the 16th Congressional District of Illinois, not
too far from Park Ridge, and 26 percent of our manufactured
items are exported. We have over 10,000 jobs directly related
to foreign direct investment from Denmark, Sweden, Germany,
Italy, Israel, and other countries.
And this past week, I led the largest congressional
delegation ever to New Zealand and to Australia to discuss the
Trans-Pacific partnership, and appreciate your going there in
December of last year, signing the Wellington Declaration. It
strengthens our ties with that part of the world. We got out 2
hours and 21 minutes before the earthquake hit, and it was
fortuitous on our part.
Our relationship with New Zealand and Australia is
extremely important, and I am delighted that the Prime Minister
will visit the United States next week and speak before a joint
session of Congress.
As a result of our discussions, I learned that the New
Zealand Government is in the process of reauthorizing the
patent system which will actually remove patent protection for
software, and we discussed that at length with the Trade
Minister, Tim Groser, and the Australians are in the process of
adopting a so-called plain packaging rule for tobacco which
adversely impacts the use of trademarks, and many people see
the use of the patent system to enforce social change as being
inimical to the United States' strength in the patent laws as
we know it.
These issues concerning loss of patent protection for
software and also for trademark protection are really
disturbing to the nine countries that have been involved in
those negotiations which, as you know, go back probably 10
years through several different administrations, especially in
light of China's continuous theft of intellectual property,
closure and outright theft of American businesses, including a
couple from my congressional district.
My question to you is, are you aware of these patent issues
and trademark issues involved in the TPP? And I would like to
hear your thoughts on them and what America is going to do to
try to turn around New Zealand and Australia to a higher level
of patent protection.
Secretary Clinton. Well, Congressman, first let me say how
pleased I am that you and your large delegation were safe. We
had some very tense moments there trying to make sure that
everybody, all the Americans as part of this large delegation,
were accounted for. So thank you.
And with respect to the TPP, although the State Department
does not have the lead on this--it is the United States Trade
Representative--we work closely with the U.S. TR. It is
absolutely essential that we work with our friends and allies,
particularly countries like Australia and New Zealand, to make
sure they understand the implications of some of their internal
domestic legislative changes. And we are doing so because I
share your concern. We obviously have the biggest stake in the
world in improving the protection for intellectual property,
not seeing close friends and allies begin to remove those
protections.
You point out that China remains the largest violator, and
part of what we have tried to do is to push them to recognize
that as they develop they, too, will want the protection for
their own intellectual property, and they need to be part of an
international regime. So we are aware of this. We are working
on it, and I will keep you informed about how the negotiations
proceed.
Mr. Manzullo. Thank you and I yield back my time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Wow. Thank you, Mr. Manzullo, Man of
the Year.
Mr. Sherman, the ranking member on the Subcommittee on
Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade.
Mr. Sherman. I join with Mr. Rohrabacher and his amazement
at your energy, which is exceeded only by my amazement of Don
yielding back part of his time. And of course, Mr. Rohrabacher
would be even more amazed if you reflected on the fact that I
think this is your first of four hearings before various
congressional committees over the next 2 days.
I have got so many areas to pursue that I will mostly
propound questions for the record so you will have a few
minutes of relaxation.
The Korea Free Trade Agreement. What worries me is goods
coming into this country duty free, manufactured by North
Korean or Chinese labor. For example on automobiles, the
automobile could be 65 percent made in China, then taken to
South Korea where it would be finished by Chinese guest workers
residing in barracks in South Korea, and then this car could
enter the United States duty free, having never been touched by
a South Korean worker.
Of greater concern is outlined in my letter of February 9
to the President, which I know your staff is already working on
a response to, dealing with the special industrial zones in
North Korea, in which North Korean slave labor is provided to
South Korean companies. The South Korean Ambassador to the
United States is on record as saying that he believes that the
Korea Free Trade Agreement will pave the way for goods entirely
produced in these slave-labor zones to enter the United States
duty free.
And if you review my letter, you will see that it looks
like the South Korean Ambassador has a very good legal point,
all the more reason why we need to change this agreement before
we submit it to Congress, particularly the annexes described in
my letter.
I applaud your efforts to liberalize our export controls
without hurting our national security. The goal has got to be
jobs, but sometimes liberalization leads to exporting the jobs.
If something is taken off the munitions list, then it could be
manufactured in China and imported into the United States. If
you license the export of tools and dyes and plans and
technology, that can lead to goods being produced abroad. So I
hope that prioritization in the liberalization is given to
those projects that will provide more jobs rather than more
offshoring to the American economy.
As to Iran sanctions, I think the ranking member did an
outstanding job in propounding the questions and pointing out
how important this is. The State Department began a number of
investigations, particularly of Chinese companies, back in
September. Under the law, the State Department is supposed to
complete that within 6 months--that means next month--and a
question there for the record is whether the U.S. is actually
prepared to sanction a firm located--and a major trading
partner of the United States, also known as China. And if we
are not willing to sanction any company in China, if we are
looking to delay decisions where 6 months ought to be long
enough to make a decision, then we make a mockery not only of
our policy toward Iran but of the rule of law in the United
States, since the law does require certain action.
As to the Caucasus, the Defense Ministry of Azerbaijan
stated recently that his country is seriously preparing for
war. I hope you could outline for the record the serious
repercussions that Azerbaijan would face if it renewed the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
As to an organization known as the MEK, the U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has required the
State Department to review its decision. A number of well-
respected foreign policy experts have said the MEK ought to be
taken off the list. This is the only thing that Howard Dean and
John Bolten agree on, not to mention General James Jones, Bill
Richardson, and Lee Hamilton recently.
I asked for a classified briefing of the relevant
subcommittee. The State Department refused because of the
litigation. The Intelligence Committee provided it, and
frankly, after that classified briefing, I thought that perhaps
there was nothing done this century that justified the MEK
being on that list, and it provided substantial ammunition to
the belief that MEK is on the list as part of a peace offering
or a concession to Tehran. So I hope that you will personally
review the decision that the court has ordered your department
to review.
Finally is the issue of Libya. It may in the future,
depending upon developments, be good policy for us to arm the
Benghazi Army, if it ever organizes itself, if they have a
functioning provisional government. And I wonder if you have
begun the review of the recent U.N. sanctions and of U.S. law
to make sure that America could legally do that should you
decide it to be good policy. If, God forbid, there is a major
conflict around Tripoli, let's make sure the right side wins.
I yield back.
Secretary Clinton. Thank you, Congressman.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Without objection, members may have
5 calendar days to submit questions for the record for the
Secretary, Mr. Sherman, so we hope to get some answers to those
important questions.
I am pleased to recognize----
Mr. Sherman. Madam Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent
that my letter of February 9 be made part of the record.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Absolutely, without objection.
Mr. Royce, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism,
Nonproliferation and Trade, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Royce. Madam Secretary, on the question of Libya, I
think that one of the important resources could be Libyans and
Libyan Americans for their input. Omar Turbi, who has testified
before the committee before, is here today. I talked with him
this morning. I know that Samantha Power, you know, in the
administration had some observations. Some of those
observations have to do with what we didn't do in Bosnia in
terms of jamming Milosevic's radio stations. I actually carried
legislation on doing this, but we couldn't get it through until
the bombings started.
So I think right now if we look at the lesson of Rwanda,
right, I mean one of the lessons is if we can--when a dictator
is telling people to kill his own people, there is an
opportunity, especially given the fact that he is jamming al
Hararya anyway. So he jams; why don't we put the assets up to
take care of that?
And one of the things, for example, that al Hararya could
do if they were broadcasting would be interviews with Egyptian
soldiers saying why they didn't shoot, why they didn't fire on
their own people. This kind of thinking--because in a way it is
an information war, isn't it? And so I just wanted your
response to that.
And I was also going to ask you briefly in terms of another
problem on the African continent that you are very well aware
of, the LRA, Joseph Kony. Myself and a colleague had
legislation basically, you know, to put the assets, deploy the
assets. This is a fellow, you know, who just exists to pillage,
and he grabs child soldiers out of the villages, or grabs
children and converts them into soldiers.
So we now have passed the authorization over, you know, for
the plan, and I was going to ask you also about implementation
of that plan to remove him from the equation.
Thank you.
Secretary Clinton. Well, Congressman, I think that the
ideas that you have offered regarding Libya are ones that we
are seriously considering as part of the package of potential
actions that are being looked at by both our civilian and our
military teams.
I also think that this is an information war to a great
extent, and what we have been trying to do in the last 2 years
is to rebuild our credibility so that what we had to say would
be listened to. I did a Web chat with an Egyptian Web site, and
we gave them 2 days' notice, and they went out in Tahrir Square
and elsewhere. They got 7,000 questions.
So people are really anxious to hear from us. And they are
also, as you I think rightly point out, anxious to hear from
each other, like the Egyptian soldier idea which I think is a
terrific one. So we will follow up and give you more feedback
about what we are doing.
I could not agree more about the horrors of the LRA. This
is one of the great criminals of the last 50 years who has
pillaged, raped, abducted, kidnapped, killed in every way known
in the worst of barbarism. So we are very focused on that.
As you know, because you have followed this closely, he
unfortunately has been harder to get than we would have
thought. We have had a lot of support from allies and partners,
but he unfortunately has escaped accountability. But we are
going to continue to do that, and we appreciate your keeping
that in the spotlight.
Mr. Royce. Thank you.
I had a last question I was going to ask you, and that went
to the request that North Korea is making of the administration
for food aid. We have had hearings here in which a French NGO
testified that they traced the food aid that they had
previously given and found that it ended up on the Pyongyang
food exchange, basically being sold for hard currency for the
regime. What she was testifying to us, as a representative of
this NGO, was the same information that we had also received
from Mr. Yop who was the minister of propaganda, I guess you
would call him, for like 50 years, and he defected. And I saw
that one of his former employees, a central committee member in
North Korea, had told the press yesterday the same thing he had
once told us.
And the quote is, ``We must not give food aid to North
Korea.'' This is from a former Politburo member. ``Doing so is
the same as providing funding for North Korea's nuclear
program.''
What had transpired is Hwang Jang-Yop explained to us how
they basically took hard currency. That is what they needed to
build their weapons program, and they would get it any way they
could. And one of the ways they get it is by the financial
support, you know, that they receive.
And so I was going to say that I think it is wise counsel
from North Korean defectors that we not do that. I was going to
ask for your opinion.
Secretary Clinton. We agree with----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Madam Secretary.
Thank you, Mr. Royce.
Mr. Royce. I am glad you agreed. Thank you, Madam
Secretary. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Meeks of New York is recognized,
He is the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Europe and
Eurasia, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam Secretary, it is so great to see you, and I want to
first commend you and all the diplomats under your charge for
the tremendous efforts at the State Department to ensure U.S.
security and prosperity in these challenging times globally.
Through your skilled advocacy around the world to rebuild
partners and to--reliable partners and bilateral engagement,
you are making indeed America a safer and a stronger Nation.
I also want to thank you. We have within our office a
Pearson Fellow by the name of Nancy Cohen who is a Foreign
Service officer, and she has done a tremendous job and just
exemplifies the great people you have in the Foreign Service.
Now, there are too many questions to ask and time is
limited, so I am going to ask some questions that later that
group can put down for the record, but before I get to the
questions I also want to preference my statement by an
overarching concern with the current budget that has been
proposed by the Republican majority.
The current administration inherited a geopolitical reality
riddled with anti-Americanism. Now that our reputation is being
restored and there is such an opportunity for positive change,
is this the time that we really want to pull back funds that
support critical programs and initiatives? This is more than
just, in my opinion, penny-wise and pound-foolish. It is
downright dangerous to our national interests. And you know,
when you talked earlier in regards to Europe, even though they
are tightening their belt, you know, they are also putting more
money into foreign aid.
One of the questions I would have is the partnership we
have with Europe, whether or not--there is a perceived--you
know, there is a perceived--whether or not we then begin
holding up our end of the bargain. And we are talking about
foreign aid, which brings me to the specific point of, you
know, almost half of the funding is being cut from the
population refugee and migration budget.
You know, I am deeply concerned about vulnerable
populations like Afro-Colombians and the indigenous that Mr.
Faleomavaega was talking about, that live in the crossfire
conflicts that are not of their own making, and to renew any of
the progress we have made to make their lives more secure as a
result of our own hemisphere, or our own hemisphere more
secure.
So my question, Madam Secretary, is since the United States
is a leader in protection of displaced populations, what impact
could funding cuts for the migration and refugee assistance
account have on assistance of refugees overseas? How could
reducing funding for assistance and programs that serve
forcibly displaced populations impact the United States'
interests in such areas as Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, and
Sudan? And what are the major concerns the Department of State
has regarding the consequences of drastically reducing
assistance to refugees?
Secretary Clinton. Well, thank you so much, Congressman,
and thank you for raising the refugee assistance issue. The
United States has been, and I hope will remain, the leader in
dealing with refugee challenges, internally displaced people,
people fleeing from conflicts; and it has been one of the areas
where we are able to claim that we put our values into action
because we are there on the ground.
You have been in refugee camps. You see the USAID big sign
there. You know what it means to have experienced development
experts who provide the base for a safe place, whether it is in
eastern Congo or from a flood in Pakistan or in Haiti or
anywhere else. So this is a particular concern, that we be
prepared to continue the humanitarian work that undergirds a
lot of what people know about us around the world.
Now I have fought to be sure that when we go into these
post conflict, post disaster situations, the United States'
brand is front and center. You know, there was when I got
there, a feeling that maybe we shouldn't be, so to speak,
trumpeting our own horn. My attitude is, if the American
taxpayers that are putting that money out there, if people
don't want American aid, if they don't want USAID and our
programs to be there helping them, then we won't be there, but
if they are going to take it, then we are going to be
advertising it.
So I think it is a big part of what we are doing, because
what I found as I started traveling around the world is that a
lot of people didn't know what we did. You know, they said,
``Well, wait a minute, you know, the Chinese are doing this and
the Saudis are doing that and so and so are doing that.'' I
said, ``Yeah, we have got more money in there than those guys
combined, and we are going to get credit for it.''
So it is not only doing the right thing, which should be
the primary reason we do it, but frankly, I want to build the
American brand again so that when people get food, clean water,
shelter, they know where it came from. It came from the
generosity of the American people. And so this is for me a big
issue and we are doing even more to try to get that message out
so that we can be the leader that I think the American people,
with their generosity, want us to be.
Mr. Meeks. Let me just ask this. I know you won't get a
chance to answer because of the time. The other concern I
wanted to raise was of the northern distribution network and
how effective it has been for the U.S. efforts in Afghanistan
and what can be done in utilizing the network to improve U.S.
relations more broadly in central Asia. Again, with Mr.
Faleomavaega and being on this trip recently with him, we
haven't connected with all of those countries. It is such an
important part of the world.
Secretary Clinton. Absolutely. That is a big part of it.
Thank you.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, and now I am
pleased to give 5 minutes to Mr. Chabot of Ohio, our new
Subcommittee on Middle East and South Asia chairman. Mr.
Chabot.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Before beginning my questions, Madam Secretary, let me
remind some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who
keep bemoaning the cuts in the CR that we are broke, and the
only reason that this Congress is even dealing with the CR is
because the last Congress couldn't even pass a budget for the
first time in 34 years, at least in the House, and then
couldn't pass appropriations bills to keep the government
functioning.
So that being said, let me begin my first question with
Libya. Madam Secretary, it is difficult to look at the initial
U.S. response to the unrest in Libya and think of any word
other than ``tepid.'' Although the administration has suggested
that its initial reaction was tempered in order to avoid
provoking a hostage situation, such fears did not seem to
hinder other nations. The Chinese dispatched a frigate and the
British dispatched at least two warships and employed C-130s
during their evacuation operation. At the same time, our rented
ferry was stuck in port because it could not initially make the
journey across the Mediterranean.
Everything that we have learned about the Qadhafi regime
over the past decade indicates that its leadership responds to
force or the threat of force. For example, back in 2003 when
Qadhafi, after looking at the ease with which the U.S.
military--at least at first--dispatched the Iraqi Army, they
feared that he might be next. His response was to agree to
renounce all terrorism and hand over to the United States his
entire WMD program.
By sending ships to the Libyan coast, the British and
Chinese effectively told Qadhafi that there would be a steep
price in intervening in their evacuation. Why did we not do the
same? Although we are now repositioning forces off the Libyan
coast, our unwillingness to use or to threaten to use force to
protect our own citizens has left many around the world
pointing to this incident as a sign of weakness of America's
will.
What led the administration to believe that threatening
force to protect our own citizens would have been provocative?
Secretary Clinton. Well, Congressman, first, let me say
that other countries don't have the same history with Libya
that we do. And if you look at some of the early statements
that were coming out of Qadhafi and his leadership team, they
didn't talk about the Chinese. They talked about the Americans.
Our Embassy was overrun in Libya in 1979. We feel that we
did this in a prudent and effective manner, and we did it in a
way that did not raise the alarm bells around the region and
the world that we were about to invade for oil. If you follow,
as we follow, all of the Web sites that are looking at what is
happening in the Middle East, you see a constant drum beat that
the United States is going to invade Libya to take over the oil
and we can't let that happen.
Well, we are not going to do that and we are going to side
with the Libyan people in their aspirations, but the last thing
in the world we wanted was to start off with military assets
when we very effectively got our people out. Yeah, the seas
were high; the seas were high for the other evacuators as well.
I disagree fundamentally with your assumption. I see no
evidence that anybody thinks less of us because we were smart
about how we got our people--not only Embassy people but
American citizens who were working in Libya--out safely. And as
soon as we did, we pivoted very quickly and led the way at the
Security Council, have led the way in pushing beyond rhetoric
with the Europeans and the others. It is easy to make a speech.
It is harder to actually impose a sanction, freeze the assets,
target the arms, et cetera, and I think we handled this in a
very effective way and without a single problem for any
American.
Mr. Chabot. Madam Secretary, let me move on. We have
limited time, obviously.
On the Iranian nuclear program, I would like to talk about
that next, briefly. During the latest round of negotiations
with the Iranian regime in Istanbul, the Iranians were adamant
in emphasizing their right to indigenous enrichment. A recent
bipartisan letter from numerous Senators reflects the
overwhelming view of Congress on this question. It is still,
however, unclear what the administration's position on this
issue is. The letter cited reports suggesting that the
administration is open to an indigenous Iranian enrichment
capability, albeit under certain conditions.
The so-called Einhorn Plan would allow Iran to maintain
4,000 centrifuges. The U.N. even went so far as to suggest
during an interview with the BBC that Iran has a right to
enrichment. Article IV of the on the Nonproliferation Treaty,
the source of the Iranian claim, is not clear on this point.
What is the administration's position on Iran's claim that they
have a right to an enrichment program on their soil, and does
the administration believe that the current regime should be
allowed to enrich or reprocess domestically?
Secretary Clinton. Well, Congressman, it has been our
position that, under very strict conditions, Iran would
sometime in the future, having responded to the international
community's concerns and irreversibly shut down its nuclear
weapons program, have such a right under IAEA inspection. I
think that is the position of the international community,
along with the United States.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Thank
you. Mr. Carnahan, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations. And the reason I interrupt is we
have got limited time, and everyone wants to ask questions. So
I apologize, Madam Secretary.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and welcome,
Secretary Clinton.
Personally, for the work that you do on behalf of the
people I represent in Missouri, we really appreciate you being
a one-person voice of America at a time when we really need it.
So thank you.
I wanted to submit two questions to you in writing, one
about our continued work. We had an Oversight Subcommittee
hearing last year. We heard from Stewart Bowen, and would like
to get an update on the transition efforts in terms of
reconstruction, how that process is going, and also would like
to get a written question in to you about the ongoing
engagement with Bosnia for constitutional reforms and the need
for U.S. engagement with the EU.
But I would like to focus my question about the voices of
democracy that are really rising across the Middle East, North
Africa and elsewhere, and the need to reevaluate our public
diplomacy tools.
Certainly, looking beyond our traditional state-to-state
diplomatic efforts but about citizen-to-citizen diplomacy, the
cost effectiveness of that--I am especially reminded of that.
This past week I had a bipartisan town hall meeting with
Congresswomen Emerson and Clay at Washington University. And a
student came up to me there who studied in Cairo the previous
year, was continuing to have contact with students there in
Cairo, and how these kinds of engagements are so critical in
those countries. Could you talk about that?
Secretary Clinton. Well, I agree with that completely,
Congressman. If I could double or triple our student exchanges,
particularly into this region right now where we have more of
our students going to Cairo, to Tunis, to Oman, to places where
young people are voicing their desire for democracy and more
people coming from those regions, we have tried to increase our
international visitors program and specialized programs, but I
am a big believer in people-to-people diplomacy, and I would
like to see us do even more of that.
Mr. Carnahan. And what about the use of new media?
Secretary Clinton. We are moving very rapidly on the use of
new media. I have an extraordinary team of young people, as you
might expect, who are leading the charge on this, and it has
totally changed how we are communicating; because, you know,
Twitter, Facebook, they are in real-time, and you can't
overlook broadcasting, and frankly, I wish we were doing a
better job in our broadcasting efforts.
I met with Walter Isaacson, who is the new chair of the
Broadcasting Board of Governors. Aljazeera is a 24/7 entity.
The Chinese have started an English language television
network. The Russians have started an English language
television network. We should be by far the most effective in
communicating.
So, yes, social media is very important, but still most
people in the world get their news and their images from
television and radio. So we can't forget old media while we try
to break new ground in new media.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you. And finally, I wanted to touch on
another hearing we had last year. We had Ambassador-At-Large
Verveer here talking about women's empowerment worldwide. I
really have serious concerns about the recently passed CR, the
reinstatement of the global gag rule, the reductions in
international family planning and global health assistance; as
you mentioned, some of the programs that President George W.
Bush was so supportive of. Could you talk about how this will
impact women who are so vital to development, how it will
impact those communities and, in fact, translate to our
national and our economic security?
Secretary Clinton. Well, thank you, Congressman. This is
very close to my heart, and as you know, a woman dies from
complications in childbirth every minute, about 529,000 each
year, and we have made a lot of progress but we have a long way
to go. And I am worried that, you know, the House 2011 budget
proposes more than $1 billion in cuts to global health.
What that means is that 5 million children and family
members will be denied treatment or preventive intervention; on
malaria, 4,500 others; and more than 40,000 children under 5,
of which 16,000 are newborns, will not get access to effective
child survival intervention. PEPFAR will have to turn away
400,000 people who require lifesaving treatment against HIV/
AIDS. More than 16 million people will be denied treatment for
debilitating tropical diseases. More than 40,000 children and
family members will be denied treatment for tuberculosis, and
we will have 18.8 million fewer polio vaccinations and 26.3
million fewer measles vaccinations. That affects us.
I woke up this morning and was listening to the news and
heard about the effort to find some woman who is wandering
around Washington with measles. So this is not just what we
fail now to do for others; it is how that will come back and
affect our own health here at home.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Mr. Paul
of Texas.
Mr. Paul. I thank you, Madam Chairman, and welcome, Madam
Secretary.
I want to comment first about the demonstrations and the
change of governments going on in the Middle East and the
Mediterranean. I think everybody is excited about that and
always hopeful. I am hopeful, but not overly optimistic,
because of the long-term history of 1,000 years that they don't
readily adapt to true liberty.
The one thing, though, that might be different is the use
of the Internet, and that is very positive. And yet governments
are very strong, and that was the first thing they closed down
over there, because the last thing governments want is
information to get out.
But a lot of people in this country have come to the
conclusion that our policy overall has been inconsistent; that
sometimes we support the bad guys and the bad guys become our
enemies. For instance, you know, we worked with Osama bin Laden
when he was fighting the Soviets. We were allies with Saddam
Hussein when he was fighting the Iranians. We certainly propped
up the Shah of Iran for 26 years, and that bred resentment and
hatred that ushered in an age that now you are dealing with
because we have radicals, you know, in Iran. So it goes on and
on.
We now have propped up Saudi Arabia for a long time, sold
them a lot of weapons, and yet 15 of the Saudis were part of
the 9/11 disaster, and even the 9-11 Commission said that our
presence there had a lot to do with that.
We keep supporting Algeria and Morocco and Yemen and all
these dictators, and yet we pretend that as soon as it looks
like the dictator might fall, oh, we are all for democracy and
we are for freedom and we are against these dictators. I don't
think the people there understand. I don't think our people in
this country quite understand either.
You mentioned in your comments about Libya, that nothing
should be taken off the table, which is to me a little
frightening, because the previous administration would say that
when they would be asked questions about first strikes,
preemptive war, nuclear first attacks. That scares the living
daylights out of me when nothing is taken off the table, and I
dread the fact that we might be considering military activity
in Libya. I mean, we are flat-out broke. We are in all these
countries. War is expanding. We are bombing in Pakistan. We are
dealing in Yemen. We really don't have total control of Iraq,
and partial control of Afghanistan, and it goes on and on.
But the question I have is, isn't there a limit to
supporting these dictators? And I, of course, take a position
which the least involvement, the better; and deal with people
on different terms rather than saying, you know, we will buy
our friends. I think a friend bought is not a friend, and I
think a friend that is coerced by military power is not a
friend and breeds resentment.
What is wrong with swearing off support for and aid for all
dictators? Just think what might happen in the Middle East, if
we did that--I mean, here we have supported Egypt, $70 billion.
They have a lot of weaponry there, and who knows what kind of
friends they are going to be with Israel? Has this been
beneficial to Israel with all these weapons here? Why wouldn't
Israel be a lot better off if we swore off all aid to all
dictators in that country as a moral position, and as a good
position for our national defense and our national security, as
well as a good position for Israel.
Secretary Clinton. Well, Congressman, you make a very
passionate argument, and my response is that the United States
over the course of its entire diplomatic history has had to
make some very difficult decisions. We try to balance what we
believe to be in our interests. Sometimes, and I would argue
most times, we get it right; sometimes we don't.
Take Egypt, for example. I believe that it was in America's
interests and in Israel's interests to support Egypt following
the Camp David Accord. Thirty years of peace between Egypt and
Israel, albeit not a warm and fuzzy peace but nevertheless a
peace, was an essential element of Israel's ability to develop
and continue to strengthen itself and in a very tough
neighborhood.
The fact that we did have those relationships in Egypt made
it possible for us to have very, very frank conversations and
prevent what we now see going on in Libya.
Mr. Paul. May I interrupt just a second to ask, is there no
chance in the world that Israel might not be better off under
these conditions? It seems like they could be worse off with
what is happening over there, mainly because these dictators
will have our weapons and they may well be turned against
Israel?
Secretary Clinton. Well, you know, I think the qualitative
military edge that we guarantee Israel protects against that. I
think Israel, certainly in my conversations at the highest
levels, prefer predictability, prefer stability, do not want
vacuums created that could lead to very bad outcomes for them.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Mr.
Sires of New Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Sires. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
Madam Secretary, I want to thank you for the service that
you give this country, all these years that you have, and the
way you carry and represent the country throughout the world.
Thank you very much.
I have a couple of questions. I hope I get them in. The
other day, Defense Secretary Gates made a statement that was
certainly very curious. He said that any Secretary of Defense
that can recommend that we use ground forces, to the President,
should have his head examined.
The wars that we are in, all the billions of dollars that
lead to part of the deficit that we are carrying in this
country, is that a recognition that, really, unless it comes
from the people of those countries, that we really shouldn't go
in with armies into some of these countries because we are just
going to squander our resources and we are not going to really
get anywhere?
Secretary Clinton. Well, I think that what the Secretary of
Defense was saying should be heeded. It is a very strong
warning. But I also believe that there are situations where we
have no choice, but we need to be very clear that it is the
only and best choice available to us.
Mr. Sires. Because I am concerned about this package that
we have now in Libya and some of these countries. So I hope we
don't get ourselves into a ground war.
My second issue has to do with Cuba. Obviously, we seem to
be making concessions and we seem to be doing all the things
that the Government of Cuba wants. And yet, at the same time,
they are one of the biggest abusers of human rights. Just last
week, they put more people in jail. They beat up Zapata's
mother, who is the political prisoner dying in jail, and yet we
have appropriated $20 million for human rights activities in
Cuba, and we haven't spent a dime of it.
Secretary Clinton. Well, Congressman, we are committed to
spending that money. We are trying to do so in a way that will
strengthen direct engagement with the Cuban people. I know you
are very aware not only of the terrible abuses by the Castro
government against Cubans but the holding of Alan Gross, one of
our USAID personnel who was trying to get aid into Cuba to help
the Cuban people. So we remain committed to advancing policies
that will assist Cubans on the ground, and we are committed to
freedom and democracy for the Cuban people.
Mr. Sires. Madam Secretary, I happen to have gone to
Colombia for the swearing in of the new President. I have to
tell you it was a great moment for me, a great honor to be
there. But I thought that it was a little weak in terms of
representation from our State Department that we have this
neighbor, that we have this great ally, and yet there was a
delegation of Congress people that went but we didn't see too
many people from the State Department representing this
country.
And now I see that the President of the United States is
going to fly from Brazil, right over Colombia, into El Salvador
and is not stopping in Colombia. I have been hearing what a
great neighbor, what a great friend, what a great ally Colombia
is, and yet we seem to basically don't do the right thing. They
have made remarkable changes in their country over the last few
years. As you talk to different people--I go to Colombia just
about every year--I see the changes. Isn't it about time we
move on Colombia and Panama and some of these issues?
Secretary Clinton. First, Congressman, thank you for going.
The representation by the United States is only part of our
engagement with Colombia and in particular with President
Santos. We have maintained very close relations with him and
with his government. We think he is doing an extraordinary job,
and we are very proud that the United States has been a partner
for the Colombian people now for a long time so that they can
realize the benefits of the development that you have attested
to.
We are strong supporters of the Colombia and the Panamanian
Free Trade Agreement. I would like to see those two, plus
Korea, passed this year. I think it is in America's interest,
and we are working very closely with the Colombians and with
the Congress to try to make sure we can do that.
Mr. Sires. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Sires.
Mr. Pence, the vice chair of the Subcommittee on Middle
East and South Asia, is recognized.
Mr. Pence. Thank you, Chairman.
I want to thank the Secretary of State for her testimony
and for her service to the country. It is good to see you back
before the committee.
I also want to thank you specifically for the efforts by
the administration and your offices to further isolate Libya
during a time of extraordinary tragedy in the streets, tragedy
of which I think we are probably only partially aware. I want
to continue to encourage and urge the administration to stand
with those that are standing in that now-bifurcated country to
use all means at our disposal to provide support and certainly
associate myself with Mr. Royce's comments about isolating
radio communications and would express appreciation for your
efforts at Geneva and elsewhere to facilitate a coordinated
international response, including a no-fly zone. Qadhafi must
go. I am grateful to hear the Secretary of State and the
administration take that position unambiguously.
I also want to thank you for mentioning President George W.
Bush's PEPFAR initiative in your testimony. We haven't gotten
quite as much praise about that in the last couple of years as
I think is warranted. Your comments are most welcome.
Let me take you back. In your testimony today, Madam
Secretary, on page 5 you make reference to the 16-percent cut
for State and USAID as potentially being ``devastating to our
national security.'' I allow you your opinion on that, of
course.
Let me say, though, that I am more associated with your
statement on September 10, 2010, in which you were quoted as
saying: ``Our rising debt levels pose a national security
threat.'' It was in remarks that you made to the Council on
Foreign Relations.
A couple of facts, and then I would love to get your
response to them.
You used the number 16-percent cut, and I won't question
your staff's arithmetic on that. We had a pretty long debate
over the continuing resolution. But as we have broken it down,
the projects that were eliminated in the base text, for your
information, include $300 million in contribution to the Clean
Technology Fund; $75 million eliminated in the Strategic
Climate Fund; $55 million eliminated from the United Nations
Population Fund, a fund that has been a source of great
controversy; $5.75 eliminated from Cultural Preservation.
Global Diversity Trust took a $10 million hit. You will forgive
me, Madam Secretary, if I see none of those as devastating to
our national security.
Also, in terms of the reductions of programs, even after
you factor in the programs that were eliminated and those that
were reduced, as the chairman pointed out earlier there is
still a rather significant increase in spending over 2008
levels. And at a time when we are facing a $1.65 trillion
deficit--a deficit contributed to by leadership of both
political parties, let me stipulate--we are facing a $14
trillion national debt, which could well double over the next
10 years, I find myself more associating with your September
comments before the Council on Foreign Relations than with the
assertion that a 16-percent cut in a State and USAID budget
that has been greatly expanded in the last 3 years is in fact,
to use your words, devastating to our national security.
So I raise that by way of asking for your response about
where do we cut, where do we begin? If we can't do without
programs like the Clean Technology Fund, the Strategic Climate
Fund, the Fund for Cultural Preservation, if we can't suffer a
modest reduction that still leave us above the 2008 levels, I
would welcome your response to where we do begin to put our
fiscal house in order.
Because I was one of the members of this committee that
helped to engineer a couple of times the passage of the PEPFAR
program. Despite my cheerful conservative record, I believe
that the compassion of the American people is expressed in the
manner in which we come alongside other nations, particularly
those in the two-thirds world, particularly those at the point
of the need.
But we are in trouble here. This country is going broke. We
have to ask every department of this government--with the
exception, I would allow, of people that are downrange in the
field wearing our uniform and our veterans--I think we have got
to look at every aspect of the government and say, Where can we
save?
So where is the right place to start in what remains at the
time?
Secretary Clinton. Congressman, I really appreciate your
thoughtful question, and I recognize the dilemma. I guess my
plea would be that we look hard at what we are doing that is
part of national security. I would like to see what we are
doing in the frontline states, for example, treated in the same
way as the military overseas contingency operations are
treated. Because what will happen is that the obligations that
we face in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, which are really in
support of the courage of our military that has sacrificed so
much, is either going to save the gains or lose the gains over
the next few years.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Madam Secretary. I do
apologize.
My Florida colleague, Mr. Deutch of Florida.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Welcome, Madam Secretary. I would like to add my voice as
well to thanking you for your passionate defense of American
values as you travel throughout the globe as our top diplomat.
There were reports that surfaced last week about the IAEA
quarterly report that has disclosed new information that Iran
is exploring ways to militarize its nuclear weapons program,
including ways to affix atomic weapons on long-range missiles.
Further, the report stated that Iran is trying to move advanced
centrifuges into Natanz that could reduce the amount of time
needed to produce weapons-grade fuel. Iran is continuing to
expand its production of nuclear fuel, according to the IAEA.
They now possess over 8,000 pounds of low-enriched uranium,
enough to build two to three nuclear weapons should they
proceed with weaponization.
The President stated in his first press conference as
President of the United States that Iran's development of a
nuclear weapon is unacceptable and that we have to mount an
international effort to prevent that from happening. I would
ask, Madam Secretary, as a start, if you could speak to the
efforts of the administration and the State Department
specifically in enforcing CISADA's successes to date, and then
I will have a follow-up.
Secretary Clinton. Thank you very much, Congressman.
We have, we think, put together, thanks to the work of this
committee and others, a very effective sanctions regime which
we are constantly looking to improve, to tighten, to
strengthen; and we welcome the advice from this committee
particularly.
When we passed CISADA, it was on top of the Iran Sanctions
Act. Last fall, I imposed sanctions for the first time in the
history of the Iran Sanctions Act on the Swiss-based, Iranian-
owned firm NaftIran Intertrade Company, so-called NICO. It was
a major investor in a number of oil and gas projects in Iran.
We also took the advantage of what was in CISADA to begin to
sanction on human rights. We got more designations in addition
to what we have already done coming.
We have used CISADA to convince Shell, State Oil, ENI,
Total, and Impex to withdraw from Iran and promise not to do
any further business in Iran's oil sector. We have worked with
a number of our partners to see these kinds of developments. A
number of shipping companies have discontinued services to
Iran. Several maritime shipping insurers have announced they
will not provide coverage for Iran-bound vessels. Major energy
traders have discontinued the sale of refined products to Iran.
As a result of restrictions on gas exports, it has been
forced to convert lucrative petrochemical plants to produce
low-quality gasoline, costing them millions in revenue. They
have reduced their gasoline subsidies, increasing the prices
400 percent and 2,000 percent for diesel fuel. That has all had
an amplifying effect on negative trends in the Iranian
mismanaged economy. And we continue our international outreach.
We have informed firms that we are going to add additional
sanctions.
So we think we have made progress with international
support, but we have more that we think we need to do.
Mr. Deutch. I appreciate that, Madam Secretary.
Along those same lines, China recently announced a $2.5
billion new investment in Iran's oil production. How is the
Department dealing with China's continued evasion of sanctions
and what leverage do we have with the Chinese to urge, if not
force, compliance?
Secretary Clinton. We actually have worked closely with the
Chinese, but it is a never-ending effort. They are hungry for
energy. They do not see Iran particularly as a threat to them.
So they, after much diplomatic effort and arm-twisting, went
along with the Iran Sanctions Act in the Security Council, but
it is a constant, committed, determined effort for us to keep
them abiding by the sanctions they agreed to. We literally work
on it every day.
Mr. Deutch. Finally, the Office of Terrorism Finance and
Economic Sanctions Policy, the office that is charged with
enforcing these sanctions, runs on, at least with respect to
Iran, a staff of essentially four people. So the question I
have is, won't we be jeopardizing national and international
security if they don't have the appropriate funds, if the cuts
go through, in order to enforce these sanctions that exist?
Secretary Clinton. We have had such a terrific team both at
the Treasury Department and in the State Department. I was the
first person who set up a designated sanctions operation inside
the State Department because we went to all this trouble to
pass sanctions on North Korea, pass sanctions on Iran, and then
we just didn't follow through the way I wanted to see. So it is
important we keep doing that.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the chair of the
Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, Mr. Mack of Florida.
Mr. Mack. Thank you, Madam Chair; and, Madam Secretary, it
is great to see you again.
Just a quick statement. As I have listened to my colleagues
on both sides and your opening statement, Madam Secretary, more
money is not leadership. Leadership comes from within one's
character and a clarity of purpose. Let me suggest that
America's leadership lies in freedom and in an understanding
that freedom is the core of all human progress. So as we talk
about budget issues, I think it is important to understand that
it is America's leadership in freedom that matters around the
world.
I was interested to hear your responses to my colleagues'
questions in particular about the Iran Sanctions Act and how
you have applied sanctions already. My first question is, if
Venezuela is in violation of U.S. sanctions on Iran, will you
act?
Secretary Clinton. Yes.
Mr. Mack. Have you seen the published, signed contracts
that guarantee the transfer and liability of two cargos of
gasoline from Venezuela to Iran?
Secretary Clinton. We have seen a lot of statements and
contracts coming out of Venezuela, but we don't see much
follow-through yet.
Mr. Mack. Madam Chair, I would like to submit this for the
record.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Without objection.
Mr. Mack. Assistant Secretary Valenzuela testified before
the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee that Iran is in violation
of sanctions. Let me ask you this question again. Will you act
on this violation?
Secretary Clinton. Of course, if there is a violation.
Currently, our best information is that their relationship is
largely diplomatic and commercial and has not moved in the
direction they keep talking about. But we follow it closely. If
there is evidence that they have violated the sanctions, we
will come down on them.
Mr. Mack. Well, again, I would suggest that you look back
at the documents where I think it shows that they are in
violation; and your own Assistant Secretary Valenzuela
testified that they are in violation of the Act. As part of the
Iran Sanctions Act--I think it is section 7 of the Iran
Sanctions Act--that the Secretary of State may issue an
advisory opinion explaining whether an action is in violation.
And myself, the citizens of the United States, and people
around the world are looking forward to your advisory opinion
on whether you think Venezuela is in violation.
I think it is pretty clear that Hugo Chavez supports
regimes, dictators, the destruction of human rights. This is
not someone that we want to align ourselves with. In fact, I
was disturbed to hear that he was asking Qadhafi--or letting
Qadhafi come to Venezuela. Whether that is true or not, the
fact that he thinks that that is a good thing is shocking to
me. So I look forward to your response on this. I think the
evidence is pretty clear.
The Assistant Secretary also talked about Chavez supporting
international terrorist organizations. In fact, he agrees with
me that Chavez is supporting international terrorist
organizations. Do you believe Mr. Valenzuela's statement that
Chavez is supporting terrorist organizations?
Secretary Clinton. First, Congressman, I agree with your
description of his statements, his rhetoric, which is deeply
troubling and deplorable. We constantly look for evidence. We
have a certain evidence standard that we have to meet that the
Congress has set.
Mr. Mack. Madam Secretary, I think it is out there, and we
are dying for you to act. We cannot continue to wait. Action
must be taken on this.
Let me ask you another question, since I only have about 45
seconds. Joe Kennedy, who draws about a $600,000 salary from
his supposed nonprofit Citizens Energy, is a public relations
shield for Hugo Chavez. We all know the record of Chavez, but
Joe Kennedy continues to promote this dictator while lining his
own pockets. I have condemned Joe Kennedy. Are you prepared to
condemn Joe Kennedy for continuing to support and be a shill
Hugo Chavez?
Secretary Clinton. I am not going to condemn him. I have no
information that leads me to that conclusion. But we will get
back to you, and we will certainly brief you and your staff on
what we actually know. And if you have additional evidence on
Chavez----
Mr. Mack. Madam Secretary, on Joe Kennedy, all you need to
do is watch the nightly news and see the commercials that he is
running in support of Chavez.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Mack.
I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to Mr. Cardoza of
California.
Mr. Cardoza. I would like to thank my friend, the
chairwoman of this committee, and thank her for the great job
that she does.
Madam Secretary, thank you for being here with us. Thank
you for your continued outstanding service to our country.
Secretary Clinton. Thank you.
Mr. Cardoza. I am a huge fan; and, because of that, I am
going to actually allow you to answer the question that I ask.
Madam Secretary, at least 70 people were killed during an
attack last October in Our Lady of Salvation Church in Baghdad,
making it the worst massacre of Iraqi Christians since 2003.
Less than 2 months later, extremists bombed the homes of more
than a dozen Christian families in Baghdad as well. On New
Year's Eve, 23 people were killed by a suicide bomber in
Alexandria, Egypt, while coming out of Mass at St. Mark's and
St. Peter's Coptic Church. Since these tragic incidents, the
Middle East has been rocked by wide-ranging democratic protests
and regime changes, as we have seen in the last few weeks. How
has this ongoing instability affected the already heightened
risk to vulnerable religious minority groups like Assyrians,
Jews, Copts, and others?
Secretary Clinton. Congressman, thank you for asking that
question. I think this has not gotten the level of attention
and concern that it should. We immediately went into action
when the bombings took place in Baghdad. Our Ambassador was
deeply involved with the government, making sure that there was
protection and security. The Ambassador went to Mass in order
to show solidarity with Iraqi Christians. But there is no doubt
that Christians and other minority groups are feeling under
pressure and are leaving countries from North Africa to South
Asia because they don't feel protected.
I think we need to do much more to stand up for the rights
of religious minorities. And, obviously, I am deeply concerned
about what happened to the Christians in Iraq and the
Christians in Egypt. I am also concerned about what happens to
minority Muslim groups in Pakistan and elsewhere. So you have
raised an issue that I think is one of deep concern, and we
have to be speaking out more, and we have to hold governments
accountable.
When I spoke with the prior Egyptian Government after the
Alexandria bombing, they expressed the same level of outrage
that I felt. They said that the Copts are part of Egyptian
history. As you recall from Tahrir Square, there was a lot of
interfaith efforts with Copts and Muslims worshipping together.
Let's hope that continues and let's do whatever we can to make
that the future, instead of what I am fearful of, which is
driving out religious minorities.
The final thing I would say on that, because it is an issue
I have paid a lot of attention to, we want to protect religion
and religious believers, but we don't want to use some of the
tools that other countries are proposing, which is to
criminalize defamation, criminalize in the broadest possible
definition blasphemy, and then use it to execute, harass, and
otherwise oppress religious minorities.
So we have to come up with an international consensus about
what we are going to do to protect those who are exercising
their conscience.
Mr. Cardoza. Thank you very much.
My second question deals with the events again that have
highlighted the unique role Israel plays in the Middle East as
a reliable, stable, and democratic ally that shares our values
and interest. Likewise, there is no question that the tumult
throughout the region and especially in Egypt raises strategic
questions for Israel.
My question is this. Is the administration in close contact
with the Government of Israel about the impact of recent events
on Israel's QME and possible new threats it faces? In light of
the current uncertainty, is the administration reconsidering
the massive sales of advance weaponry in the region, some of
which were already notified, in order to protect the quality
military advantage?
Secretary Clinton. Congressman, first let me say we are in
constant, probably daily, contact with our counterparts in the
Israeli Government at all levels of our Government.
Secondly, the Qualitative Military Edge is absolutely a
commitment that this administration has followed up on.
Secretary Gates has said publicly and privately on numerous
occasions that in the last 2 years we have probably done more
to enhance Israel's defense than at any previous period. This
administration has delivered for Israel. It is not maybe as
well known because it is both public and classified, but I want
to make sure that members of the committee know that this
administration time and again has made sure that Israel has
what it needs to protect itself.
Of course, we discuss with Israel other actions that we
take in the region. I think right now we are all in agreement
about what we need to be doing.
Mr. Cardoza. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Mr. Cardoza,
Madam Secretary.
Mr. Fortenberry, the vice chair of the Subcommittee on
Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights, is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Madam Chair; and thank you,
Madam Secretary, for joining us today. I just read your remarks
to the Human Rights Council from yesterday. Well done.
Madam Secretary, as we consider the administration's nearly
$61 billion in International Affairs budget request, I believe
we must balance two factors: First is the threat posed by
unprecedented levels of national debt; second, with the
essential necessity to engage with other nations for our
national security purpose while also upholding our noblest
ideals. But our primary responsibility is to the American
people. They must know that the Federal Government is wisely
spending their tax dollars and ensuring that our programs
reflect their core values.
I think we also must do the right thing by standing with
those throughout the world who need and merit our support. The
historic upheavals in recent weeks in the Middle East
demonstrate before the world an operative American principle
that the legitimacy of government derives from the consent of
the governed. Our policies must reflect this Nation's enduring
commitment to legitimate government, to human dignity, as well
as to economic engagement for the well-being of persons.
Madam Secretary, for decades, U.S. policy has assumed that
political and human rights gains would inevitably flow from
economic liberalization. That assumption, however well-
intended, sometimes is lacking. It has it its drawbacks.
Look at China, for instance. China gives cover to North
Korea's nuclear weapons programs; China trades with Iran; China
does not respect human rights, including the barbaric practice
of forced abortion and sterilization. China is probably jamming
coverage of this hearing today, and they have jammed coverage
of the events throughout the Middle East.
Let's look at Iran. In Iran, human dignity is trampled in
the name of religious dictatorship and autocracy. Iran is also
seeking aggressively nuclear weapons capability, and it crushes
dissent.
So, Madam Secretary, three questions.
Is it time for the United States and members of the
responsible international community to speak boldly, clearly,
and frequently in support of the people of Iran who are seeking
a more just and moderate government? Why do people have the
right to live free from fear in Tripoli but not in Tehran?
Secondly, is it time for the United States to singularly
elevate the role of human rights, universal rights, in our
bilateral relationship with China?
And, third, as you touched upon in the last question, what
will the administration do to emphasize to governments in
transition throughout the Middle East that religious freedom is
a universal and indispensable aspect of a vibrant democracy?
Secretary Clinton. Well, thank you very much, Congressman.
Thank you for your leadership on these important issues. I
agree that it must be a constant and loud chorus coming from
not only the United States but like-minded countries in favor
of human rights in Iran.
I do think that we have seen the active opposition crushed
and oppressed. Our latest information is that Mousavi and
Karoubi may be imprisoned. There is dispute about that, but
they are certainly under house arrest, if they are not actually
in prison.
What many had advised before, that we not throw ourselves
into the middle of their legitimate uprising, may be moot.
Therefore, as I said yesterday, as a statement that I issued a
few days ago, we have to go chapter and verse about everything
that Iran is doing that abuses the rights of its own people and
exposes their hypocrisy as they try to somehow identify with
the legitimate aspirations for democracy and human rights in
the region.
Mr. Fortenberry. This is a shift or new emphasis in our
policy?
Secretary Clinton. We have always taken that position, but
we have tried to modulate it to some extent, Congressman,
because of the warnings we were receiving from within Iran and
outside Iran. You speak to some of the same experts who were
worried that the regime would basically paint everybody who
opposed them as American stooges. So we have done a lot of
messaging, but I think it is fair to conclude that at this
point in time the more we can point out their double standard
and their hypocrisy the better off we will be.
Secondly, on China, we always raise human rights. I raise
it all the time. The President, I know, raises it. I was jammed
in 1995. My Internet speech was jammed a few weeks ago. So I am
well aware of how they try to control information. We will
continue to raise these issues, and we will continue to try to
help those who are inside.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Sorry to jam you, Madam Secretary,
and interfere with the transmission as well.
Mr. Chandler of Kentucky is recognized.
Mr. Chandler. Madam Secretary, I want to join with some of
my colleagues up here and thank you very much for your service.
I think that your representation of our country is carried out
very thoughtfully, very ably, and with a great deal of class. I
thank you for that.
By the time you get to where I am in the order here of
questions, most of the important questions have been asked. But
I actually have a couple that I think are particularly
important.
With what is going on in Tunisia now, I think it is safe to
say that this is one of the most important times in that
country's history. It is also a country that has been a very
important ally of ours. And yet our budget requests and what is
happening with our budget suggests that we are getting ready to
administer an enormous cut in aid to Tunisia, I think from the
neighborhood of $22 million down to $6 million. I am concerned
about that, and I would like you to address what kind of
message that sends at this critical juncture.
Secondly, Syria. There are those who believe that peace
with Syria is absolutely essential and would be a tremendous
turning point in the peace process, and there are those who are
of the school of thought that that is a possibility and that it
would be beneficial to the Bashar Assad regime. There are
others who believe that Syria has--well, that the Alawi
minority government there, the regime there, is utterly
dependent upon casting the United States and Israel in the role
of the enemy, that their regime maintenance depends upon it.
And in fact the actions of the Syrians and their rhetoric seems
to bear this out.
Obviously, they have spent a great deal of time in efforts
to have a stronger alliance with Iran. They have been helping
terrorists across the board, it seems like, from Hezbollah to
terrorists within Iraq to Palestinian terrorist groups.
What do you think about the Syrian situation? Do you see
any signs that the Syrians are improving their behavior? And
has Syria taken any steps to improve its relationship with us?
Secretary Clinton. Thank you, Congressman.
If I could, before Congressman Fortenberry leaves, I just
wanted to make sure the record reflects that Function 150,
Congressman, is $50.9 billion. That includes Treasury money,
MCC, Peace Corps. State-USAID is $47 billion. Then the overseas
contingency operation is $8.7 billion. So we get a total of $55
billion. I just wanted to make sure that we are talking apples
and apples here. Because you are right that there are other
funding streams. Treasury supports our commitments to the World
Bank, obviously, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, Peace
Corps, and then other small agencies.
Thank you, sir.
Congressman, first, on Tunisia, I think Tunisia has to
work. Tunisia is a much smaller country. It is in many ways a
more middle-class country. It has a great potential because of
the way that it has dealt with its transformation, and we need
to be on the ground helping. So I agree with you that cutting
aid to Tunisia right now would be maybe penny wise but pound
foolish.
Although there are Europeans who wish to assist in Tunisia,
the Tunisians, as I heard directly from the Tunisian Secretary
of State for Foreign Affairs yesterday in Geneva, the Tunisians
remember when the United States stood for their independence in
the 1960s. They remember that many of our European friends were
colonizers in North Africa. They want the United States there
helping to support them in their transition to democracy. We
could make a real model in the Middle East by assisting
Tunisia.
Mr. Chandler. You need to amend your budget request.
Secretary Clinton. Well, we do. We do. But first I have got
to figure out what I have got left after you guys get done with
me. I keep putting up these warning signals.
With respect to Syria, you outlined very well the differing
currents that are at work inside Syria, in Syria's relationship
with the region, particularly Syria's relationship with Israel.
Obviously, we would support anything that Israel would decide
is in Israel's best interest in dealing with Syria.
We caution and raise a lot of concerns about what we see as
Syria's relationship with Iran, Syria's relationship with
Hezbollah. That is not in Israel's interest, it is not in
America's interest, and, frankly, we don't think it is in
Syria's long-term interest.
So we sent back an ambassador, as you know, because we
think it is better to be on the ground talking, picking up
information, conveying messages, and we hope that we will get a
clearer view forward.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, Madam
Secretary.
Mr. McCaul, the vice chair of the Subcommittee on the
Western Hemisphere.
Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Madam Chair; and, Madam Secretary,
welcome.
Two questions, one with respect to Iran, one and with
respect to Mexico.
You mentioned Israel prefers stability over a power vacuum,
and I agree with that. I think what we are seeing in the Middle
East is a power vacuum; and the question is, who is going to
fill that void? Is it going to be filled by a secular movement
or by forces like the Muslim Brotherhood? Or, as we look at
Iran, is Iran going to take this opportunity to fill the
vacuum?
We know two Iranian vessels were in the Suez Canal, the
first time since 1979. We support emerging democracies. I think
that is the correct policy for this country. And we are
supporting the forces in Egypt and Libya. But when it comes to
Iran, who has, as you mentioned earlier, oppressed its own
people and fired tear gas and shot its own people, at least
there is the appearance that the administration has been sort
of silent on the issue, and yet I think there is a golden
opportunity for us at this point in time to support the
resistance movement in Iran. Why aren't we doing this more
forcefully?
Secretary Clinton. Well, Congressman, I would argue that we
are, that we are doing it forcefully, in many ways, and we will
continue to do so.
But I want to underscore the first point you made, which is
that there is no doubt in my mind that if we are not present,
and present in resources, not just in rhetoric, not just saying
what we are for, but being able to deliver on that, others will
fill that vacuum. The Middle East abhors a vacuum. We know that
from long experience.
So while we message against Iran, if that is all we do, we
are not going to be in the game. We have got to be on the
ground. That is why we need diplomacy and development to be
viewed as national security, so that when these young people on
the street say, Well, how do we write a Constitution?, it is
the United States and our allies who are there to help, not the
Iranians.
But if anybody doubts that, despite all of the sanctions
and the best efforts of the international community to isolate,
condemn what Iran has done, that they are not in there every
single day with as many assets as they can muster trying to
take hold of this legitimate movement for democracy, you are
sadly mistaken. We are in a competition. I just stress that
over and over again, that we have got to be there. We have got
to fight back.
Mr. McCaul. I agree with you. I think that diplomacy with
Iran, in my view, is naive. I think the best thing we can be
doing, both from the State Department and from an intelligence
effort, is to do everything within our power to support these
freedom fighters who want to overthrow the ayatollah and the
mullahs who are oppressing these people.
Moving to Mexico, we had two U.S. law enforcement agents
for the first time in 25 years shot in an ambush with 83 rounds
from an AK-47 after they have said they were American
diplomats. Now the Mexican Government seems to be saying it is
a case of mistaken identity. I personally don't buy that. I
will take the testimony of our agent over the three Zetas now
in custody who are talking about the incident.
My question with respect to the State Department is
several. The Merida Initiative that we passed in the Congress
had $1.3 billion to provide primarily military assistance, and
yet only 25 percent of that has gone to that assistance in
Mexico. The rest seems to have been bottlenecked up in the
State Department. I was hoping you could explain why and
perhaps give me your assurance that we are going to try to move
that money as quickly as possible.
Two more quick items. Extradition. I hope this
administration fights hard to get these killers extradited to
the United States.
Then, lastly, there is a 1990 agreement that prohibits our
law enforcement in Mexico when we put them down in a war zone,
as President Calderon calls it, and we don't allow them to
carry weapons. I would like this administration to revisit that
agreement in light of the new conditions down in Mexico.
Secretary Clinton. Thank you for raising Mexico,
Congressman. Because, again, this is an area that doesn't get
enough attention and there it is, right on our border.
The U.S. Congress has appropriated $1.5 billion since the
Merida Initiative began in Fiscal Year 2008, and by the end of
2011 we expect to have obligated over half of this funding.
Your question is a fair one: Why does it take so long? The
complexities of negotiating technical requirements with Mexico,
what we expect to get for our money, what we expect to get from
them when we give them our money, and the need to ramp up
staffing to support a program of this magnitude has taken time.
But we have also decided that what works best is providing
professional training, which we are doing for 4,500 new Mexican
police investigators, training for 3,000 Mexican prosecutors.
We will give you have chapter and verse about what we are
doing.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to Mr. Higgins of New York.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Madam Secretary. First of all,
thank you for your work on behalf of America throughout the
world. You should know that Buffalo still misses you very much.
The two most powerful forces in the world today are youth
and technology. We understand in the Arab world 60 percent of
the population is under the age of 30. They call it the youth
bulge; they call it the youth quake. And they are empowered by
new media and not only for organizational purposes but for
aspirational purposes as well.
When you think about the extraordinary convergence of an
82-year-old man living in his modest home in Boston who wrote
books and pamphlets on civil resistance, on nonviolent
resistance, his work is disseminated throughout the entire Arab
world as a primary source for their organizational efforts. So
it says that America has two unique roles here. One is clearly
aspirational. Because this individual from America, this 82-
year-old man, his experiences in his writings were borne out
from his experience in the civil rights movement of this
country, and that that is now serving as a beacon for the Arab
world I think says extraordinary things about the times that we
are living in and the extraordinary opportunities that are
before us.
The other thing is America's role in what comes of the
Middle East and these revolutions. Everybody is asking the
question now: Will Egypt be more like Iran or will it be more
like Turkey? And we have a role in that, as you have stated,
with this budget.
So when you hear folks talking up here about America's role
in helping to influence what the next steps are in Egypt and at
the same time support a continuing resolution that cuts 30
percent in a development assistance account that specifically
supports democracy in places like Egypt, we can't have it both
ways. A lot of bad things can happen to the world without
America, but not a lot of good things can happen in the world
without this country as well.
So I just ask you to respond to that.
Secretary Clinton. Well, Congressman, first, say hello to
every one in Buffalo and tell them I miss them, too.
I think you made a very important point. When I became
Secretary of State, I looked at all of the research analysis I
could find, and two things stuck out to me. One, that most
people, whoever they are and wherever they live and under what
kind of regime, want the same thing: They want a good job with
a good income that gives them and their kids a better future.
That is universal. And so focusing on that became one of my
goals, as to how we help to lift up the bottom.
Secondly, that we have this huge youth bulge, not just in
the Middle East--in Latin America, in Asia--and when you look
at countries where 25, 35, sometimes 50 percent of the
population is under the age of 25, they are totally ill-
prepared to educate those people, provide them health care,
guide them to the kind of future that we would like to see for
them, which happens to be in our interest as well.
So we have focused on trying to figure out how best to
message to young people. That is why I set up this unit inside
the State Department about how we use social media, how we try
to connect. There I am doing Web chats. We are trying to do
everything we can to go where people are getting their
information and to put the American story out there.
We did such a great job during the Cold War. American
communication about democracy and freedom was universal. And
then the Berlin Wall fell and we all said, Okay, great, we
don't have to do that anymore. And we have slowly but steadily
receded from the information communication competition.
Others are filling that. As I said, they are filling it
with Aljazeera, they are filling it with Chinese English, they
are filling it with Russian English, et cetera. I think that is
one arena we cannot afford to be out of. Maybe to some it looks
like a luxury, but to me it undergirds our message.
I can make a speech, a Member of Congress can go to the
floor and make a speech and say we stand for freedom. That is
one speech which will probably not even be heard by the vast
majority of young people we are trying to influence. But if we
have that message going out day in and day out on new media,
old media, our diplomats, our development experts, everybody is
out there saying the same thing about who we are as Americans
and what we stand for, we can really infuse this moment of
transformation with American values and the American spirit and
the American experience.
As you can tell, I feel passionately about it because I
believe in it. That is what I was raised on. That is what I saw
as a young girl. When Congressmen McCaul or Fortenberry said
diplomacy with Iran is naive, we always had diplomacy with the
Soviet Union while we were sending messages behind the Iron
Curtain every minute of every day about what the alternatives
were. That is what we need to be doing.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Madam Secretary.
Judge Poe, the vice chair of the Subcommittee on Oversight
and Investigations.
Mr. Poe. Madam Secretary, thank you for being here, and
thank you once again for the time that Deputy Secretary Corbin
spent with me, over an hour, talking about a lot of issues. I
will try to keep it down to 5 minutes, which is not really fair
for those of us in the south who talk slower.
Secretary Clinton. But I don't need a translator.
Mr. Poe. You don't need a translator.
I believe, like you, that deep down in our soul everybody
in the whole world has this burning desire for freedom. However
you want to call that or define it, that is the way people are.
I believe that it exists probably as well as anyplace in the
country of Iran. We have a lot of Americans here who are of
Iranian descent. Many of them have family at Camp Ashraf. Many
have lost families who have been killed in Camp Ashraf. They
have family in Iran. I believe those young people in Iran have
that spirit of freedom.
I have a question that I certainly don't know the answer
to, but the United States throughout history takes the position
usually that we support a country and then eventually we
support the rebels or those who want to come in and take over
that country. We have made that decision in Libya. I think the
administration used actually the term ``we support the
rebels.'' Sometimes we do, and sometimes we don't.
I think there is no greater tyrant on Earth than the little
fellow from the desert, Ahmadinejad, and the way he treats his
people, the way he has declared war really on everybody. When
do we get to a point as a country in making these decisions
like we did with Libya? When do we get to the point that we
say, You have got to go? We made that decision in Libya. When
do we make that decision in Iran, you have got to go?
Secretary Clinton. Well, Congressman, I think we have to
support those who are struggling and fighting for their own
freedom inside countries, and we do that in Iran. But it is
unfortunate that this regime has exercised such oppression
against its own people, has done everything possible to destroy
the opposition. So we do support and we will continue to
support and we will be very vocal in our support. But we also
look at those moments, those hinges in history, where there is
an adequate critical mass of people that are willing to stand
up for their own rights.
Unfortunately, in many countries--it took a long time in
the Soviet Union, as you know--and then countries began to move
and we were there with support for them. We see that now in the
Middle East, in North Africa. Iran is a tougher case, but we
are going to do everything we can to support those who want
that freedom.
Let me just for the record say, too, because there have
been several references during the hearing to the MEK. I know
there are many representatives here in the audience. As the
committee is well aware, on July 16, 2009, the district court
here in DC ordered the Department to allow the MEK to respond
to unclassified portions of the administrative record in
reviewing the designation of being on the foreign terrorist
organization list. And, as such, we are again reviewing the
designation in accordance with the court's decision and
applicable law, and this review will result in a de novo
decision concerning the designation of the MEK
Mr. Poe. When do you think you will have that decision?
Secretary Clinton. It is proceeding. These are very
important considerations and reviews. As soon as we can, we
will make such a decision, Congressman.
Mr. Poe. Myself and others have met with State Department,
CIA in classified briefings. And I would just encourage the
State Department, based on everything I know, to make that
decision.
I am one that, of course, thinks we ought to take them off
the list. I would hope Congress wouldn't have to make that
decision. I hope the State Department would. But I would ask
that, if any information comes forward either way, that the
Department of State would share that with us in a classified
briefing so that we have that information.
The last question I was going to comment on and concern was
the residents of Camp Ashraf. They are nervous. Their relatives
are nervous because of the way that time is really not, in my
opinion, on their side. How do you, just your opinion, think
this is going to play out once we are gone, the people in Camp
Ashraf? Are they going to be moved from the border, go to Iran,
go to Europe? How do you see that playing out?
Secretary Clinton. First, let me say that we monitor this
situation very closely. We try to investigate all of the
assertions that are made. We know that adequate food and fuel
under our supervision and pushing gets in. But we also know
there are constant provocations that exist. So we are in a
daily dialogue with the Government of Iraq, and we will
continue to do everything we can to protect them.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
Mr. Keating is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Keating. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Thank you in light
of your enormous schedule and where you were yesterday and
still taking the time this morning to address issues at our
committee.
A couple of weeks ago you laid out our country's priority
on Internet freedom around the world, and I join you certainly
in those efforts to maintain an Internet meeting place that
promotes the greatest possible benefits that can be really for
democracy around the world. I liked your analogy in your speech
about the Internet has become the churches and the union halls
of yesteryear.
We saw in Egypt and Iran, using technology from companies
based in the United States, what a tremendous element it can be
to advance democracy. I am certainly pleased that you created a
new Office of the Coordinator of Cyber Issues.
Along those lines, I wanted to address one issue.
It has a tremendous capacity for democracy and freedom, but
also therein lies a great danger, I believe. And I am working
on legislation right now to establish end use agreements for
sensitive technology that we export abroad. We have to make
sure that the government clients like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and
Pakistan understand that American innovation should not be used
for violence.
So along those lines I would like to ask you if you
anticipate the new Office of Coordinator of Cyber Issues to
play a role with the private sector in determining best
practices so that U.S. technology is not used abroad, and I
would love your thoughts on any creative solutions we can
employ to advance our innovation without stifling progress
toward democracy.
Secretary Clinton. Well, thank you for that question,
because it is something that no Secretary of State has had to
address before. And here we are talking about it and realizing
that it is as important as the town square or any other setting
for expression and assembly. We would be pleased to work with
you and our new Office of Cyber Security to look at how we
would create such end use agreements.
A lot of the technology that we manufacture, that we invent
here in the United States has dual uses, even triple and
quadruple uses. It is difficult to know exactly how an end user
will use it. So I think this deserves some very careful
attention, and we would welcome your ideas about that.
We also are working hard to come up with new technology all
the time. We are incentivizing entrepreneurs, tech companies,
and innovators to help us figure out how to help people get
around whatever end use. Because we could take any kind of
technology and we could say, you know, that may be okay to go
through, and then some clever government figures out how to use
it against people.
So circumvention technology is a part of our ongoing
Internet freedom agenda. We have funded significant
advancements in the development of about a dozen circumvention
technologies in the last few years. But, in itself, that is not
enough. We also have to be looking at what Egypt did, which is
unprecedented--shut down the whole Internet.
So there is a lot of work still ahead of us, but it is an
area that the United States is uniquely positioned to lead on,
and it helps us get through all of those nets of repression and
censorship and shutdown that governments are using to keep
their people down and in place.
Mr. Keating. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
Madam Chair, in view of the lengthy morning, I will yield
the rest of my time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Second Man of the Year. Thank you.
Mrs. Schmidt of Ohio.
Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you, Madam Secretary, for being here.
I would like to focus my attention first on Sri Lanka and
second on Colombia, if I have time.
As you are aware, in 2009, thousands of Tamils were killed
in Sri Lanka. They are being housed right now in subhuman
conditions without proper food, plumbing, water, and creating
life-threatening events. With the geographic location of Sri
Lanka and the government's placing of this ethnic group in
these deplorable conditions, with the historic ties that the
Tamils have had with the United States, shouldn't the U.S. lead
in taking steps before either the U.N. Human Rights Council or
the U.N. Security Council in asking Sri Lanka what the grounds
were for these mass killings?
And, secondly, I know that you received letters from people
in the House and the Senate asking what steps, if any, the
United States is taking as the U.N. Secretary General maps out
his agenda for this year regarding this group that appears to
be being wiped out by those in charge.
Secretary Clinton. Congresswoman, thank you very much.
Initially, following the end of the war, the United States
assistance focused on humanitarian needs--food, aid, shelter,
and the like. We also put a considerable effort into de-mining
because of what had been done in the north during the war.
As the humanitarian needs began to recede, we have focused
on working with the Tamils and the Sri Lankan Government on
reconciliation, on representation, providing training on human
rights to the Sri Lankan military, helping to address
shortcomings in their criminal justice system and law
enforcement, and trying to assist them on resettling and
reintegrating the people who were displaced by the 26-year
civil war. We have also been trying to support enterprise in
the north so people can get back to making a living and
supporting themselves and their families.
We are constantly watching what is happening in Sri Lanka.
We share your concerns that the end of this very bloody
terrible war that lasted for so long be put behind Sri Lanka so
that they can move forward and have a society that answers the
needs of all of their people.
There is still a ways to go. There is this reconciliation
process, this commission that has been set up. I have
personally spoken with leaders of Sri Lanka to express strong
American support for it. But this is a matter we keep close
look on because we share the concerns you have raised.
Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you.
Now I would like to focus on Colombia. As you well know, it
has been a long time since we have had a Colombian Free Trade
Agreement. Just yesterday, in my own district, I spoke before
about 60 folks in the greater Cincinnati, southern Ohio area,
business people that have economic relations with Colombia and
would like to have a free trade agreement, and yet they are
saddled with something much less. When will this administration
push for that agreement, not just for Colombia but for Panama
and other places in the Western Hemisphere?
Secretary Clinton. Congressman, we strongly support action
on the three trade agreements that have been negotiated but not
yet finalized. Korea has been, but both Colombia and Panama are
finishing up. We have urged that both our Government and their
governments move expeditiously. We would like to submit them to
this Congress for action.
We think that there could be a grand bargain. There is a
lot of work. We have not continued the trade adjustment
assistance, which I know affects some people in your district.
We have not continued the generalized trade preferences, the
Andean trade preferences.
I think if we look at all the opportunities we have and
remember that the Western Hemisphere is our biggest trading
partner and as we see what is going on in the world, the more
we can work with our friends to the south and really help them
increase their economies, create jobs here, create jobs there,
enhance economic commerce and trade, the better off we will be.
So as soon as we can get final signoff on Colombia and
Panama, we would like to be moving forward with them, as well
as with Korea.
Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you.
Madam Chairman, I will yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. Woman of the Year.
Mayor Cicilline of Rhode Island.
Mr. Cicilline. Welcome, Madam Secretary. It is a great
honor to welcome you to our committee and to have the
opportunity to discuss many of these important foreign policy
issues. I thank you for your brilliant and wise leadership. Our
entire Nation is in your debt.
I just want to ask one question and make one plea. As you
know, my district has a very vibrant Cape Verdean community,
and I am very concerned about potential cuts to the Cape
Verdean Millennium Funding. That has been very important in
helping to transform the Cape Verdean economy; and I would just
ask that, as you review that, you pay close attention to it and
recognize how important it has been to the Cape Verdean
community, certainly in my district.
I recently returned this past Sunday from Iraq and
Afghanistan; and I think, while there is some division in this
country about what our role should be in Afghanistan and
whether a protracted presence in that part of the world is wise
policy, every military leader that we met with stressed the
importance of both the diplomatic and development prongs of our
strategy there and really confirmed everything you shared with
the committee today.
I have grave concerns about the level of expenditures that
we will have to sustain in Afghanistan in road building and
schools and police officers at a time when we are cutting those
very same investments here in our country, but I think we are
going to have a policy debate on that long term in the Congress
of the United States.
But one thing I learned on the trip and I learned from the
briefings that we had--and your foreign policy staff was
spectacular--is the growing threat of Pakistan in this region
of the world. And I wonder if you would speak to how we balance
our interest in strengthening our relationship with Pakistan
and at the same time respond to what is clearly a growing
threat as it becomes a sanctuary, particularly along the border
of Afghanistan.
I invite your thoughts on that
Secretary Clinton. Thank you so much, Congressman. I am
glad you went to Iraq and Afghanistan. I appreciate the kind
words for our national security team, military and civilian
alike.
I share your enthusiasm about Cape Verde. They did an
excellent job with the Millennium Challenge Account, and we
want to see them continue the second compact.
Pakistan has to be put into historical context whenever we
talk about it in the United States Government. I do think it is
fair to say that our on-again, off-again relationship going
back 30, 40 years has been to our detriment.
We enlisted the Pakistani people and government in our
efforts to push out the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan, which
was one of the contributing factors to the fall of the Soviet
Union. Then we accomplished that and we left--and we left them
with jihadis and with drugs and awash in guns and money.
Unfortunately, we saw some of the results that flowed from
that.
We also had a difficulty with them regarding what was
called the Pressler Amendment. Admiral Mullen is fond of saying
that every single soldier in the Pakistani military knows what
the Pressler Amendment was and not a single American soldier
does, because it had such an impact on ending training and
ending mil-to-mil relationships--and, again, to our detriment.
There is nothing easy about this, and striking the right
balance is a constant calculation. But we think that we have no
way forward other than to continue to engage both civilian and
military with the Pakistanis.
If you look at what they have done since the first time I
testified before this committee in early 2009, and I said then
that the Pakistanis were ceding territory to the terrorists.
They were not going after them in their own country with their
own military. That has been 180 degrees. They have taken a lot
of losses. They have pursued those extremists who are attacking
them. They have worked with us to go after extremists who are
attacking our troops and our interests.
But it is a constant calculation about how best to work
with the Pakistani Government. They have a lot of internal
pressures that make it difficult for them. But I would say,
sitting here testifying before this committee, that in the last
2 years we have made progress, but we have a long, long way to
go before we can see the kind of stability that we think is
necessary for the region and for American interests.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you. Out of deep respect for the
Secretary and in my ongoing effort to curry favor with the
chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much. I just love it
because we are going to get all of our members to ask their
questions.
Mr. Rivera of Florida.
Mr. Rivera. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Madam Secretary, thank you for your distinguished service
to our country. The last time I saw you was down at the
Biltmore in Coral Gables. I hope you will come visit us again
very soon.
My question is regarding our Government's reaction to the
treatment or mistreatment of American citizens abroad,
particularly the treatment of the Cuban Government to American
citizens. Last week marked the 15th anniversary of the Brothers
to the Rescue shoot-down in which four American citizens were
murdered over international airspace. I am wondering, did the
State Department or the White House issue any statement marking
that day and condemning that heinous act?
Secretary Clinton. I will have to check on that,
Congressman. I remember it well. Your description of it is
accurate. It was a terrible, terrible injustice and murder of
four Americans who were peacefully protesting the Cuban regime.
Mr. Rivera. I appreciate those remarks.
I also want to ask you about American citizens who could
avail themselves of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity
Act, otherwise known as Helms-Burton. As you are aware, Title
III of Helms-Burton allows U.S. nationals to sue foreigners for
damages in U.S. courts if those foreigners traffic in property
confiscated by the Castro dictatorship. Now there is also a
provision in Helms-Burton that says the President may suspend
Title III for a period of not more than 6 months if the
President reports in writing to the appropriate congressional
committee at least 15 days before such suspension that it is
necessary to the national interest of the United States and--
and I emphasize--and will expedite a transition to democracy in
Cuba.
Now Helms-Burton, that Title III of Helms-Burton has been
suspended every 6 months since former President Clinton and
former President Bush, and now President Obama have done so.
Can you tell us how such suspensions have expedited a
transition to democracy in Cuba?
Secretary Clinton. Well, I think, Congressman, obviously we
do not have democracy and freedom in Cuba. There is no doubt
about that. But we do believe that the current regime is having
to face the reality of its mismanagement of its economy, of its
repressive policies. We saw the release of political prisoners,
some of whom were imprisoned the last time I testified before
this committee. We still see terrible abuses like the reaction
to Mr. Zapata's mother and so much else.
But it has been the assessment of three Presidents, as you
rightly point out--two Democrats, one Republican--that
continuing to suspend Title III is in the national security
interest of the United States. It is predicated on many
different factors, but the ultimate conclusion has been the
same for the last 16 years.
Mr. Rivera. So can you give an example of the second part
of that requirement, expediting a transition to democracy? I
understand in the national interest of the United States, but
it doesn't say ``or.'' It says, ``and will expedite a
transition to democracy.'' Is there any example of that
recently?
Secretary Clinton. Let me respond to you for the record,
because I don't want to misspeak. But I will get you additional
information, Congressman.
Mr. Rivera. Thank you very much.
Finally, with respect to the recent lifting of sanctions on
the regime, we know that in the history of the United States we
have seen some lifting of sanctions when President Carter
reestablished diplomatic relations with Cuba. We saw the
results. For example, the Mariel boat lift, when former
President Clinton established the Track 2 People-to-People
Contacts. We saw the results in the 1996 shoot-down of four
American citizens. Why would we expect a different reaction now
from the Castro regime in terms of reforms--democratic reforms
in reaction to our lifting of sanctions if we have never seen
it before?
Secretary Clinton. I think, Congressman, our goal is to
assist the people of Cuba themselves. We are not aiming our
lifting of sanctions in any way to please the Castro regime. We
are trying to help the people of Cuba.
With some of the economic changes that are going on in
Cuba--the unemployment, the laying off of hundreds of thousands
of workers, as you know--we think maintaining a very positive
approach to the people of Cuba, letting them know that the
United States Government, that the American people--not just
Cuban Americans but all Americans--support their freedom,
support their eventual democracy we think is in their interest.
And that is why we do it.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
Mr. Engel of New York.
Mr. Engel. Thank you, Madam Chair; and welcome, Madam
Secretary. I want to second what Congressman Higgins said about
Buffalo. Because you now that in the Bronx, Westchester, and
Rockland, we feel the same way about you as well.
I am so happy you raise the 16-percent cut for State and
USAID that passed the House last month. I am glad you said it
would be devastating to our national security, because it would
be. I want to emphasize that. Thank you for saying that.
I want to also mention a few other things and ask you to
comment on any or all of them.
I am very pleased, as the former chair of the Western
Hemisphere Subcommittee and now the ranking member, that the
President is traveling to Brazil, Chile, and El Salvador. I
think it shows the administration's commitment to the region
that you and I have discussed many, many times. I just wanted
to say how important I think that is as well.
I want to talk about the Mideast peace process. I have been
very much chagrined because for the past 2 years the
Palestinian leadership has refused to enter into direct talks
with Israel. They use every excuse under the sun--settlements,
expansion of neighborhoods--and have all these preconditions.
Meanwhile, they mount an effort to delegitimize Israel at the
U.N. and seek support for unilateral declaration of statehood
outside of a negotiating process. I was very pleased that the
administration vetoed that resolution in the U.N. Security
Council.
Are we telling the Palestinians that this is not helpful
and that they really potentially face a loss of aid, loss of
support? There has got to be some penalty for their behavior.
Finally, I want to mention an issue that when you were
senator in New York you worked very hard on, and that was the
Kosovo issue, which is very, very important. We worked on that
a lot together. I would like to see Kosovo admitted to the EU
and admitted, of course, to the U.N. But they have been
blocked. The people there feel that if the United States
doesn't play an active role that they really can't count on
Europe for helping them. I would also like to eventually see
them as a NATO member.
What are we doing to ensure that the fragile democracy
there--and you know they love the United States and they really
count on us--that we are doing everything we can to push our
European friends into integrating them fully into the EU?
Secretary Clinton. Congressman, of course, our veto spoke
very loudly; and we also conveyed very clear messages not only
to Palestinians but to the region. But thank you for raising
Kosovo, because it is unfinished business. It is unfinished
business in Europe and for us.
I visited early--end of last year and made it clear that
the United States was working to elicit additional pledges of
recognition from other nations. That continues. We are going to
be doing everything we can do increase it.
I have also met several times with the EU, because we think
that the EU has to help the Kosovars make progress.
There will be starting in a few days a conciliation process
run by the EU between Serbia and Kosovo primarily looking at
northern Kosovo where the Serbian population is located,
looking for ways to try to resolve some of the issues on the
ground. Deputy Jim Steinberg was just in Kosovo and the region
looking for ways that we can support Kosovo. They have a ways
to go, but we want to see Europe holding out that big carrot.
We want them to be there with visa liberalization, with
development assistance, with support for Kosovo to go on the
road to membership in the EU.
Obviously, we want to see them in the United Nations and
maybe someday in NATO. The Kosovars have a lot to do
themselves. They have to continue to improve their democracy.
They have to crack down on violence and criminal elements that
are, unfortunately, too present amongst them. They have to make
their peace with Serbia--not selling out but working in a
mediating way to try to resolve it so that they can enhance
trade and commerce between the two countries. There is a lot to
be done. But this remains a very high priority for me
personally because of much of the work that we did together. It
is a high priority for our Government.
Mr. Engel. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
I will turn back my 17 minutes to the chair.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much.
Mr. Kelly, vice chair of the Subcommittee on Asia and the
Pacific.
Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Madam Secretary, thanks for being here. After watching you
and knowing what you have done lately, you talk about marketing
and the American brand and also reaching frequency, I think I
am going to suggest that you be the poster girl for Red Bull or
the Fubar Energy Drink.
My question, though, goes to this--and I think your
husband's stepfather was a Buick dealer. I am a Chevrolet
dealer. We are always looking for a return in investment.
Certainly, in the State of the Union Address the President
talked about investments, investments, investments. And we know
that we have good investments and bad investments.
My question then, based on what we have done for Palestine,
we have spent about $2.5 billion in the last 5 years and again
now this year we are looking for another $400 million to help
them out in their cause. But this is a group that, for some
reason, and I don't understand, people who loudly and publicly
criticize us and then come quietly back and say, Well, but we
still need your help. At what point do we decide this was a
good investment or a bad investment? And certainly when we look
at Israel, who is fighting so hard, and see Palestine, who is
working so hard just for the absolute opposite, at what point
do we say to them, we can't continue to fund you. We can't
reward bad behavior.
And I wonder about this. Because as we go through these
budget cuts--and they are real. And my colleagues on the other
side decry the fact that this H.R. 1 is going to do so much to
destabilize and we just can't afford to make these cuts. My
question is, when do we decide which investments are good
investments and at what point do we cut off and penalize bad
behavior?
Secretary Clinton. Congressman, I think that is a really
important question, and it is one I ask myself practically
every day.
Let's take the example that you have put forth.
I would argue strongly that the need to continue to support
the Palestinians and their state-building is in Americans'
interest. Why is that? Because the Palestinian Authority, which
has control over the West Bank, is demonstrating that it can
control extremists, that it can cooperate to protect Israel,
that it can give a better economic life to their people. It
stands in stark contrast to Hamas, which has done nothing but
increase the misery of the Palestinian people in Gaza.
It is often frustrating for me--and I think you pick up on
that--to deal with any country or any group of people that see
the world differently than we do. Sometimes I do try to put
myself into their shoes because it helps to figure out, okay,
so why do they see what I see so opposite of how I interpret
it.
If you look at the Palestinians, they believe that they had
close to a deal with former Prime Minister Olmert. Israeli
politics change, just like our politics changes. A new
administration comes in, a new prime minister, a new coalition,
and then they have to start all over again. So they get a
little put out. But the Israelis rightly say, Look, we're a new
government. We want to start differently.
So there is always some kind of explanation. Whether you
believe it or whether you credit it is certainly up to the
individual who is assessing it. But, from my perspective, when
you look at the region right now, where are the secular
regimes, where are the regimes that are actually producing
benefits for their people. The Palestinian Authority is doing
that.
Between President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad, no
matter how frustrated one can get with them, what they have
done really speaks for itself, because you don't see
demonstrations. Why? Because life is actually improving. Why is
it improving? Because below the headlines they have a very
positive arrangement with Israel where they are working
together.
So it is immensely complicated, and we do have to ask
ourselves are we getting the best return on the investment we
are making. And sometimes it takes a little explanation because
it is not so self-evident. But when we look at that region and
we are competing against Iran with Hezbollah, we are competing
against Iran's influence in Syria, we are competing against
extremist Islamic elements that could move into the vacuum, I
think it is in America's interest to continue to support what
has turned out to be an effective regime to promote benefits
for people. Whether that pays off down the road or not is
something we are going to have to try to keep influencing in
every way we can.
Mr. Kelly. Well, I appreciate that. I know that as we go
forward in these budget cuts--and it is really a very serious
thing--and you said about penny wise and pound foolish. There
is also another axiom out there: Measure twice, cut once. So I
think we will pursue that. But thank you so much for your time.
I do yield back the rest of my time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Madam Secretary, you are so generous with your time. We
only have three more questioners. If you keep them brief, we
will get to all three of them. Mr. Connolly and then we will
have Mr. Marino and Ms. Buerkle.
Mr. Connolly.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Welcome again, Secretary Clinton. I have to tell you I have
known nine Secretaries of States and I can't remember a
performance as impressive as yours. Your stamina, breadth of
knowledge, and your experience make all of us proud. Thank you
for serving.
I am going to ask a series of quick questions without
speeches.
The Muslim Brotherhood sort of reappeared in the vacuum in
Egypt. Do we consider that the Muslim Brotherhood has in fact
evolved into a more moderate, democratic-oriented organization
with a contribution to make both in Egypt and other places in
the Middle East?
Secretary Clinton. Congressman, we are watching that
closely. We are trying to suggest certain guidelines that
should be used for determining whether a political party or any
organization should be included in elections, included in
government. And the jury is out.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you.
Some recent speculation about the possibility of a
rapprochement between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. A
lot of young demonstrators both in the West Bank and in Gaza
are encouraging just that, a time to come together and have one
unified Palestinian voice and government. Does the United
States welcome such a rapprochement and are there preconditions
from our point of view that would have to be met before we
would recognize such a unified government?
Secretary Clinton. Absolutely there are preconditions. It
goes in part to Congressman Kelly's prior question.
We have made it very clear that if Hamas does not renounce
violence, does not recognize Israel's right to exist, does not
agree to support previous agreements that have been entered
into, we could not in any way support any government it was a
part of or any rapprochement that took place.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you.
You talked about the 150 Function, and earlier, many hours
ago, you talked about something like a 10:1 ratio of advantage
for every dollar we invest. I think you said for every $4, we
get $45 back, roughly a 10 or more, 11 to 1 ratio. Of course, I
completely agree.
Our friend Mr. Kelly unfortunately has left, but he talked
about the cuts being real and he talked about investments as a
businessman, correctly so. But surely the foreign assistance we
provide relative to our defense budget or lots of other
expenditures is an investment that over time has proved itself.
And I was really struck by something you said. You don't want
to be empty-handed in the exercise of diplomacy when we really
need it. And we can't envision that in Congress, and surely
that argues for protecting that investment and giving you some
flexibility with respect to it.
Would you care to elaborate?
Secretary Clinton. Congressman, first, it would be my
fervent hope that USAID and State Department would be viewed as
national security. Having served in Congress, I know how often
it occurs that we say, Well, we are going to cut discretionary
spending except for defense, or except for national security,
which is defined as being only defense. And in today's world
that is just no longer the case.
What we do side by side with the military, coming in after
the military, staying after they go, trying to prevent
conflicts and everything else that is on our plate, with far
fewer resources, if I might add, than the military, requires us
to begin to think more broadly about what we mean by national
security; and certainly from our perspective we do think that
we can justify what we spend.
We have undertaken an effort to cut back on areas that we
don't think are important to America's national security
anymore, and we are going to keep doing that, and we are going
to keep trying to get smarter.
At the very beginning of the hearing, Ranking Member Berman
referred to contractors. We do so much better than being
charged so much by contractors to deliver services that then we
have to keep reinvesting every time there is a crisis by
bringing a lot of that in house and paying for it, which is
something I have tried to do over the last 2 years, which will
save us money.
So in many different ways of looking at how we are cost-
effective, I think we are on the right track. I am well aware
and I am one who believes that we have to be strong
economically at home. But I also believe that part of being
strong economically at home is giving us the tools we need to
project our leadership abroad. Because it has a kind of
boomerang effect. If we are not looking strong abroad, that
undermines how we look and how we are treated at home. So I
think we have to look at this from a broader perspective.
Mr. Connolly. I thank you, and I yield back my time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much.
Mr. Marino of Pennsylvania.
Mr. Marino. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam Secretary, it is a pleasure to meet you. I thank you
for your patience and your service. I also thank you for your
passion. I understand that. By the way, one of the counties in
my district is Lackawanna.
I have listened very intently with what you had to say, and
I understand the conviction and the passion. I really do. I
understand the geopolitics that are involved here. But I want
to bring this home a little bit and bring it back to our side
of the ocean, if I may.
My constituents of the Tenth Pennsylvania Congressional
District have lost their jobs or will be losing their jobs.
Many are worried about whether they will keep their jobs, with
unemployment at still over 9 percent and a debt of $14.2
trillion. These same constituents not only are losing their
jobs but they are losing their homes and their businesses. I
have had grown men tear up in front of me because they cannot
support their families, send their children to college, or even
buy them new clothes.
I have known that you as a senator prided yourself on
meeting the needs of your constituents. How can we expect our
constituents--that the United States must send their tax
dollars overseas, that it is in the best interest of these
countries, and the U.S. in the long run, to continue to send
our money to other countries, even those who hate us, while my
constituents are hurting and yet we cannot use these funds and
others to create jobs by putting their tax dollars back into
their pockets and eliminate the debt. What say you to this as a
compassionate person?
Secretary Clinton. Well, Congressman, I know your district.
I thank you for raising in such moving terms what the people of
the Tenth District are going through. I have been visiting your
district my entire life, so I know that these are good people,
these are hardworking people, and they deserve better. And I do
believe that we need an economic policy here at home that does
generate new jobs, new investment, new economic opportunity for
people who, like your constituents, are willing to work hard
for the dollars that they bring home.
I also know that you have a very patriotic district and you
have a high percentage of people who have served in our
military and who have answered the call of service time and
time again and that what my job first and foremost to do is to
do everything I can to provide security for the American
people.
It is not an easy choice. And I wish that we could say,
Well, let's just put the world on hold for 5 years while we
rebuild our economy. The world has never been able to be put on
hold, but especially today. Things are moving much too quickly.
And the threats we face, the challenges we confront are not
going to go away. And they pose direct threats to markets where
goods that we can make in the Tenth District in Pennsylvania
can be sold. They pose direct threats to the security of our
people because of the launching of terrorist attacks from
ungoverned territories that, unfortunately, can become havens
for terrorist groups with the instigation and support of al-
Qaeda and others. They pose health threats as diseases move
further north and pose real concerns to us.
So the list is long about costs that, unfortunately, will
come back to bite us if we are not trying to exercise
preventive diplomacy. And so I do know that there have to be
tradeoffs and difficult decisions. My only plea today is that
many people when they are asked around the country--this was
true with my own constituents who I served for 8 years in New
York--when you ask them, how much money do we give in foreign
aid, they think it is like 15 or 20 percent of the budget.
And so to try to help Americans understand, it is a small
part of a budget that has to be reined in. We cannot overlook
the hurt the people are experiencing today. So what we have to
be is smart about how we do this, especially now, when,
frankly, we face an unpredictable future that could undermine
the security and well-being of our people across America.
Mr. Marino. I understand it, and thank you. But you have
been faced with a constituent standing before you saying, my
grandmother used to say, Let's take care of our own--and now.
Again, that is not a question. I thank you. Get some rest.
I yield my time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Ms. Buerkle of New York.
Ms. Buerkle. Thank you, Madam Chairman; and thank you,
Secretary Clinton, for your perseverance here this morning and
willingness to answer all of our questions.
I am going to take my issue back across the seas as well
and to my district. It is an intensely personal issue for the
constituents. I represent New York's 25th Congressional
District. We are the home to Syracuse University. I know you
are familiar with that area of the State.
On December 21, 1988, 259 people onboard a Pan Am flight
bound to New York died in a fiery blast. The product of that
bomb was planted by a Libyan terrorist. The Pan Am flight
crashed into a small town in Scotland, Lockerbie, and took,
along with those on the plane, 11 folks who were on the ground.
On that plane were 38 students from Syracuse University
returning home for their Christmas break. Their families will
never forget that day and the dramatic change that it made in
their life. For many of those families, they will not be able
to move forward. They will not get closure until the people
responsible for that flight and that bomb are held accountable.
In light of the information that we have gotten over the
past several weeks, it has now become more apparent--we knew,
but it is become more apparent to us--what happened on that
plane and who caused that crash. So I am asking you this
morning, what is the administration doing to gather evidence to
build a case against Qadhafi? And when they do, will they
prosecute him?
Lastly, what must we do to encourage this? Because for my
district, for many of the families affected, they cannot go on
until he is held accountable for his actions.
Thank you.
Secretary Clinton. Congresswoman, thank you.
As you know, I know your district well and had many
experiences with the families of the flight that was clearly
the subject of a terrorist bombing. I was given a letter before
coming out here, thanks to the chairwoman, that asked very
specific questions about how we could gather evidence and put
together a case against Qadhafi and all those with whom he
might have conspired in setting in motion the chain of events
that led to the explosion over Lockerbie. We will follow up on
that.
Much of the activity that is asked for in the letter would
have to be done by our law enforcement agencies, but I will
certainly contact after this hearing FBI Director Mueller and
Attorney General Holder and others to see how we can move on
that. Because there have been statements made in the last days
by what are now former members of the Libyan Government
fingering Qadhafi, making it clear that the order came from the
very top, I think we do need to move expeditiously.
In the Security Council resolution we have a referral to
the International Criminal Court. That would certainly be one
of the many counts that would be put against him if he ever is
captured alive and turned over for justice proceedings.
So we are going to continue to pursue this. This is a
matter of great personal importance to me, because I did have
the privilege of representing Syracuse, and I know that the
pain and the feeling that he never was held accountable is so
palpable and it is why so many of us were outraged by the
release of Megrahi and protested vociferously to the British
and Scottish Governments. To this British Government's credit,
a report has been put forth giving us more information about
what went on behind the scenes. But there is a lot that we
still need to do, and this letter is a good list of beginning
efforts that need to be undertaken.
Ms. Buerkle. Thank you. And I speak, I am sure, on behalf
of the families of those victims that we really need to act
expeditiously and to bring this man to justice. Thank you very
much.
I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much.
Madam Secretary, you are a wonder woman. Thank you so very
much for the generosity of your time and your kindness in
allowing all of our members to ask a question.
The committee is now adjourned.
We welcome you back soon. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
[Whereupon, at 1:37 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing RecordNotice deg.
Minutes deg.
Connolly SFR deg.__
Be
rman
Addendum deg.
__________
Material submitted for the record by the Honorable Howard L. Berman, a
Representative in Congress from the State of California
Berman--Letter deg.
QFRs--Ros-Lehtinen deg.
__________
Questions Submitted for the Record to the Honorable Hillary Rodham
Clinton, Secretary of State, U.S. Department of State, by the Honorable
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Florida, and chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs
--------
Note: Not all responses were received prior to printing. The responses
received follow this page.
QFRs & Responses--Ros-Lehtinen deg.
__________
Written Responses from the Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary
of State, U.S. Department of State, to Questions Submitted for the
Record by the Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Florida, and chairman, Committee on Foreign
Affairs
QFRs--Berman deg.
__________
Written Responses from the Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary
of State, U.S. Department of State, to Questions Submitted for the
Record by the Honorable Howard L. Berman, a Representative in Congress
from the State of California
QFRs--Rivera deg.
__________
Written Responses from the Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary
of State, U.S. Department of State, to Questions Submitted for the
Record by the Honorable David Rivera, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Florida
QFRs--Meeks deg.
Written Response from the Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary
of State, U.S. Department of State, to Question Submitted for the
Record by the Honorable Gregory W. Meeks, a Representative in Congress
from the State of New York
QFRs--Duncan deg.
__________
Written Response from the Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary
of State, U.S. Department of State, to Question Submitted for the
Record by the Honorable Jeff Duncan, a Representative in Congress from
the State of South Carolina
QFRs--Carnahan deg.
__________
Written Responses from the Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary
of State, U.S. Department of State, to Questions Submitted for the
Record by the Honorable Russ Carnahan, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Missouri
QFRs--Cicilline deg.
__________
Written Responses from the Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary
of State, U.S. Department of State, to Questions Submitted for the
Record by the Honorable Russ Carnahan, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Missouri
QFRs--Burton deg.
__________
Questions Submitted for the Record to the Honorable Hillary Rodham
Clinton, Secretary of State, U.S. Department of State, by the Honorable
Dan Burton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Indiana
--------
Note: Responses to these questions were not received prior to printing.
QFRs--Connolly deg.
__________
Questions Submitted for the Record to the Honorable Hillary Rodham
Clinton, Secretary of State, U.S. Department of State, by the Honorable
Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth
of Virginia
--------
Note: Responses to these questions were not received prior to printing.
QFRs--Royce deg.
Questions Submitted for the Record to the Honorable Hillary Rodham
Clinton, Secretary of State, U.S. Department of State, by the Honorable
Edward R. Royce, a Representative in Congress from the State of
California
--------
Note: Responses to these questions were not received prior to printing.
QFRs--Bass deg._
Questions Submitted for the Record to the Honorable Hillary Rodham
Clinton, Secretary of State, U.S. Department of State, by the Honorable
Karen Bass, a Representative in Congress from the State of California
--------
Note: Responses to these questions were not received prior to printing.
QFRs-- deg._
Questions Submitted for the Record to the Honorable Hillary Rodham
Clinton, Secretary of State, U.S. Department of State, by the Honorable
Michael T. McCaul, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas
--------
Note: Responses to these questions were not received prior to printing.
QFRs-- deg._
Questions Submitted for the Record to the Honorable Hillary Rodham
Clinton, Secretary of State, U.S. Department of State, by the Honorable
Gus Bilirakis, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida
--------
Note: Responses to these questions were not received prior to printing.
QF
Rs--Kelly deg.
Questions Submitted for the Record to the Honorable Hillary Rodham
Clinton, Secretary of State, U.S. Department of State, by the Honorable
Mike Kelly, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania
--------
Note: Responses to these questions were not received prior to printing.
QFRs--Griffin deg.
__________
Questions Submitted for the Record to the Honorable Hillary Rodham
Clinton, Secretary of State, U.S. Department of State, by the Honorable
Tim Griffin, a Representative in Congress from the State of Arkansas
--------
Note: Responses to these questions were not received prior to printing.
QFRs--Ellmers deg.
__________
Questions Submitted for the Record to the Honorable Hillary Rodham
Clinton, Secretary of State, U.S. Department of State, by the Honorable
Renee Ellmers, a Representative in Congress from the State of North
Carolina
--------
Note: Responses to these questions were not received prior to printing.