[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
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 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.
55-126PDF
2010
PROMOTING SECURITY THROUGH DIPLOMACY AND DEVELOPMENT: THE FISCAL YEAR
2011
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS BUDGET
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 25, 2010
__________
Serial No. 111-88
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
______
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California, Chairman
GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey
Samoa DAN BURTON, Indiana
DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey ELTON GALLEGLY, California
BRAD SHERMAN, California DANA ROHRABACHER, California
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois
BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts EDWARD R. ROYCE, California
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York RON PAUL, Texas
DIANE E. WATSON, California JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri MIKE PENCE, Indiana
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey JOE WILSON, South Carolina
GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
MICHAEL E. McMAHON, New York J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina
JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee CONNIE MACK, Florida
GENE GREEN, Texas JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
LYNN WOOLSEY, California MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas TED POE, Texas
BARBARA LEE, California BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada GUS BILIRAKIS, Florida
JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
DAVID SCOTT, Georgia
JIM COSTA, California
KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona
RON KLEIN, Florida
VACANT
Richard J. Kessler, Staff Director
Yleem Poblete, Republican Staff Director
Jasmeet Ahuja, Professional Staff Member deg.
David Fite, Senior Professional Staff Member deg.
Jessica Lee, Professional Staff Member deg.
Alan Makovsky, Senior Professional Staff Member deg.
Pearl Alice Marsh, Senior Professional Staff Member deg.
Peter Quilter, Senior Professional Staff Member deg.
Edmund Rice, Senior Professional Staff Member deg.
Daniel Silverberg, Senior Deputy Chief Counsel deg.
Amanda Sloat, Professional Staff Member deg.
Kristin Wells, Deputy Chief Counsel deg.
Shanna Winters, Chief Counsel deg.
Brent Woolfork, Professional Staff Member deg.
Diana Ohlbaum, Senior Professional Staff Member
Laura Rush, Professional Staff Member/Security Officer deg.
Genell Brown, Senior Staff Associate/Hearing Coordinator
Riley Moore, Deputy Clerk deg.
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State, U.S.
Department of State............................................ 4
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton: Prepared statement......... 8
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 52
Hearing minutes.................................................. 53
The Honorable Howard L. Berman, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California, and Chairman, Committee on Foreign
Affairs: Prepared statement.................................... 55
The Honorable Christopher H. Smith, a Representative in Congress
from the State of New Jersey: Prepared statement............... 57
The Honorable Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, a Representative in Congress
from American Samoa: Prepared statement........................ 61
The Honorable Diane E. Watson, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California: Prepared statement.................... 69
The Honorable Russ Carnahan, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Missouri: Prepared statement...................... 70
The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Virginia: Prepared statement................. 71
The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Texas: Prepared statement.................... 73
Questions for the record submitted to the Honorable Hillary
Rodham Clinton by:
The Honorable Eni F.H. Faleomavaega............................ 78
The Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Florida.................................... 80
The Honorable Eliot L. Engel, a Representative in Congress from
the State of New York........................................ 90
The Honorable Dan Burton, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Indiana............................................. 91
The Honorable Barbara Lee, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California...................................... 101
The Honorable Joe Wilson, a Representative in Congress from the
State of South Carolina...................................... 113
The Honorable Shelley Berkley, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Nevada..................................... 115
The Honorable Michael T. McCaul, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Texas...................................... 117
PROMOTING SECURITY THROUGH DIPLOMACY AND DEVELOPMENT: THE FISCAL YEAR
2011 INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS BUDGET
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2010
House of Representatives,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in
room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Howard L. Berman
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Chairman Berman. The committee will come to order. Welcome,
Madam Secretary.
In order to maximize the time for member questions, I will
limit openings statements to myself and the ranking member. I
intend to keep my statements short, well shorter than usual.
And all other members are welcome to submit written statements
for the record.
Madam Secretary, we appreciate this opportunity to explore
with you the President's international affairs budget request
for Fiscal Year 2011, the supplemental appropriations request
for the current fiscal year, and the various policy initiatives
you have championed as Secretary of State.
This is the second budget request submitted by this
administration, but the first one prepared from start to finish
under President Obama's and your leadership. So this is the
first opportunity for Congress and the Nation to see a clear
and comprehensive picture of your vision and the priorities you
have set.
We applaud the President's decision to define ``national
security'' to include not only the Defense budget, but also the
international affairs budget. As you have said on many
occasions, America's national security depends not only on our
men and women in uniform, but also on the civil servants who
risk their lives on a daily basis to support America's
interests abroad.
Regrettably, this point was brought home by the recent
deaths of a dedicated Foreign Service officer in the Haitian
earthquake and seven CIA officers at the hands of a suicide
bomber in Afghanistan. These courageous civilians gave their
lives in service to our country.
Our diplomats and development specialists work day and
night to head off international crises before they erupt, and
to prevent the onset of failed states where terrorists who
threaten our security find safe haven. Over the long run, these
civilian efforts are much more cost effective than putting our
brave soldiers in harm's ways. Investing in the international
affairs budget is the proverbial ounce of prevention. For
example, if we are to resolve the Iranian nuclear crisis,
whether by diplomacy or sanctions, it will be thanks mainly to
the creativity and hard work of our diplomats and civil
servants.
Madam Secretary, you have set out very clear priorities in
this budget: Working with the local partners to defeat al-Qaeda
in Afghanistan and Pakistan; ensuring that children around the
world have enough food to eat and don't die of easily
preventable diseases; helping nations reduce emissions and
adapt to climate change; putting women front and center in our
humanitarian and development efforts; and rebuilding our
civilian workforce by hiring a new generation of Foreign
Service Officers and giving them the training and resources
they need to make a real difference.
There may be differences of opinion about the relative
priority of these initiatives and the optimal amount of funding
for specific countries and programs, but I, and I hope my
colleagues on this committee, will do everything we can to
maintain the overall funding level because we recognize--as you
do--that diplomacy and development are integral to our national
security.
In fact, a full 18 percent of the international affairs
budget request--$10.8 billion--is for the frontline states of
Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq. That includes $1.6 billion for
programs that were previously carried out by the Pentagon,
including Iraqi police training, the Pakistan Counterinsurgency
Capabilities Fund, and Section 1207 reconstruction and
stabilization assistance. By having the State Department assume
responsibility for these programs, we place them in civilian
hands where they belong and now allow the military to focus on
its core mission.
There are many ways to look at the budget figures. I would
argue that in order to compare apples to apples, the Fiscal
Year 2010 total should include supplemental funding--both the
new request and ``forward funding'' provided in the 2009
supplemental. Looking at it that way, the Fiscal Year 2011
request represents a very modest increase, about 2.8 percent.
In these difficult economic times, it is particularly
important to remind ourselves and the American people that the
international affairs budget is little more than 1 percent of
the entire Federal budget, and only a small fraction of the
amount we spend on defense.
Madam Secretary, we look forward to hearing your testimony
on the budget request and the administration's foreign policy
priorities. And now I am very pleased to turn to my ranking
member, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, for any opening remarks that she
might want to make.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Madam
Secretary, welcome back to our Foreign Affairs Committee. For
the sake of time I am going to incorporate my questions into
the opening statement to allow time for more members to raise
their concerns during the question period.
Our existing public debt is already more than $12 trillion.
Under the President's overall budget for Fiscal Year 2011 our
national debt would grow at an estimated rate of almost $4
billion per day. Our foreign aid funding is not a major part of
the overall budget we know, and we want to accomplish many
things overseas, but in light of our fiscal situation the
international affairs budget should also be subject to
selective freezes or slower rates of spending in order to
assist in the battle for our Nation's economic future.
The $9.5 billion requested for the State Department's basic
salaries and operations when combined with last year's
increases amounts to a 33 percent jump from Fiscal Year 2009
levels. These increases do not include, of course, funds sought
in the anticipated supplemental for Iraq, Afghanistan, and
Pakistan. There are reports that we are spending $1 billion, $1
billion for a new U.S. Embassy in London described as a crystal
form that is light-filled and light-emitting. We all want to
provide for the security of our overseas personnel, but we
should be able to meet those needs without seeking to build a
crystal palace.
There is a 22 percent increase for the International Atomic
Energy Agency, which according to GAO has provided millions in
assistance to the nuclear program of Iran and Syria. The
international affairs account has grown significantly over the
past decade. It was $23.4 billion in Fiscal Year 2000. By 2010
it was at $50.6 billion. That is a 116 percent increase.
I would like our foreign aid budget to move to a greater
reliance on development credit assistance, which should help us
achieve considerable savings. As the State Department's own
documents note, the development credit account has historically
leveraged significant amounts of private funds for development
projects.
Turning to policy questions, Madam Secretary, on Iran the
recent IAEA report stated concerns ``about the possible
existence in Iran of undisclosed activities related to
development of a nuclear payload for a missile.''
Then today's news report have Russian officials refuting
claims that Iran could be pursuing nuclear weapons while
emphasizing Russia's commitment to delivering advanced air
defense missiles to Iran. Some European officials are also
quoted suggesting that sanctions should come later and
investments in Iran continue.
Madam Secretary, successive U.S. administrations, under the
guise of seeking multilateral concessions, have taken no action
under the Iran Sanctions Act, and the Iranian threat keeps
growing. When are companies like Royal Dutch Shell, France's
Total, Russia's Gazprom, and Spain's Repsol going to be held
accountable for their actions? When will we take action to
address the almost $3 billion in investments by China's
Sinopec? When will we be leveraging the Iran Sanctions Act for
concrete cooperation from our allies and cutting off the regime
in Iran?
Turning to Cuba, I am also deeply concerned about reports
that the administration might bend to the Cuban regime's
blackmail and agree to end anti-censorship and pro-democracy
programs in exchange for the release of U.S. citizen Alan
Gross. As you know, Orlando Zapata Tamayo, a Cuban dissident in
jail, died this very week from a hunger strike and we must do
all that we can to help with the dissident movement and help
with the opposition in Cuba.
I would like to hand to you a copy of a February 3rd letter
addressed to you from former U.S. Ambassadors to the Western
Hemisphere countries urging you ``to not make any concessions
to any dictatorial regime and particularly not to Cuba.''
And lastly, turning to PA funding and UNRWA, a former
Palestinian anti-corruption official has reportedly revealed
that Palestinian officials have stolen hundreds of millions in
foreign aid, yet the administration is requesting another $0.5
billion, including $150 million in direct cash transfers for
the Palestinian Authority.
Similarly with respect to the United Nations' Relief and
Works Agency, the homicide bomber who killed 7 Americans at a
base in Afghanistan previously worked at UNRWA, in an UNRWA
camp and had significant radical Islamic ties. UNRWA also
continues to agitate against Israel while refusing to vet
radical Islamic extremists in its very ranks. Yet the
administration just announced another $40 million to UNRWA.
What is it going to take for the U.S. to stop the no
strings attached pipeline of funds to the PA and to UNRWA?
And Madam Secretary, Mr. Chairman, 1\1/2\ minutes to go. I
yield back the balance of my time. Thank you and welcome. Glad
to hear that the President is doing much better.
Chairman Berman. Well, thank you very much.
Madam Secretary, I yield myself 5 minutes to begin the
questioning--oh, yes. Do you want to testify? We can really
save a lot of time.
Secretary Clinton. Mr. Chairman, I will do it in a New York
minute.
Chairman Berman. No, no, no, you take all the time that you
want. This is important.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, SECRETARY OF
STATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Secretary Clinton. Well, first let me say to you and to the
ranking member and to all of the members of the committee that
it is a pleasure to be back with you today.
When I was last here discussing our budget, I emphasized my
commitment to elevate diplomacy and development as core pillars
of American power, and since then I have been heartened by the
bipartisan support of this committee and the rest of Congress,
and I want to take this opportunity to thank you on behalf of
the men and women who work every day for the State Department,
for USAID here at home and around the world putting our foreign
policy into action, advancing America's interests and values.
And that is what this budget we are presenting today intends to
do.
Our Fiscal Year 2011 requests for the State Department and
USAID totals $52.8 billion. That is a $4.9 billion increase
over 2010. Of that increase, $3.6 billion will go to supporting
efforts in the front line states, Afghanistan, Pakistan and
Iraq. Other funding will grow by $1.3 billion, which is a 2.7
percent increase that will help us address global challenges,
strengthen partnerships, and ensure that the State Department
and USAID are equipped with the right people and resources.
Over the past 6 weeks in Haiti we have been reminded yet
again of the importance of American leadership. I am very proud
of what our country has done. Our military and civilian
personnel have performed extraordinarily, and we are continuing
our work with our Haitian and international partners to address
the ongoing suffering and transition from relief to recovery.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I know that this is a time of great
economic strain for our fellow Americans, and as a former
Member of Congress I know what this means for the people you
each represent. For every dollar we spend we have to show
results. That is why this budget must support programs vital to
our national security, our national interests, and our
leadership in the world while guarding against waste,
duplication and irrelevancy, and I believe it achieves those
objectives.
The figures in the budget are more than numbers on a page.
They tell the story of the challenges we face and the resources
we need to overcome them. We are fighting two wars that call
for the skill and sacrifice of our civilians as well as our
troops.
We have pursued a dual track approach to Iran that has
exposed for the world to see its refusal to live up to its
responsibility, and it has helped us achieve a new unity with
our international partners. Iran has left the international
community little choice, but to impose greater costs for its
provocative steps, and we are now working actively with other
countries to prepare and implement new measures to pressure
Iran to change course.
We also achieved this past year unprecedented unity in
response to North Korea's provocative action, even as we leave
the door open for a restart of six party talks. We are moving
closer to a fresh nuclear agreement with Russia, one that
advances our security while furthering President Obama's long-
term vision of a world without nuclear weapons.
With China we are seeking areas of common purpose while
standing firm where we differ. We are making concrete our new
beginning with the Muslim world, and we are strengthening
partnerships with allies in Europe and Asia, with friends in
our own hemisphere, and with countries around the world from
India to Indonesia to South Africa, Brazil and Turkey. And yes,
we are working every day to end the impasse and the conflict
between Israelis and Palestinians.
At the same time we are developing a new architecture of
cooperation to meet global challenges that cross national
boundaries like climate change and the use of our planet's
oceans. In so many instances our national interests and the
common interests converge, and so from the Western Hemisphere
to Africa, Asia and the Middle East we are promoting human
rights, the rule of law, democracy and Internet freedom. We are
fighting poverty, hunger and disease, and we are working to
ensure that economic growth is broadly shared.
Our agenda is ambitious because the times demand it.
America is called to lead, and we need the tools and resources
to exercise that leadership wisely and effectively. We can bury
our heads in the sand and pay the consequences later or we can
make hard-nosed, targeted investments now, addressing the
security challenges of today while building a stronger
foundation for security and prosperity in the future.
Let me quickly highlight the three areas where we are
making significant new investments, first in the security of
the front line states. In Afghanistan we have tripled the
number of civilians on the ground and this presence will grow
by hundreds more with the $5 billion in this budget. Our
diplomats and development experts are imbedded with our
military. They have moved into Marja along with our forces,
they are now helping to set up institutions, expand economic
opportunities, and provide meaningful alternatives for
insurgents ready to renounce violence in al-Qaeda and join
Afghan society in a peaceful way.
In Pakistan our request includes $3.2 billion to combat
extremism, promote economic development, strengthen democratic
institutions, and build a long-term relationship with the
Pakistani people. This includes funding of the Kerry-Lugar-
Berman initiative, and I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
your visionary leadership on this legislation.
Our request also includes a 59 percent increase in funding
for Yemen to help counter the extremist threats and build
institutions and economic opportunity.
In Iraq we are winding down our military presence and
establishing a more normal civilian mission. Our civilian
efforts will not and cannot mirror the scale of our military
presence, but rather provide assistance consistent with the
priorities of the Iraqi Government. So our request includes
$2.6 billion for Iraq to enable us to support the democratic
process and ensure a smooth transition to civilian led security
training and operational support. As these funds allow
civilians to take responsibility for these programs, the
Defense Department's budget for Iraq will decrease by about $16
billion. That is a powerful illustration of the return on
civilian investment.
We are blessed, as we all know, with the best troops in the
world as we have seen time and time again, but we have got to
give our civilian experts the resources that we ask them to
exercise as they go about doing what they are expected to do,
and the budget takes a step in that direction. It includes $100
million for a State Department Complex Crisis Fund, replacing
the 1207 fund through which the Defense Department directed
money toward crisis response. It includes support for the
Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund, which previously
also fell under the Defense Department.
The second major area is investing in development. This
budget makes targeted investments in fragile societies which in
our interconnected world bear heavily on our own security and
prosperity. These investments are a key part of our efforts to
get ahead of crisis rather than just responding to them,
positioning us to deal with the threats and challenges that lie
before us.
The first of these is in health. Building on or progress,
treating HIV, Malaria, and tuberculosis, our global health
initiative will invest $63 billion over 6 years, starting with
$8.5 billion in Fiscal Year 2011, to help partners address
specific diseases but also to build strong sustainable health
systems for themselves.
The administration has also pledged at least $3\1/3\
billion a year in food security over 3 years, and this year's
request includes $1.6 billion, of which $1.2 billion will be
funded through the State Department. This funding will focus on
countries that have developed effective, comprehensive
strategies where agriculture is central to prosperity and
hunger remains widespread.
On climate change our request of $646 million seeks to
promote the United States as a leader in green technology and
to leverage other countries cooperation, including through the
Copenhagen Accord, which for the first time brought developed
and developing countries together on this challenge. This is
part of the administration's total request of $1.4 billion to
support core climate change activities in developing nations.
Our request also includes $4.2 billion for humanitarian
assistance programs. Our efforts in Haiti have made clear that
State and USAID must be able to respond quickly and effectively
to human tragedies.
These initiatives are designed to enhance American
security, help people in need, and give the American people a
strong return on their investment. Our aim is not to create
dependency, but to help people develop solutions that they can
sustain for themselves over the long term. And essential to
this is a focus on advancing equality and opportunity for women
and girls, who are the key drivers of economic and social
progress in the developing world.
And that brings me to the third and final area of
investment. None of this can happen if with do not recruit,
train and empower the right people for the job. The State
Department and USAID are full of talented and committed public
servants, but too often we have neglected to give them the
tools they need to carry out their missions on the ground.
Rather than building their expertise, we have often relied on
contractors, sometimes with little oversight and often with
increased costs.
This budget will allow us to expand the Foreign Service by
over 600 positions, including an additional 410 for the State
Department and 200 for USAID. It will also allow us to staff
the standby element of the civilian reserve corps, which a
crucial tool we are developing to respond to crisis.
Now while deploying these personnel does generate new
expenses in some accounts, it will reduce expenses in others by
changing the way we do business. We are ending an overreliance
on contractors and finding opportunities to save money by
bringing essential functions into government and improving
oversight.
One thing that I hope is clear from this budget is that the
State Department and USAID are taking a lead in carrying out
the United States foreign policy and national security agenda.
As we finish the first ever Quadrennial Diplomacy and
Development Review, we have a unique opportunity to define the
capabilities we need and then match resources with priorities.
This budget aligns our investments with the strategic
imperatives of our time. We are putting a lot of effort into
the management of the State Department and USAID. We are asking
a lot of hard questions, and we come to you with a commitment
to be responsive as we have done so this past year.
At a time of change and challenge at home and abroad we
believe these investments will enhance the security of
Americans, assure the future of American leadership and help
build the foundations of peace, stability, and prosperity for
the years ahead.
I look forward to continuing to work with you and I would
be pleased to take your questions, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Clinton
follows:]Hillary Clinton deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Berman. Thank you very much, and now I yield
myself 5 minutes to begin the questioning.
I want to start out by truly commending the administration
for its sincere and full effort to engage Iran in the goal of
stopping the Iranian nuclear program. It is regrettable that
the Iranians have not accepted the President's outstretched
hand. The world has seen the President's efforts at engagement
have been met by an Iranian clenched fist. If there are any
doubts about the nature of the Iranian regime, they have been
erased by fraudulent elections and brutal repression of
dissent. If there was any doubt about Iran's intention of
having a nuclear weapons capability, the revelations of the
last 3 or 4 months surely have removed those doubts by any
objective standard. We have tried engagement, and I believe we
should remain open to a diplomatic solution, but I think it is
time to shift our focus to implementing effective sanctions,
sanctions that maximize the chance that Iran will change its
decision, change its course, and end its effort to seek that
nuclear weapons capability.
The question is what kinds of sanctions work. I think it is
a mistake for us to try and draw you out fully as you are
engaged in an important diplomatic process at the Security
Council and with other countries bilaterally to develop that
strategy. But I do want to raise a more general issue. There
are people around who say the words ``targeted'' and ``smart
sanctions'' get thrown around all the time. The test is whether
the sanctions maximize the chances of achieving the goal of
changed behavior on these issues. And some say our targeting of
sanctions should be limited to individuals, we don't want to
cause any economic deprivation to the Iranian people beyond
that which the regime's own policies have foisted on their
people. I don't understand how we can have the level of
sanctions that can change behavior without it unfortunately
having consequences on the Iranian people. But we are talking
about in the context of Iran, hundreds of thousands of Iranians
have put their lives on the line to protest their regime. They
are suffering in some cases executions, mass arrests, show
trials, beatings and all kinds of brutality. The notion that
because of the regime's behavior their economic deprivation,
which is already serious, may grow. The notion that that causes
them to rally behind the very regime that has caused them to go
in the streets to me makes no sense.
And I guess I would like to get your thoughts on this issue
of sanctions that are called smart because they have no impact
on the Iranian people versus sanctions that could change
behavior.
Secretary Clinton. Well, Mr. Chairman, first let me
underscore what you said about the importance of the
President's strategy this past year. We believe strongly that
the President's leadership and willingness to reach out for
engagement with the Iranians was exactly the right approach for
two reasons. First, as he said in his Inaugural Address, he was
willing to stretch out his hand but people had to unclench
their fist. Offering the Iranian leadership the opportunity to
engage in a serious way was a necessary and important step
which the President has been willing to take against some
political criticism, as you know.
But secondly, the fact that the Iranian regime has failed
to respond and indeed in the course of this past year has shown
its brutality toward its own people and the revelations that
have come to light about the undisclosed facility at Qom, their
failure to accept the Russian, United States and French offers
through the IAEA on helping to provide the uranium they were
needing for the Tehran research reactor, their decision to try
to enrich to a higher percentage. All of the litany that we
know of the actions they have taken and the IAEA's much more
robust conclusions about that have demonstrated to the rest of
the world what the facts are about Iran's ambitions and about
its refusal to engage in a serious manner.
Therefore, we in the pursuit of a very aggressive
diplomatic campaign believe that the broader the approach on
sanctions against Iran, the more isolation and pressure Iran
will feel. It is therefore important that we speak with one
voice, one voice within our Government and one voice
internationally against Iran's failure to live up to its
responsibilities. And so we have done an intensive consultation
process around what we see as the most effective approaches to
sanctions. And I personally have engaged in numerous
discussions with many countries, when I was in London just
recently, in the Gulf next week, in Latin America, pointing out
how the evidence all adds up. And I think because we were
willing to engage we have a much more receptive audience than
we might have had otherwise. And I think that our efforts to
move forward in the Security Council should not be viewed as
our exclusive efforts because we have also stated clearly we
will look at additional bilateral and preferably multilateral
sanctions with willing nations on top of whatever we get out of
the Security Council.
So in sum, we believe in a broad approach, we believe that
we have to be as focused on what could change attitudes and
behavior within the leadership of Iran. As you might have
noticed, I was very clear in my remarks when I was in Doha and
Jeddah last week about the increasing role that the
Revolutionary Guard is playing in the politics and economy of
Iran.
So our goal is your goal. If we are going to go to the
international community through the U.N., through other
multilateral efforts, we want sanctions that will be effective
and we think the broader, the more likely that is to be.
Chairman Berman. Thank you very much. I do note that in
consultation with the ranking member we did something which
should not be considered oppressive with respect to time, but I
thought this was important enough issue to fully develop. I now
am pleased to recognize the ranking member for 5 minutes.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much Mr. Chairman. Thank
you, Madam Secretary.
Why is the administration doing nothing to pass the free
trade agreements with Colombia, South Korea, Panama? Solid U.S.
allies, wonderful friends, very pro-American. Will you and
President Obama become engaged in trying to pass these FTAs?
Secondly, why did we join the U.N. Human Rights Council if
we were going to do nothing by being on the Council? We were
supposed to change it from within, yet in the time we have been
there the United States has not called for a special session or
even sponsored a resolution to try to promote it on the human
rights violation in Iran, and North Korea, and Syria, Sudan,
Cuba, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Russia, you name it, nada.
And lastly, Madam Secretary, if you could please comment on
the death of Orlando Zapata Tamayo, the Cuban dissident who I
referred to in my opening statement.
Thank you.
Secretary Clinton. Thank you very much. Let me start where
you ended. The United States Government deeply regrets the
death of Orlando Zapata Tamayo and we send our condolences to
his family, and we also reiterate our strong objection to the
actions of the Cuban Government. This is a prisoner of
conscience who was imprisoned for years for speaking his mind,
for seeking democracy, for standing on the side of values that
are universal, who engaged in a hunger strike. The United
States Government consistently requested that he be given
medical assistance. And unfortunately, he paid for his courage
and his commitment with his life. He is one of more than 200
prisoners of conscience held by the Cuban Government, and we
continue to reiterate and in the strongest possible terms put
forth a strong objection to the existing behavior and a hope
that through the consistent pressure that we can place on the
Cuban Government over matters like this that these prisoners of
conscience will eventually be released.
Secondly, with respect to the Human Rights Council,
actually, Congresswoman, there was a Human Rights Council
session on Iran and the deplorable human rights record of Iran.
Just last week the United States was there and made a very
strong and forceful presentation; Assistant Secretary Posner
from Democracy Human Rights Bureau in the State Department led
our efforts, and I think we again made a historic record in
front of Iran.
Now they don't care about their people so they are not
going to care about the world exposing these constant human
rights abuses, but I think it is far better for us to be
exercising our freedom of expression and our strong beliefs
inside that Council and forcing others to look at the evidence
that is presented. So for the past year that is exactly what we
have been doing and we will continue to do so.
And finally on the free trade agreements, as President
Obama said in his State of the Union Address last month, we are
committed to these free trade agreements and we hope that we
can begin a process of consultation and consensus building
within the Congress. I will be going to Latin America next
week. I share your characterization of Colombia and Panama, two
of our strongest allies and two countries that have worked very
hard to make changes and create a conducive atmosphere to these
free trade agreements being confirmed here in our Congress.
So we are going to be working on this, and I appreciate
your raising it because I personally believe it is a very
important issue.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Madam Secretary. Yes,
I do realize that we did have that periodic review on Iran, but
it was not U.S. sponsored, it was not a special session, and
that is why I raise it. I want us to be more involved now that
we are part of that rogue's gallery. Fortunately we are not a
rogue regime, but unfortunately then we become part of the
problem. I would like for the U.S. to be the sponsor and call
for special sessions.
Thank you, Madam Secretary. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Berman. Thank you very much. And now the gentleman
from New York, chairman of the Middle East and South Asia
Subcommittee, Mr. Ackerman.
Mr. Ackerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good to see you,
Madam Secretary. Difficult to let this historic moment go by
without noting that so many of us are feeling buyer's regret
that in a previous incarnation we allowed your health plan
proposal to go by the boards. What a different place we would
be at right now. But this is a different committee.
I want to spend a moment, if I might, talking about the
Goldstone report and its implications. This report is a deeply
flawed and grossly biased political diatribe, a club used to
beat Israel over the head and attempt to delegitimize its very
existence; a country that has attempted to defend itself, as
have we, against terrorists and terrorist attacks and suicide
bombers and murderers who would destroy so many human beings
and civilization. But it is not Israel that I raise the concern
about; it is the implication that this has for the United
States.
If this report, which addresses the new kind of warfare
that we are in, warfare that isn't traditional battlefield
warfare which has general rules and regulations that the whole
world has operated under, but going after terrorists who have
no conscience, who would hide and morph themselves and meld
into civilian populations, hiding their arms and weapons and
shedding their uniforms the way they have in the Middle East,
and the way we have faced them as well. The implications for
the United States are more than serious. I won't quantify it,
but the number of civilians that have unfortunately and
regrettably perished as we, the United States, have pursued
terrorists whether they be in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or
elsewhere are certainly a number multiplied by some huge
multiple compared to the number of civilians that were killed
as Israel pursued terrorists in Gaza throughout that entire
incursion.
It is not difficult to envision the short path, if that
report is accepted as the international standard, to see what
happens to our country and envision just the limitations that
it would place on your travel ability, Madam Secretary, or the
indictment of some American President or future Secretary, or
even past, for international war crimes because civilians were
killed in the pursuit of terrorism, would put a chilling pall
on our ability to fight the war on terror. How do we address
this?
I do want to commend the administration for jumping out
ahead of this as quickly as it did and doing all the things,
and I know a lot of things got derailed because of things that
were not in our control, without going into them, but how do we
deal with this at this moment in time as this report moves
forward?
Secretary Clinton. Well, Congressman, you have highlighted
one of the serious deficiencies in the report that we have also
noted. The whole concept of self-defense and the right to self-
defense is one that was not adequately addressed or even taken
into consideration. There are a number of other deficiencies
within the report, but you have as usual put your finger on one
of the potential ramifications that go beyond the findings
relating to what happened in one place at one time in history,
and we believe strongly that the issues raised in the Goldstone
report should be subjected to strong domestic review processes.
We believe Israel has the capacity and the institutions to do
so, and in fact Israel, as you know, has undertaken such
review, as has, I might add, the Palestinian Authority. The
group that hasn't is Hamas and those who support and fund
Hamas. And we believe strongly, too, that other countries have
a stake in supporting our perspective on this, because it is
not only the United States if this international standard, as
you say, were to morph out of this report, but nearly every
other country that would similarly be held to account.
So I share your concerns, and we have stood very staunchly
on the side of those who reject the underlying premises of this
report.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and welcome,
Madam Secretary. It is always great to see you.
Today, Mr. Chairman, ultrasound imaging has given us a
window to the womb and the child within, and micro surgery and
a myriad of fetal health interventions are commonplace. Today
as never before unborn children ought to be viewed as
humanity's youngest patients in need of proper prenatal care,
nurturing, and, when sick, diagnosis and treatment.
The prevention of mother to child HIV transmission got a
major boost from PEPFAR, and I am happy to say that commitment
continues and is expanded in the Global Health Initiative. The
Global Health Initiative must, however, ensure that even the
unplanned and unintended unborn child is welcomed, cared for,
and included in the initiative.
I was disappointed to read on page 14 of the consultation
document that unintended pregnancy seems to be relegated to the
status of a disease, juxtaposed between HIV and tropical
diseases. Pregnancy isn't a disease. The child in the womb is
neither a tumor nor a parasite to be destroyed.
I am, Mr. Chairman, deeply concerned that with the
elimination of the Mexico City policy by Executive Order last
year, NGO implementing partners may actively seek to integrate
abortion with the many necessary and noble undertakings funded
by the Global Health Initiative. Therefore, I respectfully ask
that the administration consider that for many of us, all
abortion, legal or illegal, is violence against children, poses
significant, often under appreciated risks to women, and
especially, and this is largely unfocused upon, to children
later born to post-abortive women.
The term ``safe abortion'' in my opinion is the ultimate
oxymoron, child dismemberment, forced premature expulsion from
the womb by chemicals like Misoprostol, and deliberate
starvation by RU-486 can never ever be construed to be benign,
compassionate or safe.
Millennium Development Goal Number 4 seeks the reduction in
child mortality; abortion is child mortality.
Safe abortion? At least 102 studies show significant
psychological harm, major depression, and elevated suicide risk
to women who abort. Recently the Times of London reported, and
I quote in pertinent part that ``Senior . . . psychiatrists say
that new evidence has uncovered a clear link between abortion
and mental illness in women with no previous history of
psychological problems.'' They found ``that women who have had
abortions have twice the level of psychological problems and
three times the level of depression as women who have given
birth or who have never been pregnant . . .''.
In 2006, a comprehensive New Zealand study found that
almost 80 percent, 78.6 percent to be exact, of the 15- to 18-
years-olds who had abortions displayed symptoms of major
depression as compared to 31 percent of their peers, and that
study also found that 27 percent of the 21- to 25-year-old
women who had abortions had suicidal idealizations compared to
8 percent of those who did not.
Safe abortion? Not for subsequent children born to women
who have had an abortion. At least 113 studies show a
significant association between abortion and subsequent
premature birth. For example, a study by researchers Shah and
Zoe showed a 36 percent increased risk for preterm birth after
one abortion and a staggering 93 percent increased risk after
two. Similarly, the risk of subsequent children being born with
low birth weight increases by 35 percent after one and 72
percent after two or more abortions.
Another study showed the risk increased nine times after a
woman had three abortions. Clearly this terrible consequence
has been overlooked and under focused upon for far too long.
What does this mean for her children? Preterm birth is the
leading cause of infant mortality in the industrialized world
after congenital anomalies. Preterm infants have a greater risk
of suffering from chronic lung disease, sensory deficit,
cerebral palsy, cognitive impairments, and behavioral problems;
low birth weight is similarly associated with neonatal
mortality and morbidity.
Finally, I would respectfully submit that if we are truly
serious about reducing maternal mortality, women especially in
the developing world need access to proper maternal health
care, skilled birth attendants, and safe blood. I had a hearing
that I chaired years ago on safe blood, and a WHO
representative said 44 percent of maternal mortality goes away
in Africa if there is the availability of safe blood.
So I would ask respectfully that these things be
considered.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Payne, chairman of the Africa
Subcommittee, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much, and let me commend you,
Madam Secretary, on your recent trip to Haiti as you flew back
from a previously planned trip to be there on the ground. Also,
I want to commend you for the grueling six-country tour you
took to Africa last year. They are still talking about it. The
only negative is the countries you didn't go to. Of course
there are 54, so you have got 48 more to do.
Let me just bring up a few quick questions. Number one, I
have some concern about Somalia. As you know, the transitional
Federal Government of Sheikh Sharif continues to struggle.
There was not any increase for development aid for Somalia. I
think if we get the governance program going we will stop the
piracy because I do know Sheikh Sharif and his people can take
that under control.
Secondly, we do see in Sudan an agreement with JEM and the
Government of Sudan. Of course the Government of Sudan has
signed a lot of agreements and has broken every one, so I am
not that optimistic. However, there was a 10 percent reduction
in ESF funds for South Sudan which is coming up with a big
referendum next year. I don't think that is the way to go since
this very important referendum is coming up.
Thirdly, Liberia has a problem with about 3,500 Liberians
who are here under DED. On the 30th of March, DED will expire.
They came here under the reign of Charles Taylor. It is
Homeland Security/State Department, but if you could look into
this I would really appreciate being able to call you about
that.
[A written response to the inquiry follows:]Payne
FTR deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Payne. Finally, Nigeria's problem of course with the
President Yar'Adua being very ill. The Vice President has taken
over. Yar'Adua has gone back to Nigeria, so we need to take a
look at that to make sure that we don't have a conflict of two
Presidents. There are enough problems in Nigeria right now.
Finally, I am concerned about Morocco's occupation in
Western Sahara, and I do think that the Saharan people should
have an opportunity to have the referendum there in Western
Sahara. The United Nations said it should be done, and the
Baker plan said it should be done. I think we should go ahead
and do that.
Finally, on another issue, on March 9th there will be a
vote in Northern Ireland. As you know, the Hillsborough Castle
Agreement for the UPD and Sinn Fein said the evolution process
will go on. However, we can anticipate there may be violence
coming up, because we had the car bombing last week. So I would
wonder if you could look at that and just urge them for the
March 9th vote to vote yes so that we can get the evolution
behind us.
I will wait to hear your answer on those that you can
answer. Thank you.
Secretary Clinton. Well, thank you so much, and I will try
to speak very quickly, Congressman, and as always, thank you
for your personal and very welcome attention to Africa.
With respect to Somalia, there are decreases in the funding
from the State Department, but we are working very hard in
other accounts as well as with other donors. We share your
commitment to Sheikh Sharif on the TFG.
With respect to Sudan, however, we are actually increasing
the request. It is about 3 percent over the Fiscal Year 2010
total estimate, and we again share your concern which is why we
are putting both more funding and more diplomatic attention to
what is going on in Southern Sudan.
The Sudan-JEM agreement is welcome. We share your concern
about whether it is real, but we are working hard on that and I
met when I was in Doha with the Prime Minister of Qatar who has
been a facilitator of that effort.
With Liberia we are making a decision to extend that
deferred status.
With Nigeria, Assistant Secretary Johnny Carson was in
Nigeria and very much involved in the peaceful transition. With
the return of the President we are going to maintain vigilance
over what is happening inside Nigeria.
We support the U.N. process concerning Morocco and the
Western Sahara.
Finally, on Northern Ireland, as you may know, I went to
Northern Ireland. I spoke in Stormont. I have been deeply
involved with, and telephoning with all of the major players,
just met with Shaun Woodward, the Secretary for Northern
Ireland. I share your hope that the March 9th vote is
affirmative.
Chairman Berman. Amazing. The time of the gentleman has
expired.
The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Burton.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have two brief
comments. I want to associate myself with the remarks of Mr.
Ackerman regarding the Goldstone report. I just signed a letter
to the Secretary along with you, Mr. Chairman, and others
regarding that.
The second thing I wanted to say is that the Sanctions Act
that you graciously got through the House and has been passed
in the Senate still has to go to conference committee, and I
would hope we would get that passed and to the President as
quickly as possible.
Third, I want to thank the Secretary of State for her hard
work. She has been working very hard. It is pretty apparent.
She has been all over the place and we appreciate your work.
I have two questions for you, first of all regarding Iran.
Iran--and we have been talking about this now for several
years--they have not moved one inch from their development
program. In fact, IAEA said they are planning 10 more sites and
several thousand more centrifuges. They are also talking about
building a bombproof facility in the side of a mountain. And so
while we are talking about negotiating all kinds of measures to
put pressure on them, I think that we ought to also be talking
about an attack on those sites and let them know that the
United States and Israel, working together, will do whatever it
takes to stop a development program that will threaten the
Middle East, our energy supplies and the State of Israel. And
while we are talking about this, you know, working with our
allies to put pressure on them through sanctions, I really
think the message should be sent publicly or through you
privately that we are prepared to give Israel whatever they
need to be able to go way below the ground, maybe 100, 200, 300
feet, whatever it is, to knock out those development sites if
necessary, because we don't want them to have as a terrorist
state nuclear weapons that can just destabilize the entire
region and maybe destroy Israel.
And so I hope you will maybe comment on that. The other
thing I would like you to comment on, Madam Secretary, is I was
informed that the Justice Department has somewhere up to nine
or maybe even more people working there who did pro bono work
for some of the terrorists or detainees that are being held at
Guantanamo. And if that is the case, I am very concerned about
the decision that is being made by the Justice Department to
bring those people to the United States for civil trial. People
may have a biased attitude over there, and I hope that those
people aren't involved in the decision-making process.
I personally feel that the terrorists or the detainees
should be tried at Guantanamo. There is water all the way
around them, they can't get away, and they should be tried by a
military tribunal. And the vast majority of the American people
feel exactly the same way.
So I would like for you to address those two things. If you
can't address the first part because of classified information,
that is fine, but I wish you would take to the President the
message that many of us in Congress want Tehran and Mr.
Ahmadinejad to know that we are not going to let them develop a
nuclear weapons capability and a delivery system. As I
understand it now, they are working on a missile with a
delivery system for possibly a nuclear weapon. At least that is
what the IAEA says and that is very troubling.
So I hope you will deliver that message and if you could
comment on those two things, I would appreciate it.
Secretary Clinton. Well, Congressman, I will convey the
message. Our policy is to rally the international community for
the broadest and most effective sanctions that can be brought
to bear on the Iranian regime and thereby influence the
decision making.
One of the benefits of having the IAEA and supporting it,
as we propose doing in this budget, is because they are viewed
as an independent source of information. And I agree with you
that their recent study under the new Director General,
Ambassador Amano, has been given an enormous amount of
credibility, which helps to make the case that we are making.
With respect to your question about the Justice Department,
obviously I would ask you to refer that to the Attorney
General. I have no information on the points you are making
concerning working there, but I would say this: I think that
the President's commitment to close Guantanamo has been a very
valuable asset to us as we have made our case around the world.
Fairly or not, Guantanamo came to be seen as not reflective of
American values, of the strength of our Constitution and our
institutions, and I think there are ways to accommodate the
concerns that are rightly held about the detainees and the
terrorists. But I still very strongly support the closing of
Guantanamo.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Sherman, the chairman of
the Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade Subcommittee, is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Sherman. It is good to see you, Madam Secretary.
The Iran Sanctions Act requires to name and shame those
companies that invest over the triggering amount, I believe it
is $40 million, in the Iran oil sector, and to either impose
sanctions or waive them. Your budget contains tens of millions,
perhaps hundreds of millions to work in the world for democracy
and for the rule of law. But for 10 years, three
administrations have made a mockery of democracy and the rule
of law here in the United States, as three administrations have
deliberately failed to follow the minimum, nonwaivable portions
of the Iran Sanctions Act. In fact, the prior administration
told me flat out in foreign policy we don't follow those
statutes that we think are bad policy. This can only be called
the Dick Cheney approach to the rule of law.
Last October, a number of us, led by Congressman Ron Klein,
sent a letter outlining 21 firms that had invested a triggering
amount in the Iran oil sector. This was prepared not by the CIA
but the CRS, the Congressional Research Service. We were
promised by the relevant Assistant Secretary a response, a
report in 45 days. That was October. This is February. We have
received a response that says he is still working on it, but
that he has identified some transactions that are ``potentially
problematic.''
Madam Secretary, will you be providing Congress with a
report, perhaps classified, detailing the findings of this
initial review? Will you provide us with an explanation in each
instance of why certain transactions have been determined to be
not problematic? And, most importantly, will you break with 10
years of State Department practice and actually follow the law
by reviewing each transaction that seems to trigger the act and
by naming, shaming, and either sanctioning or waiving with
regard to the offending transactions?
Secretary Clinton. Congressman, thank you very much for
both your concern and your thoughtful approach. Deputy
Secretary Jim Steinberg has led an internal State Department
team on this issue. As you have well stated, there were no
determinations made under the act in the prior administration.
We have completed that preliminary review. We responded at
the beginning of February to the inquiries you mentioned, and
we indicated that some of the cases we reviewed deserved more
thorough consideration, which is what we have undertaken. We
have aggressively moved on three fronts to ensure that the
review is serious and thorough, and we have a rigorous process
in place for implementation.
First, we continue to raise in our bilateral engagements
with countries the need to strengthen their own reaction and
present a united front in restricting investment in Iran's
energy sector.
Second, we have worked with our embassies overseas to
collect information on potentially sanctionable activity. There
wasn't a big, thick file when we got there, Mr. Sherman. We
were very much starting pretty well from scratch, and we have
already engaged with all of the companies and the governments
that were included in the House letter, as well as some
additional companies that we believe could be engaged in
similar activities.
Finally, we are undertaking a review with the intelligence
community with respect to certain activities of some companies
that are warranting further scrutiny and have requested an all-
source intelligence community assessment so that we can make
whole of government assessments.
I understand that the State Department is working to
arrange a briefing, a classified briefing, with Members on the
outcome of this preliminary review.
Mr. Sherman. I look forward to that. I would like to
squeeze in three more questions to which I would like response
for the record.
First is as to Armenia. I am glad that you are providing
more aid, but I think Congress should be against that. Thank
you for having parity on military financing, but you do not
have parity between Armenia and Azerbaijan as to international
military training, and there should be a specific aid request
for Nagorno-Karabagh.
As to Sri Lanka, I would like you to respond for the record
how the administration is working with the government to ensure
the rights of the Tamil minority are protected, particularly of
the over 300,000 refugees.
As to Sudan, given the likelihood that Southern Sudan will
choose independence, what is the United States doing to support
a successful, independent south, and more broadly a peaceful
Sudan, and I await your responses in writing.
Secretary Clinton. Thank you.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Manzullo, is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Manzullo. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary, a
fellow Illinoisan. Welcome here.
The state of America's economy continues to struggle with
unemployment still unacceptably high, and I am sure you have
heard the jobless claims for February jumped to a record
496,000 for the week ending on February 20. At the same time
the Institute for Supply Management shows for the 7th month in
a row, I believe, it is above 50 and continues to climb to show
that orders are coming in to our manufacturers. However,
despite this promising sign, there are two chokepoints that
remain. Yesterday we brought the first one up with Chairman
Bernanke, and it is the inability of manufacturers and small
business people to access credit; and obviously without credit
they can't meet the payroll, replace inventory, or buy new
equipment, and these are the real job creators because the
orders are out there waiting because we have to manufacture our
way out of this recession, not try to buy our way out of it.
The second chokepoint is the outdated and inefficient
export control system that unnecessarily prohibits export of
items that do not pose a national security threat. The House
addressed these inefficiencies by giving the State Department
new tools to process export licenses in the House version of
the State authorization bill. Unfortunately, the Senate has not
acted on this.
Because of your Midwest roots giving rise to a love and
appreciation for manufacturing and the fact that you have
always been an outstanding proponent of exporting our
manufactured goods, we are asking you to use your leadership
and influence to help move this process forward.
I am just wondering, first of all, I know that you agree
with everything that I have said, and my question to you is
what more can be done? What can you do individually and as
Secretary of State to break through on these export controls so
we can ship more things overseas? Last year we had an
outstanding bipartisan working group that modified section
17(C) of the Export Administration Act making it easier to ship
aircraft parts overseas. That has resulted in $1 billion more
in exports. That is 20,000 jobs that were added in
manufacturing, or saved just because of that shipment.
Secretary Clinton. Well, Congressman, I do agree with
everything you have said, and I thank you for strongly
advocating for American manufacturing. You are right, there is
an uptick. We are seeing some positive signs. The President has
directed that the State Department and the Commerce Department
and the Defense Department and other elements of the government
work together to come up with a strong proposal to modify the
entire export regime because there are so many outdated and
inefficient aspects to it.
But as you rightly point out, we have to get congressional
buy-in across the board on this. So we are working at the
governmental level. We are reaching out to Members of Congress.
Your bipartisan working group could be a great partner to us in
doing this. And you know what the debate comes down to. There
are some people who say if we lift the export restrictions on
certain nuts, bolts, and screws we are going to be undermining
American security. I don't buy that. But there is a very strong
resistance within the Congress to making the changes that I
think are not at all dangerous to our security but would help
our manufacturing.
I will have someone follow up with you specifically, but we
need the help of the bipartisan, on both sides of the Hill,
members who will support what we are trying to do.
Mr. Manzullo. The other question is we are working--I have
the world's only fish processor of gefilte fish. Thank you,
thank you. Believe it or not, it is Asian carp that is being
caught in the Lower Mississippi and--this is true--and in the
Great Lakes. Israel has imposed a 120 percent duty. There are
nine containers of this that are locked up. We are in contact
with the ambassador from Israel. Passover is coming quickly to
Israel. We are working with the rabbis there who inspect this
facility in Thompson, Illinois, and I just want to make this
public and see if there is anything that you can do to get the
gefilte fish to Israel by Passover.
Secretary Clinton. Congressman, I will take that mission
on.
Mr. Manzullo. Thank you. Thank you.
Secretary Clinton. I don't know if I can promise that we
can get it done, but I will give you my best efforts. And if
not, we will have to figure out what to do with nine
containers.
Mr. Manzullo. It is 55 percent of their product. They could
lose a couple hundred jobs if we don't get the gefilte fish
there.
Secretary Clinton. We should consult with the chairman and
Congressman Ackerman. This sounds to me like one of those
issues that is something that should rise to the highest level
of our Government.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
Chairman Berman. The menu of the next State dinner. The
time of the gentleman has expired.
The gentleman from New York, Mr. Engel, the chairman of the
Western Hemisphere Subcommittee.
Mr. Engel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Manzullo, I would like to place an order for two jars
of the gefilte fish. Passover is coming very soon.
Madam Secretary, thank you very much for the wonderful,
extraordinary job that you are doing as our Secretary of State.
I know Mr. Manzullo talked about your Illinois roots. You
mentioned a New York minute before, and New York is very, very,
very proud of you. I would like to just throw out a couple of
things and then ask you to comment.
I have just come back from a trip to Israel. I met with top
leaders. All anyone wanted to talk about was Iran, and we have
had a lot of discussion here about Iran. Obviously, it is a
very serious situation and we all agree that Iran must not be
allowed to have a nuclear weapon and I really believe
ultimately nothing should be taken off the table because they
really must not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.
Syria. I was the author of the Syria Accountability Act,
which slapped sanctions on Syria for aiding and abetting
terrorism. I know that as of last week we have opened
diplomatic relations with them and exchanged ambassadors with
them for the first time in many, many years. I know the
rationale for it is to get them to engage and help; but,
frankly, I haven't seen any change. This is the game that Syria
has been playing for years and years. I haven't seen any change
in that regime's behavior. Perhaps something is going on behind
the scenes that I am not privy to, but I am wondering if you
can comment on that.
We talk about Iran and the dissidents in Iran. I know that
the feeling in some quarters is that we don't want to publicly
identify with them too much because it will just help the
regime to identify the dissidents or agents of the United
States. But I really think we need to have more public support
for the brave people of Iran who are standing up under
extraordinary conditions against their regime.
Kosovo. It just turned 2 years old last week, and we are
trying very hard to get other countries to recognize them. I
know the administration has been doing that as well. The
officials of Kosovo are very interested in getting into the
EBRD, which is the European Bank for Reconstruction
Development. They need some countries to vote them in, and I
would hope that behind the scenes we are helping to convince
countries to support them in that.
I want to quickly talk about, since I chair the Western
Hemisphere Subcommittee, a couple of those issues. First of
all, thank you for the extraordinary effort of you personally
and the administration with Haiti. This has been something of
course that has all gripped us, and I think it is very, very
important.
I am delighted to hear of your upcoming travel to Latin
America. I think we are reengaging the hemisphere after years
of neglect, and I think it is very, very important. I want to
talk about drug policy. I believe we need a more holistic
approach to our counternarcotics strategy in the Western
Hemisphere. I support strongly the Andean Drug Initiative, the
Merida Initiative, and the Caribbean Basin Security Initiative,
but I think we need to do a better job in weaving all of these
things together. I would like to hear you are thoughts on that
and what efforts you are taking to better integrate these
efforts so our successes in certain countries don't contribute
to problems in other countries.
I personally have suggested designating a coordinator at
the State Department to oversee all of our Western Hemisphere
security initiatives, and would you consider doing this? Would
you think about this?
Lastly, two comments. Number one, Venezuela. Yesterday the
OAs' human rights agencies criticized Venezuela for its
deteriorating human rights situation, and this follows their
recent condemnation of Chavez's closure of RCTV and several
other cable television stations. How are we working with our
partners in the OAS to call attention to this?
Finally, as was mentioned before, I am extremely concerned
about the Cuban imprisonment of USAID contractor Alan Gross. I
met with his wife yesterday at the Capitol, and needless to
say, everyone is concerned.
Can you comment on any or all of those things?
Secretary Clinton. Congressman, I will certainly give you
responses to these important issues in writing.
Let me just briefly say on Syria, the President decided to
return an ambassador because it is in our national interest to
do so. This is not any way a reward because there is no basis
for such a reward for Syria, but it is because we think having
an ambassador on the ground in Damascus helps to ensure our
national interests are taken care of, and also to avoid
strategic miscalculations on the parts of the Syrians.
So we are very committed to making clear to the Syrians
what we expect. There is a lot that we do expect. But we think
having an ambassador back on the ground actually gives us more
leverage and more opportunity to pursue those expectations.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Royce, is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. Royce. Thank you, Madam Secretary. I appreciated very
much your comments last week on Iran, but we should be doing
more, I think, to target those who are hanging, who are raping,
who are maiming Iranians. The ranking member and I have
legislation that would target Iran's human rights abusers with
travel sanctions, with financial sanctions, and I think a
concerted effort here would do much to discredit the regime
both inside and outside Iran.
Second, I wanted to point out that there are some 200,000
political prisoners. We discussed a little bit the problem in
Iran. We have the same problem in North Korea. People are being
tortured and worked to death, starved to death in the gulags in
North Korea, and I think pressing human rights should be part
of our strategic policy toward North Korea.
Lastly, and I think most importantly for me, is an issue
that came to light that we are all conversant with now, but a
Nigerian banker going to the U.S. Embassy stating that his son
is under the influence of religious extremists in Yemen, as he
shared with us. And then we find that we have months of
communication that come through our U.S. intelligence
intercepts about al-Qaeda having a plan to attack us using a
Nigerian. And then the response comes from one of the
administration's spokesmen, and these are his words, ``hunches
are not enough to constitute reasonable suspicion.'' Really.
Why is that?
Well, if you look at the language adopted from a legal
case, and here we get into the worry that we are becoming too
legalistic on this, there is Terry v. Ohio, it is a Supreme
Court case back in 1968 that determined when fourth amendment
protections against unreasonable searches allow the police to
frisk American civilians. Somehow the administration went
forward, and I can't understand how we have foreign terrorists
somehow being granted fourth amendment reasonable rights that
the courts intended to protect Americans from being searched by
local police. Those are two different issues.
Americans enjoy special rights and protections because we
carry out the responsibility of being Americans. Those outside
our border have no part in that compact, especially enemy
combatants. But increasingly we have this issue. Are
intelligence officers allowed now to make these hunches? That
hunch should have been that the visa should be reviewed and
searched and he should be searched before being allowed to get
on that plane. So we have to allow our intelligence agents to
make those determinations.
I would ask, with the Obama administration leaning toward
treating terrorism as a matter for domestic law enforcement,
such as trying terrorists in civilian courts instead of
military tribunals and making decisions like this that hunches
are not enough to constitute a reasonable suspicion, are we
allowing a legalistic culture here to get in the way of
allowing our intelligence agents to do their job?
Secretary Clinton. I think the answer, Congressman, is no.
Obviously there were some deficiencies in how the visa of the
Christmas Day bomber was treated. And certainly speaking for
the State Department, we have moved to plug any slight gap that
we needed to.
But, you know, since 2001, the State Department has revoked
51,000 visas for a variety of reasons, including more than
1,700 for suspected links to terrorism. In addition to
revocation, in just Fiscal Year 2009, consular officers refused
nearly 2 million visas; 1,885,000, to be exact. So we have
people acting on their gut on evidence, on hunches, on the feel
of their fingertips when they sit across from an applicant in a
consular interview, and I don't think that story gets out. So,
yes, there is----
Mr. Royce. I think that is a good point. But if we have
someone in the administration who believe that hunches are not
enough to constitute reasonable suspicion, it only takes one
terrorist getting through, and that is why I bring the point
up.
Secretary Clinton. I appreciate that, and I take it very
seriously, Congressman. It is on the top of my mind every
single day since I was privileged to serve as a Senator from
New York on 9/11.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The chairman of the Europe Subcommittee, the gentleman from
Massachusetts, Mr. Delahunt.
Mr. Delahunt. Welcome, Madam Secretary. I am not going to
talk about Europe, but I would note that yesterday the
committee had an excellent interparliamentary exchange with the
state members of the Russian Duma, and it would appear that
significant progress is being made on the START treaty. Let me
congratulate you. If we can get that done, that is a
significant achievement in terms of you and the President's
ambition to deal with this issue of nuclear proliferation.
But I want to talk about Iraq. I am very concerned about
these upcoming elections in Iraq. Chairman Berman and Chairman
Ackerman and several of us on this side of the aisle sent a
letter to the President last month. We hear a lot about the
deficits, and my understanding is that we are quickly
approaching $1 trillion in terms of not the human but the
financial cost of the war in Iraq. So that is obviously a
significant component of the deficit challenge that we have to
address.
And there is a lot of talk about Iran. There was an
interesting op-ed piece this morning in the Post by David
Ignatius where he reports the observation by General Odierno
that the administration is clearly concerned about the possible
manipulation of the Iraqi elections by Iran. I found it
interesting that according to that op-ed piece, the primary
agent in this effort is none other than Ahmed Chalabi, whom we
all remember was a key player in terms of providing
intelligence that led the previous Congresses under the
previous administration to authorize the war in Iraq.
But just to quote one section and then to ask for your
response to the question, what are we doing about this apparent
manipulation by the Iranians in terms of the Iraqi elections
that are going to mean so much in terms of what post-occupation
Iraq looks like and whether we have an ally in Iraq or whether
there is a state in Iraq that is more aligned with Iran, as
some of us said 6, 7 years ago was a possibility?
This is just an observation by General Odierno: Iran
interferes in Iraq's political process, urging alliances that
not all Iraqi politicians favor. In an effort to consolidate
power among parties supported by Iran, for example, Ahmed
Chalabi met with the Commander of the Iranian Revolutionary
Guard and the Iranian Foreign Minister to discuss the merger of
two slates of Shiite candidates backed by Iran.
Your comment, please.
Secretary Clinton. Well, Congressman, we are very focused
on these elections. I will make three quick observations.
First, there is no doubt that not only Iran but other
neighbors are doing what they can to support or influence the
outcome of the election. We are most concerned and focused on
Iran because of their ties with many Iraqis who had previously
sought exile or refuge in Iran who were supportive of the
efforts against Saddam Hussein. You know very well the story.
Yet at the same time we see on balance the Iraqis are much
more nationalistic and much more willing to stand up for
themselves vis-a-vis Iran with the exception of some Iraqis who
have a different agenda, who are carrying water, if you will,
for the Iranians.
So I cannot sit here and predict what the outcome of the
election will be, but we are trying to ensure as big a
participation as possible, which we think mitigates against the
Iranian influence. We are trying to ensure that Iraqi refugees
in Syria, Jordan and elsewhere are empowered to vote. We are
trying to ensure insofar as possible that there are significant
electoral observers, both of the voting and of the 2-week
counting process. And then we are going to be very active in
supporting the government formation process.
Mr. Ackerman [presiding]. The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. Paul from Texas.
Mr. Paul. Welcome, Madam Secretary. I have a question about
the cost of our foreign operations. We are now in the midst of
a financial crisis. We have a heavy burden of debt. We know
what debt can do. Greece is experiencing that type of problem.
We could reach that problem, I believe, if we continue to do
what we are doing. The international affairs budget 10 years
ago was $23 billion and now it is $54 billion. That is a
tremendous increase and that is not all from this
administration, obviously. But during that same period of time
the real wages of most American workers has gone down, and the
unemployment right now, according to the Department of Labor,
the under employment, is 20 percent. So this is nothing to
ignore and it is related to all of our spending.
A lot of Americans can't justify the amount of money we are
spending, both in the war effort and in our affairs around the
world. Quite frankly, there are some who don't feel a lot safer
for it, but there is a human price that we are paying. We have
lost over 5,000 Americans in fighting these wars, over 1,000
now in Afghanistan alone. There are hundreds of thousands of
casualties of veterans coming back with both physical and
mental problems. They are going to be needing care for many,
many years. The cost of all of this is probably, in the last 10
years, could easily be $1.5 trillion.
Also there is the refugee problem. We have hundreds of
thousands of refugees still, you know, experiencing difficulty
both in Iraq and Afghanistan. Just this very last month 24,000
refugees were added in the invasion into Afghanistan. Yesterday
we had a report from the United Nations that there were 346
children killed in Afghanistan. So the violence affects
everybody and that truly is a cost.
But the more specific question I have for you is one of
priorities. Obviously what is going on here in the Congress is
everybody justifies all of their spending. People here justify
the domestic spending, and people justify the overseas spending
and the war spending, and they worry about not having enough
bipartisanship. I worry about too much because they get
together and they enjoy spending both places and nobody cares
about the deficit.
I want to specifically ask you about the Embassy in London
because people can see that and they can feel it. We built an
Embassy in Baghdad and it cost close to $1 billion. We built
one in Kabul which cost close to $1 billion, and then there are
always cost overruns and the maintenance. It is very, very
expensive. I think the American people have a hard time
understanding what we are doing in London.
Assume for a minute that you could come to my district and
talk to some of my unemployed people and explain to them why it
is in their interest to spend, for the American people to spend
$1 billion building a fortress in London when they are falling
through the cracks and their wages have gone down, the ones
that have work. See if you can relate to them and explain to
them the importance, and you have to say that that $1 billion
will have to be more debt because where are you going to save
it. Can you explain that to these unemployed people?
Secretary Clinton. Congressman, with respect to the
Embassy, we are selling 11 sites that we currently rent at very
high cost in London to consolidate in one building. Therefore,
the money that we gain from the sale of these buildings will be
used to fund the Embassy. So we are not asking for additional
or new money. The reason we need a platform like that Embassy
in London is because we do so much work in every department of
our Government through London. It is not just our diplomats,
but obviously every other part of the American Government is
represented there.
So I believe I can make the case that we are not asking for
new money on that. But I take very seriously your larger point,
Congressman. It breaks my heart that 10 years ago we had a
balanced budget, that we were on the way to paying down the
debt of the budget of the United States of America. I served on
the Budget Committee in the Senate, and I remember as vividly
as if it were yesterday when we had a hearing in which Alan
Greenspan came and justified increasing spending and cutting
taxes, saying that we didn't really need to pay down the debt.
Outrageous, in my view.
Mr. Paul. Is there any place in your budget where you could
cut anything significant?
Secretary Clinton. We are cutting. Part of our problem is
that we are now assuming so many of the post-conflict
responsibilities, and that is the bulk of our increase, Mr.
Congressman.
Mr. Paul. Thank you.
Mr. Ackerman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Carnahan from Missouri for 5 minutes.
Mr. Carnahan. Welcome, Secretary Clinton.
Yesterday our Oversight Subcommittee had Special Inspector
General for Iraq Reconstruction, Stuart Bowen, testifying about
reports they had done a year ago and recently talking about
hard lessons learned in terms of vast amounts of money that was
thrown into Iraq without having adequate structures in place,
as well as overlap, money--literally billions of dollars--not
being able to be accounted for. And I guess as we ramp up the
military and civilian presence, tripling the civilians on the
ground under this budget, what measures are in place to be sure
that we are doing this in a targeted way that we can account
for?
Secretary Clinton. Well, Congressman, I take the lessons
from the mistakes in the last years in Iraq and Afghanistan
very seriously. We are trying to apply those lessons with much
greater accountability, with much greater oversight of
contractors. It is one of my highest priorities because I do
believe strongly that I or someone should have to be able to
justify not just to you but to your constituents why we are
doing what we are doing and to do the very best job we can in
order to eliminate the outrageous overruns and fraud, waste and
abuse. I cannot justify the past. We are going to work as hard
as we know how to make the present and the future better.
We are looking at every single contract. There is so much
waste in these contracts and so much that was literally just
allowed to continue in the rush of everything that accompanied
military action. So we are looking very hard at that and trying
to make these adjustments. We will be reporting to you as we go
forward.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you. I wanted to ask additionally about
the Global Engagement Fund. I understand that it is a follow-up
to the President's speech in Cairo and will focus on expanding
opportunity, science and technology partnerships and human
development issues. Could you provide us some details on what
you hope that can accomplish?
Secretary Clinton. Yes. We can give you certainly more
specifics than the time permits. But this did arise out of the
President's Cairo speech and his vision for a new beginning
with Muslims around the world. We are enhancing our public
diplomacy outreach. We are using more of the tools that America
has, like our science and technology and education strengths.
We have science envoys, distinguished Nobel Prize winners, and
other very well known leading scientists going to Muslim
majority countries. We have a lot of English language programs
for young people that we are expanding. So we have a full range
of such issues that bring a different message.
And we don't want to forget that we have a very diverse
Muslim population in the world. People get focused on just one
part of the world, often to the exclusion of the entire spread
of Islam from North Africa to Indonesia. So what works in one
place or what we are trying doesn't necessarily mean that it
will be the same somewhere else.
Mr. Carnahan. One other point I want to make: I want to
voice my support for your request to increase funding to
Bosnia, particularly with the political challenges they face--
Presidential and parliamentary elections in October. How do you
see us, strategy-wise, moving forward to help them once they
get through the election process and to be sure that they are
on track with constitutional reforms and momentum to be able to
join the EU and NATO?
Secretary Clinton. I appreciate your raising Bosnia, and I
know that is a particular concern of yours because there does
have to be constitutional reform, and we are pushing that as an
important part of our outreach.
I wanted to just specifically respond to you that as we
look at Bosnia, this has been a priority for me this past year.
We have to do it with the Europeans. We cannot do it alone. The
EU and the neighbors have to take more responsibility. We have
worked with the European Union, and I made this one of my
highest agenda items with the new High Representative, Baroness
Catherine Ashton. The EU and Europe has to make a stronger case
to Bosnia as to why constitutional reforms are in their
interest and will assist in their integration with the rest of
the Europe.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you very much.
Mr. Ackerman. The gentleman from California, Mr.
Rohrabacher, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much.
Madam Secretary, I am sorry I have had to come in and out.
We have a space program hearing that needed some attention.
Just a few questions, Madam Secretary.
I understand in your foreign aid budget that we provide
nearly $10 million for programs in China. Now how does that
make any sense at a time we are borrowing money from China, we
actually are giving foreign aid to China?
Secretary Clinton. Congressman, we are not giving any
foreign aid to China. Let me just flip here to give you the
best answer that I can.
What we do is try to foster civil society inside China. We
try to support Chinese activists who are working on issues that
are important to our entire engagement with China, issues that
have to do with human rights, with the rule of law, and
environmental protections. The kinds of actions that we think
are important.
Our programs provide pilots and models that the Chinese
people can subsequently adapt using their own resources. And we
also provide assistance programs working with Tibetan
communities to promote their interests as well.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I notice that $5 million of it is economic
support.
Secretary Clinton. That is right. Economic support is
provided to U.S. higher educational institutions and U.S.
nongovernmental organizations working in China in line with
earmarks.
Mr. Rohrabacher. In line with earmarks?
Secretary Clinton. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rohrabacher. This was forced upon you by Congress?
Secretary Clinton. Those were your words.
Mr. Rohrabacher. All right. I am happy to see that we agree
on something that should not be in the budget then. Thank you.
Madam Secretary, the President when he first came into
office and over his first year has done his best to basically
use a conciliatory tone toward Iran in hopes of trying to
create a situation where we could actually have some progress,
and I have been one of the ones criticizing him for that. Has
this worked out? We have had 1 year now. Has this conciliatory
process or tone with Iran, has it worked to make the mullahs
more open and interact with us in a better way? Or has it been
looked at as a sign of weakness by this oppressive mullah
regime?
Secretary Clinton. Congressman, I think the President's
policy of engagement has been very beneficial and welcomed by
the rest of the world.
Mr. Rohrabacher. What about the mullahs?
Secretary Clinton. Well, clearly the President came with a
two-track approach. One was an offer of engagement if the
Iranians would engage seriously on matters that were critical
to us; namely, their nuclear program, and there has not been a
response. But the fact that the President reached out has
brought us an enormous amount of credibility and goodwill in
the rest of the world. But at the same time the President
always said we have a dual track approach, and the approach of
sanctions and pressure, it wasn't an afterthought, it went
simultaneously with his offer of engagement.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I want to suggest, Madam Secretary, that
playing to our liberal, willy-nilly friends in Europe is less
important for us than to be tough with a repressive regime, a
murderous regime that has engaged in murdering people on their
streets. Don't you think that this conciliatory tone, which as
you just admitted certainly has not been accepted by the
mullahs, has in some way depressed or at least hurt the spirit
on the streets of Iran of those young people who are trying to
struggle to end this mullah regime?
Secretary Clinton. Congressman, no, we do not see evidence
of that. We actually believe that if you take everything that
we are doing together, including working to make sure that
information continues to flow into Iran over the efforts by the
government to block the Internet and satellite television and
the like, if you look at the information coming out by those
who have been detained, and I have talked to several people who
have imprisoned by the Iranian regime, they actually think that
President Obama has struck exactly the right tone and approach
to give heart to the people who are putting their lives on the
line, who know that we stand with them, know that we support
their efforts, but also recognize that they have a long hard
road ahead, and what we are trying to do is get international
opinion that will force the Iranian regime to change its
calculation.
Mr. Ackerman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you.
Mr. Ackerman. The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Sheila
Jackson Lee, 5 minutes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Madam Secretary, thank you again. I think
it is important to acknowledge the seismic change of the
policies of the Obama administration with your leadership and
policy knowledge, that we have really changed the story of
America around the world. I think that is an important point
that we should affirm.
We should also make note that in actuality our budget is
very fiscally responsible. It is a budget that includes some of
the hotspots of the world, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq. And
so in my comments I would like you to make mention and might I
publicly say I am delighted to note that President Clinton is
mending and we thank him for his work in Haiti.
Let me also acknowledge the loss of a civil foreign officer
in Haiti. Many of us have had our eyes on Haiti and I was down
just about 2 weeks ago. What do you think going forward would
be a potential supplemental on Haiti? What is the going forward
approach for reconstruction and rebuild? Many Americans want to
be engaged. Thank you for your work on the evangelists and
others who had missteps and were arrested. We talked about
that, too, and I asked for them to be given mercy, released,
and they are gone. But I do think it is important to have some
standard for faith organizations. All of them are trying to
come down. Their intentions are good and I would like
us deg.to see us have that.
I would like to get your assessment of the progress and the
work of Pakistan. As you well know, I have advocated for
Pakistan in the bad days. But I have seen, just as I had
expected and hoped, a major commitment by the government and of
course their work on the border.
Two last points. I would like you to assess any focus that
the State Department is having on the children of Afghanistan.
My colleague talked about the loss of life. I would like to get
a sense of whether you have a focus.
My last point is a comment for your staff, if they could
take this down. I have a constituent whose daughter was killed
in America by a Peruvian student. The name is Lindsey Brasier
in Austin, Texas. The perpetrator was Evelyn Denise Mezzich.
That person is in Peru, and we have not been able to have that
person brought back for justice. They have a felony of skipping
bail and Interpol has this matter. This has been a tragedy
which occurred in 1998. You know how tragic that is. I would
appreciate being able to work with you on this extradition
issue as relates internationally. Brief comments on those
questions. I thank you again for your service and the
President's policies.
Secretary Clinton. Thank you, Congresswoman, and thank you
for your attention to Haiti. We are working on a supplemental
that we hope will come to the Congress in the next few weeks.
It will include both replenishment of funds in the State
Department and USAID principally, but also funding for the
recovery and reconstruction efforts going forward.
I think that the leadership role that the United States has
played has redounded so greatly to our benefit, not only in the
hemisphere but around the world. We will be having a conference
March 31 co-hosted by the U.S. and the U.N., along with other
major donor countries, that will look very specifically about
the way forward. So we will hopefully continue to have strong
bipartisan support in the Congress.
Thank you for your continuing attention to Pakistan. I
agree with you. I think this last year has demonstrated
significant changes in approach and commitment from the
Pakistani Government, the democratically elected government, as
well as the military and intelligence services. Their
cooperation with us in the recent arrests and apprehension of
leading Taliban figures is I think very strong evidence of
that.
I share your concern about children in Afghanistan or
anywhere in the world, really, and we are focused on doing what
we can in cooperation with our partners who are sharing the
donor responsibility in Afghanistan, and we can give you more
information on that.
Finally, my staff will work very closely with you on this
request on behalf of your constituent and see what, if any,
action we can take.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. I look forward to working with
you on the children issue. And thank you for the help with the
mother who has been grieving for so long.
Mr. Ackerman. Mr. Flake for 5 minutes.
Mr. Flake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Since Dana took the only earmark question, I am left with
just Cuba.
Cuba has been mentioned a couple of times. You mentioned
the dissident Tamayo who recently died, a tragic situation in
that regard. Also we have the situation of Alan Gross, an
American who is being held by the Cuban Government, was a USAID
contractor there.
The gentlelady from Florida mentioned in light of recent
events there, that it is her hope that the Obama administration
not offer any concessions to the Cuban Government. I would go a
bit further. I would hope that this administration would stop
offering concessions to the Cuban Government. These concessions
have been offered not just by this administration but by many
administrations in the past. I would argue that the policy we
have where we deny Americans the freedom to travel to Cuba is a
concession to the Cuban Government. Whether they admit it or
not, whether they quietly lobby or publicly lobby for that
change, I don't think they want it. And every time we seem to
get close, they provoke us somehow and so we change our policy.
I think we ought to do it because that is simply what is right.
I was excited to hear that the Obama administration would
recast our Cuban policy, and they took a good first step by
allowing Cuban Americans the ability to visit their family
members without restrictions and to remit money to their family
members. That does a good deal to help the dissidents who are
there and the families of those who are held prisoner.
That is a good thing. But beyond that it seems our policy
is on autopilot. The contractor who is being held by the Cuban
Government, he was on a contract that was awarded by the Bush
administration. We still have policies going forward that don't
serve us well, I would argue. It goes from $400,000 in
scholarships that brought two Cubans to America. Hundreds of
thousands of dollars in Europe to try to persuade European
governments to change their Cuba policy. Bumper stickers,
``Made in Miami,'' that Cuban dissidents and others were
supposed to put on their cars, for crying out loud. We have
some of the craziest things going, and I see your smile so I
think you probably agree, when we simply could say, and I am
assuming we have put some of these USAID contracts on ice,
given that we have one contractor in jail. Why don't we simply
allow Americans to travel to Cuba unabated?
I have no doubt that the Cuban Government will try to
impose its own restrictions. They want the revenue that would
come with travel but not the influence. But if somebody is
going to limit my travel and the travel of my constituents, it
should be a Communist, not this government. We should not be in
that business. We should be able to say Americans should be
able to travel.
We talked about this the last time you were here. I know
you are open. We have legislation moving. There are more than
180 cosponsors to lift the travel ban, but there are things
that the Obama administration can do prior to the passage of
that legislation. We could lift some of the restrictions or
dial back some of the restrictions imposed by the Bush
administration on people-to-people travel and allow more of
that.
Can I have your thoughts on that?
Secretary Clinton. Congressman, the reason I am smiling is
because I think that we all share the same goal. The goal is to
create changes for the better in the lives of the people of
Cuba, promote democracy and freedom and hopefully see the time
soon when the Cuban people have the same rights as we do. That
is our goal, and that is what we are pursuing.
The President's April announcement last year changed United
States policy toward Cuba in a number of ways based on the
evidence that we should try some different approaches, and we
should really look at what it is we are doing that is actually
helping the Cuban people because there is evidence that every
time we try to encourage more free flow of people and
information, the Castro regime shuts down. That is the last
thing that they want. They do not want Americans traveling
freely, remittances coming in, more communications systems,
back and forth. We are working very hard to break through the
control of the media but in a smart way.
I am looking at every single program because frankly I want
things that work. If we have been doing something over and over
and over again and it is not working to help the people in
Cuba, then we need to take a look at it.
Mr. Flake. Let me just offer, TV and Radio Marti, we can
move. Thank you.
Mr. Ackerman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
gentleman from North Carolina for 5 minutes.
Mr. Miller. Madam Secretary, I very much understand the
need to support development, but I worry about the next set of
conflicts that may involve us, and even if they don't involve
us, will be catastrophic for the people who live in the
societies in conflict. General Anthony Zinni said that
ungoverned areas and extreme poverty were a Petri dish for
extremism and radicalism. And certainly there is an unholy mix
of weak states, ungoverned areas, extreme poverty with a lack
of any real economic development and conflict. And a quarter to
a third of the states that are in conflict will fall into
conflict again within 5 years, whether it is the same conflict
or another conflict. And conflict leads to poverty and poverty
leads to conflict, and all of it leads to very weak states,
states that cannot survive the pressures on them.
The budget increases development assistance by 18.3
percent, the proposed budget; 23.1 percent for economic support
funds, but there are other areas that seem to be important for
avoiding conflict, for conflict-prone societies; a 13 percent
decrease for the Transition Initiatives Account. How much of
the increases for the Development Assistance and Economic
Support Fund goes to those frontline states? Is the budget
sufficient to meet the needs in the other parts of the world
where there is extreme poverty and either conflict now or
potential for conflict, and what are the pressures on the
budget, on that part of the budget?
Secretary Clinton. Congressman, it is a balancing act. I
mean, that is what we do every single day. We have incurred
responsibilities in the frontline states in Iraq, Afghanistan
and Pakistan because of policies that were there when we came
into office, but which we have responsibility to fulfill. So as
you rightly point out, a significant percentage of what we are
doing in development and assistance is going to those three
countries.
At the same time we have tried to identify countries that
are in that Petri dish that you describe, that are really on
the brink of collapse or becoming a failed state, from which
extremism is being exported. Yemen is obviously the key
example. And we are bolstering our involvement and assistance
in ways that we hope will stabilize those countries, but there
are so many places now and particularly in Africa that are
vulnerable, and it concerns me greatly what I see happening
across that continent. And I think we have to do a better job
coordinating other investments from nongovernmental donors,
from the private sector, so that we know what is happening,
where it is, and what the consequences are. And we also need to
do a better job of making sure what we are doing actually has
good results, we are not just putting money in for the sake of
saying we have done it. So it is a very difficult calculation.
Mr. Miller. You mentioned Yemen and obviously Yemen has
gotten a fair amount of attention. It is an ungoverned or
lightly governed area with severe economic problems, but it
also looks like in a decade the people of Yemen will look back
on the way things are now as the good old days. They are
running out of oil. Oil is the great bulk of their government
revenue. They are running out of water. I don't know what you
do with a country that runs out of water. What are we doing in
Yemen and, as you put it, how are we making sure that the
assistance we are providing is being effective, it is meeting
needs and it is actually anticipating the problems that are
coming at them?
Secretary Clinton. Well, this is a country that there is
increasing interest from many others as well. I represented the
United States at a conference about Yemen in London about a
couple of weeks ago, and we are trying to do a better job
coordinating. Some of the Gulf countries are much larger
contributors than we are. What is hard is the Government of
Yemen came to that meeting with a plan for development that
they had adopted, which was sensible, and a recognition of a
lot of their shortcomings. They have to change their
agricultural product production if they are going to save their
water, and that is a huge undertaking. But we are working in
concert with others to try to help the government fulfill its
own objectives.
Mr. Ackerman. Gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Boozman, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And again I want to
send you warm greetings from your many, many friends in
Arkansas, and we appreciate having you here today.
I would like to ask you real quickly about the fact that
the committee seems to indicate that they are going to propose
the Armenian genocide resolution. And right now--currently the
Turks and the Armenians are in the process of having protocol,
normalization, talks and things. What I would like to know is
your opinion of how that would affect that. And also the impact
on the Turkish United States. Several years ago when I was in
Incirlik visiting with the commanders there, they were really
concerned about force protection, really far reaching problems
if that were allowed to go forward.
Secretary Clinton. Well, Congressman, on Turkey-Armenia
relations it is our position that the normalization process
that Turkey and Armenia have undertaken carries important
benefits for both sides and it should take place without
preconditions and within a reasonable time frame. Last year in
his Armenia Remembrance Day statement, President Obama made
clear that our interest remains a full, frank and just
acknowledgement of the facts related to the historical events.
But the best way to do that with all respect is for the
Armenian and Turkish people themselves to address the facts of
their past as part of their efforts to move forward, and in
that spirit we are working very hard to assist Armenia and
Turkey in their efforts. We would like to continue to support
that effort and not be diverted in any way at all.
Mr. Boozman. Very good.
While testifying before the House Foreign Affairs Committee
last October Assistant Secretary Jeff Feltman said that the
State Department was in the process of reviewing 20 countries--
20 companies, rather, that could be sanctioned under the
Iranian Sanctions Act. He indicated this review would last
about 45 days and an answer on those companies would be
released at that time. Recently a few of my colleagues received
a single page response in that regard.
Can you enlighten us a little bit in that regard.
Secretary Clinton. Yes, Congressman. In response to
Congressman Sherman, I laid out the process we have followed.
The preliminary report was delivered in February and it made
clear that we are doing in-depth investigation into a number of
companies. We have already reached out to other countries on
this. We have asked our embassies around the world to acquire
additional information and we are offering in the near future a
classified briefing for Members who wish to get into depth.
There is a lot of information that would be better conveyed in
a classified setting.
But we are taking this very seriously. There wasn't any
action taken in the prior 8 years. The only time there has been
action on the Iran Sanctions Act was by former Secretary
Madeleine Albright and then that was waived because of national
security interests. So this is an incredibly complex arena, but
we are moving in a deliberative and thorough way and we look
forward to briefing you in a classified setting.
Mr. Boozman. Good. Thank you. One other thing real quick, I
know that the economic support funds for 2011 has been cut
nearly $26 million. Can you comment on--you know, that is a
pretty significant cut at a time when Sudan is due for its
first democratic elections in decades, and the future of the
comprehensive peace agreement for Sudan really does hang in the
balance. Can you comment a little bit about that and if that is
going to be a problem?
Secretary Clinton. Well, Congressman, our information is
that we actually have an increase in assistance for Southern
Sudan. So we will get to you a written response because that is
the second time I have been asked that question. So either we
haven't presented it in a clear enough way or there may be some
interpretation we are not aware of. But I take the point, the
larger point very seriously. We have to do more to help prepare
Southern Sudan for a future dependent upon the choice it makes.
If it is going to choose independence, then it needs a lot of
work to have the institutions of statehood. And we are putting
more diplomatic and development assets in order to try to help
the Southern Sudanese as they work through these decisions.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
Mr. Ackerman. The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Scott, 5
minutes.
Mr. Scott. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Welcome
again, Madam Secretary. It is always a pleasure to see you, and
let me compliment you on the extraordinary job that you
continue to do as our Secretary of State.
I would like to focus on Yemen again, having been there
last year. I think we need to go a little deeper into this
because this is a very dangerous place and it appears to me we
are on the front lines there now, our State Department
personnel, our embassies and our special operations people,
particularly our Navy Seals. And at a recent questioning I
asked about any effort from a military standpoint of getting in
there and of course the question is no. So that leaves it that
you are on the front lines there in trying to combat this and
in trying to deal with it.
Yemen is seriously I think approaching and utilizing and
training with al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula,
their relationship with Somalia and training camps there. When
I was there with Special Ops we visually saw these things
happening. Now in your referral to your comment to my
colleague, Mr. Miller, you mentioned of our aid that is going
in there, but the problem is President Saleh has two
reluctances. First of all, he has the reluctance to go after
al-Qaeda and he has the reluctance of wanting more of our aid.
So it is sort of like we are in a Catch-22 here.
So I would like your assessment of how do we effectively
use our resources in this kind of an environment where the
people of Yemen themselves and the President's reluctance to be
seen taking our aid, taking more of it and at the same time is
his reluctance to even go after al-Qaeda.
Secretary Clinton. Congressman, that is an astute
description of the challenges that we face. In addition to what
you have stated, there are also continuing problems in the
north and the south in addition to AQAP. In the international
conference about Yemen in London it became clear that other
countries, particularly in the Gulf, provide much more funding
for Yemen than we do or that we will. Therefore, they have to
be united with us in the messages that we convey to President
Saleh. And I agree that we have to work very hard to have a
united front with all the international donors. Some of the
European countries have long-standing connections with Yemen,
certainly Saudi Arabia, Qatar and others in the region do. And
I am focused on how we send as clear and unequivocal a message
as possible as to what is expected in return for this aid. We
do have to be sensitive to some of the local concerns about
American involvement, but at the same time Yemen sits 25 miles
across the Gulf from Somalia, and we know that there is that
constant continuing connection.
We will have more to report to you as we follow through on
our policy here, but it is a mixed policy, it is an
international policy. It is all aimed at influencing
Presidential decisions, because as you saw, that is where they
all come from and we have to support the President in making
the right decisions. But this is going to be challenging.
Mr. Scott. What do you suggest that we should do
specifically about the evidence of the growing al-Qaeda
training camps in both Yemen and Somalia?
Secretary Clinton. Well, I think the Government of Yemen
has in the last few months been very active in going after
training camps and identified members of al-Qaeda. So they are
beginning to do what we would hope they would do, which is to
protect their own country against the threat of growing
extremism. But I think we and others in this international
effort have to continue to support them, provide intelligence
assets, provide surveillance assets, provide military equipment
and training, all of which we are doing and all of which is
very necessary if they are going to be successful in going
after this threat.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Mr. Ackerman. The gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning,
Madam Secretary. Welcome. Thank you so much for coming today. I
would like to ask you two questions centered on Iran and
bioterrorism. But before I do, given our previous dialogue, my
conscience demands that I raise the issue with you again of
including abortion as reproductive health care and including it
as an integral component of our foreign affairs considerations.
I believe this actually undermines our good diplomatic
initiatives. Abortion is not health care; abortion is so often
the result of abandonment. Women deserve better and certain
taxpayers should not be put in the position of paying for it
either here in the United States or underwriting it in our
international programs. So I respectfully request that you
reconsider your position.
With that, let me return to Iran. I fear that we will all
awake to the headline one day soon that Iran has the bomb. This
would be a geopolitical game changer. I am very appreciative of
your intensified efforts of late in this regard. I would like
to hear your outlook though for the next 6 months. There is
just so little time left.
Secondly, I would like to hear what the State Department is
doing to lead international diplomatic efforts to prevent
bioterrorism, especially within the context of the G-8 Global
Health Security Initiative for medical countermeasures,
including stockpiling and delivery. As you are aware, the
Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission unanimously concluded
that bioterrorism is the most likely WMD threat that the world
faces.
Secretary Clinton. Thank you very much, Congressman. And
let me respond to your point and to some of the points made by
Congressman Smith. First of all, the United States Government
does not fund abortions. We don't. We are increasing our
funding to organizations that provide family planning services
and maternal health. In fact, the budget provides $700 million
to combat maternal mortality, with expanded coverage of
prevention and lifesaving interventions such as the prevention
and management of postpartum hemorrhaging and other terrible
consequences of uncared for pregnancy that I take very
seriously.
I think that in many ways you and Congressman Smith and I
have actually some of the shared views and concerns, but we do
believe it is important to provide money, which we do in this
budget, $590 million, for family planning and reproductive
health, because so much of what happens in the health of women
in developing countries is because they cannot control their
reproductive health, and it is a matter of great concern to me
because many of these women are very young, they are not
prepared for pregnancy, they often suffer grievous injuries
during labor and birth because they do not have adequate
treatment, and that is one of the reasons why in our Global
Health Initiative we are expanding America's commitment to
maternal and child health.
So we share some of the very same goals, and I hope to be
able to work with you. Where we differ is on the question of a
woman's right to choose, but we would like to avoid the choice
that could lead to abortion by providing better resources and
support for women around the world.
Mr. Fortenberry. Before we pivot to the other two
questions, though, you have redefined abortion as a part of
reproductive health care for the first time and overturned the
Mexico City policy which would again underwrite organizations
who would participate in the act of abortion.
Secretary Clinton. Well, you know, this is a debate that
goes back many, many years and, you know, we do not believe in
the gag rule, we do not believe that women should be deprived
of information that might be important to their health and to
plan for their own families. And as we exchanged views the last
time I was here, I have seen the consequences of just terrible
medical treatment that women have been subjected to because
they didn't have the right to pursue what was in their own
interest, but we will not agree on that, but we will agree that
we need to do more to help with maternal and child health I
hope.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you.
Secretary Clinton. With respect to the outlook for Iran,
obviously we believe that we have made progress in changing the
attitudes of a number of nations toward Iran. We are going to
continue to do so. We share your concern about Iran's ambitions
and its program and we are making the case very vigorously
around the world about what the consequences would be for other
countries.
I think when I started 1 year ago many countries were not
convinced that this is a problem that had anything to do with
them, and we have every day made the case that a nuclear armed
Iran will create an arms race in the Gulf that will destabilize
the region that so much of the rest of the world depends upon
for oil and gas. It could even lead to conflict, which would be
an economic catastrophe for many countries that are so reliant,
and therefore countries should join with us in doing everything
we can to demonstrate international unity in pressuring Iran to
change direction, and that is what we are engaged in vigorously
right now.
Finally, Congressman, the United States leads the world in
terms of overall biopreparedness but there is a lot more we
need to do. We are trying to work with the international
community to pay more attention to the bioterrorist threat, to
implement new policies, to stockpile vaccines. We are assisting
with that through a wide range of activities. For example, we
have foreign assistance programs that are specifically aimed at
biological threats across South and Southeast Asia, the Middle
East, and expanding into Africa, and we take it very seriously
and will work to that end.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you.
Chairman Berman [presiding]. The time of the gentleman is
expired. The gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Ellison, is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Ellison. Good morning, Madam Secretary. Let me join
some of my colleagues in applauding you. I like the budget and
I intend to support it.
My first question has to do with the administration's
commitment to try to support UNRWA and people who are trying to
make it in Gaza, not the people who are engaged in terrorist
activities but the regular folks who are trying to survive, but
some of the assistance that we have given already has not
really made it to the people and I would just be curious as to
your thoughts as to how we might be able to actually get some
of this humanitarian assistance into the hands of folks who we
intended in to help.
Secretary Clinton. Well, we happen to believe that UNRWA is
a vital humanitarian actor that does provide critical services
and assistance that would otherwise be provided by extremist
groups. We can't have it both ways. If we are not in there
supporting UNRWA and actually providing services, I believe
that the situation would become even more threatening to us and
to Israel. So UNRWA is an indispensable counterweight to
radicalism, to terrorism, particularly in Gaza and Lebanon. And
in fact UNRWA's efforts are supported by the Governments of
Israel, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan and the Palestinian
authority. So that is a pretty broad cross-section of the
region. And we do closely monitor what UNRWA does. We make sure
it meets all of the conditions for funding under our law and
the Foreign Assistance Act provision. And we have worked to
make sure that UNRWA implements measures designed to ensure the
neutrality of its staff, including preemployment checks,
sharing the list of staff member names with host governments on
an annual basis, and so much else.
And I share your concern that we are not getting enough
help into Gaza. I have raised this consistently with the
Israeli Government. They have made certain moves which have
increased the flow of food and clean water and medicine, but I
think more could be done that would not provide any threat to
Israeli security and we raise that with the Israelis on a
regular basis.
But I think you are right that what we want to do is
support the regular folks, not do anything that empowers Hamas.
And much of the material that gets into Gaza, which still comes
through the tunnels, through smuggling actually, is taxed by
Hamas, which then provides Hamas with the money that they use
to buy arms and other material that is used against Israel.
So I look at things from a real logical perspective. What
can we do to undermine Hamas, to support the security of
Israel, and to help the, quote, deg. ``regular folks''
so that they don't turn to extremism.
Mr. Ellison. I couldn't have said it better myself.
About 60 percent of the 2.5 million internally displaced
people in Pakistan are women. What is the USAID package or
programs doing specifically to address the need of female
refugees in Pakistan?
Secretary Clinton. Well, Congressman, we are working very
hard. We have a range of programs that assist refugees. We also
have tried to target aid to women refugees. One example, which
was a great public/private partnership, is last summer we
reached out to Pakistani-American doctors and nurses and asked
them to go to the refugee camps because women were not getting
adequate medical services. And we had several dozen Pakistani
doctors, mostly women, who took time off from their practices,
took 6 weeks, went to Swat, worked with refugee women.
So we are always looking for ways that we can get the aid
to women and children because they are often the ones that are
most severely dislocated and damaged by any kind of conflict.
Mr. Ellison. Well, Madam Secretary, I just want to say that
I appreciate that, because as you and the President reach out
to the Muslim world, and I certainly commend that, you should
just bear in mind that the United States is part of that world,
and to draw upon American talent, medical talent or otherwise
is just a very good idea.
I will just end with an editorial comment, and that is the
people who stood up against the position to condemn the
Goldstone report never claimed that the Goldstone report was
completely accurate. The point was that most of us hadn't read
it and we would hope that Israel would participate in that
report to make its points, which it certainly had evidence to
make, and so that is--my time is out.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
gentleman from Texas, Mr. McCaul. And I just mentioned to the
committee members that the Secretary has to leave at 12:15.
Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield 15 seconds to
the gentlelady from Florida.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. So thankful to you. Madam Secretary, I
will be handing you a letter that I have written regarding the
protection of the Iranians who are in Camp Ashraf in Iraq. We
are very worried about their plight. We have made commitments
to them to make sure that certain action would not be taken
against them, and I fear that as we keep moving those
protections are going to be taken away and certain guarantees.
Thank you, Mr. McCaul, and I have that letter for you in
writing. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
Mr. McCaul. Thank you. And thank you, Madam Secretary, for
being here today. I introduced a resolution today, and I thank
the ranking member for cosponsoring it, condemning the human
rights violations in Iran and supporting voices of freedom and
democracy. I hope you will take a look at that. I think it is
something that we need to be doing. I am also concerned about
Iran's influence in the region, both in Iraq, Afghanistan and
Pakistan, and I wanted to see if you could touch on that point.
And my second question from a budgetary standpoint has to
do with--I think we are making some great military success in
Afghanistan now. I think the Pakistan military, ISI are really
starting to step up to the plate really for the first time in
years, and I commend you and the administration for that.
We honored Charlie Wilson at his funeral the other day, and
of course after we defeated the Soviets his big point was we
left a vacuum, and I think he was right. Joanne Herring, who
was a constituent mine was sort of the driving force behind
Charlie. You probably know Joanne. She is very flamboyant, a
very passionate voice for the Afghan people and Pakistan. She
has this idea of a Marshal plan sort of for the region.
I know that State through USAID has outlined in the budget
an Afghan-Pakistan regional stabilization strategy to achieve
some of this. I wanted to see if you could comment on what
State is doing in that respect because I think we have to win
militarily, but we also have to provide economic stability and
win the hearts and minds.
Secretary Clinton. Congressman, I agree with that, and I
hope every Member has gotten a copy of the Afghanistan and
Pakistan Regional Stabilization Strategy. If not, we will be
sure that you do, because it is very specific about what we are
trying to do, what we are doing in agriculture, education,
women's rights and so much else.
In order to do that we have to have the civilians on the
ground. We have 920. That is more than triple what we had when
we started last year. They are doing extraordinary work. I
mentioned earlier that we had civilians embedded with our
forces going into Marja, and they are now literally moving in
to help stand up the presence of Afghanistan governmental
authority.
It is a very challenging task, but we have people that are
dedicated to doing that and to make sure that what Charlie
Wilson said doesn't happen again. You know, I am glad he was so
honored at Arlington and so many people who really understood
his contributions. And yet this is going to be hard work. Part
of it is that there are no quick answers to begin to rebuild
Afghanistan culture, and to move people away from poppies to
pomegranates is a long-term investment. We are seeing results
already, but we have a long way to go. Building up local
governance when we cleared Marja by the courage of our military
forces, you know, we have to have the presence of an
Afghanistan Government at the subnational level that can begin
to build the confidence of the people, a police force that will
keep law and order.
We are working hard on all of these, which are laid out in
the stabilization strategy, but I appreciate your reminder of
what might happen if we did walk away again. So we are going to
keep working on it.
Chairman Berman. 3 minutes, but the only reset policy we
have is with Russia, not with the clock.
Mr. McCaul. Okay.
Chairman Berman. It got reset for some reason that I don't
know about.
Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The gentleman from American Samoa, the chairman of the
Asia, the Pacific and the Global
EnvironmentIslands deg. Subcommittee, Mr.
Faleomavaega.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Madam
Secretary. Let me begin by stating my firm conviction that
under your leadership and that of President Obama the United
States is well on its way to restoring the credibility of the
United States in the eyes of the world. I also want to
especially thank you and President Obama for all the support
that you showed the Samoan people in the aftermath of the
earthquake and the tsunami that struck the islands of Tonga and
Samoa in September of last year. Your help was critical in
cutting the red tape and allowing critical emergency donations
from our Samoan and Tongan communities in the United States to
be airlifted. For your leadership and quick response I, on the
behalf of all Samoans, will always be grateful.
I also want to congratulate you, Madam Secretary, for the
special emphasis you and the President have placed on
reengaging and upgrading our relationships with the countries
of the Asia Pacific region, the world's most dynamic, in my
humble opinion. The time and thought you have put into our
policies toward the region have demonstrably improved the
United States position in this important part of the world.
I also want to say that I had an excellent meeting a couple
of days ago with Assistant Secretary Kurt Campbell, and I want
to thank you personally for your decision recently to
reestablish the presence of USAID in the Pacific region. As you
know, Madam Secretary, I have been screaming about this for
years and years and I sincerely hope this is not just a token
presence, but a substantive one to help some 17 to 18 Pacific
Island nations that I feel are so important for us as part of
our foreign policy in this region.
Madam Secretary, it was announced this month that the
President is going to visit Guam, Indonesia, and also
Australia. May I also suggest, if at all possible, that on the
President's return from Australia, he stop by in American Samoa
just to say thank you to the thousands and thousands of our men
and women who are in the military. I don't know if you are
aware of the fact that on a per capita basis, our little
territory sustains more casualties and deaths as a result of
the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. And I just think that our
veterans and our people would deeply appreciate it if the
President would just stop by there and say hello on his way
back from Australia.
The last Presidential visit that my little territory had
was in 1967. That was 43 years ago. Now I realize the President
wants to celebrate the 70th anniversary of the treaty of
friendship with Australia. But I would just like to say that
this year in April, we will be celebrating the 110 anniversary
of when the American flag was raised in American Samoa. We have
a unique political relationship between American Samoa and this
great Nation of ours.
So I just wanted to convey my humble request, that, if at
all possible, the President would do this.
A couple other issues I want to share with you, Madam
Secretary. I know there is not enough time. I visited Laos. We
have got a serious problem with unexploded ordnance and cluster
bombs that we created. This country never attacked us. We need
to make improvements on that.
Debt forgiveness in Cambodia, the problems of Agent Orange
in Vietnam that we have never really addressed properly, and
also the current negotiations going on with the Federated
States of Micronesia and Palau. I think we need a little better
attention in terms of the needs of these important countries.
It was my privilege recently, Madam Secretary, to travel
with Senator Cardin and Congressman Alcee Hastings to attend
the OSCE meeting of some 56 nations in Europe. And I want to
implore you on your good grace to make sure that Kazakhstan is
well understood in terms of the importance that the country
plays, not only as part of the Central Asian region, but the
important role that it plays especially when it comes to
nonproliferation, and you are well aware of that.
Madam Secretary, I know my time is about up, but I just
want to say thank you again for all your help.
Secretary Clinton. Thank you for that, Representative. I so
appreciate your kind words. I will convey them, along with your
invitation to President Obama. And I have enjoyed working with
the heads of state from the Pacific Island nations, both at a
meeting that I chaired at the United Nations General Assembly
and again in Copenhagen.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman has expired. And
the gentleman from Texas, who is not here. The gentleman from
Florida, Mr. Mack, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Mack.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
